Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mississippi governor to sign bill banning abortion at 20 weeks
FOX ^ | Published April 02, 2014 | AP

Posted on 04/05/2014 3:07:31 PM PDT by Morgana

JACKSON, Miss. – Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant said Tuesday that he looks forward to quickly signing a bill that would ban abortion at 20 weeks, the midpoint of a full-term pregnancy.

"This measure represents a great effort to protect the unborn in Mississippi," Bryant said in a statement after House Bill 1400 passed the House 91-20 and the Senate 41-10.

The bill has exceptions. Abortion would still be allowed at or after 20 weeks if the woman faces death or permanent injury because of the pregnancy. It would also be allowed in cases of severe fetal abnormality.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: Mississippi
KEYWORDS: abortion; bill; mississppi; philbryant; prolife
Do you hear that Gov. Earl Ray of West Virginia?
1 posted on 04/05/2014 3:07:31 PM PDT by Morgana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Morgana

After 24 weeks, there should be no exceptions for the mother’s life. At that point, many children can survive outside the womb, and a C-section can be done if there is a truly dangerous situation developing.


2 posted on 04/05/2014 3:37:35 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

>After 24 weeks, there should be no exceptions for the mother’s life.

There must always be an exception for the mother’s life. Maybe there is an alternative, but if not, the mother’s life trumps all.


3 posted on 04/05/2014 3:43:59 PM PDT by soycd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: soycd

Yes. A mother is needed by her other children.


4 posted on 04/05/2014 4:32:31 PM PDT by agrarianlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

Thanks Morgana.


5 posted on 04/05/2014 6:16:55 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: agrarianlady
Is that the sole reason to decide that one life is more valuable than another? Suppose there are no other children. Seems like the decision would be based on emotion and not logic. Just wondering.
6 posted on 04/05/2014 8:33:55 PM PDT by IIntense (WH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IIntense

The law is a blunt instrument in this case. If the law says that the mother must die, she might leave five children behind.

Since it’s so likely that both will survive after 24 weeks — is a law that makes the choice necessary? The instances of having to choose in this case are miniscule — millions of babies are aborted for convenience, not to save a mother’s life.


7 posted on 04/05/2014 10:39:54 PM PDT by agrarianlady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IIntense
Is that the sole reason to decide that one life is more valuable than another? Suppose there are no other children. Seems like the decision would be based on emotion and not logic. Just wondering.

Depends on what you consider as the basis for determining value. I heard that if a child dies, the child is already with God and saved. If an adult, who has not been saved dies to save a child, the adult's soul is lost to God.

I attended Catholic schools as a child and it was taught that it might be better to save an adult vs. a child for the souls saving reasons. Don't know if it's doctrine or not. Sometimes hard to relate to possible Biblical Truths w/o getting tangled up in human fallibility and the arguments that go with it. I'd probably save the child.

8 posted on 04/06/2014 4:15:58 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: soycd
There must always be an exception for the mother’s life. Maybe there is an alternative, but if not, the mother’s life trumps all.

Once the child has reached viability, there really is no rationale for "exceptions to save the mother's life." Abortion, especially further along in pregnancy, is extremely harsh and invasive, and carries a high risk of harm to the mother. As far as saving the mother's life is concerned, I can't think of a situation in which the mother's odds would be improved by ending pregnancy in a way that is fatal for the child.

A gynecologist told me of one patient she had who was in grave danger of bleeding out. So she scheduled a C-section for the patient, and made extra preparations "just in case"--specialists, blood for transfusions, additional staff, etc. And when she did the C-section, because of all the preparation, the patient and baby did well and did not need transfusions or ICU care. That mother would have been in equal (if not greater) danger of bleeding out had the baby been aborted.

9 posted on 04/06/2014 7:35:39 AM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: trebb
...if a child dies, the child is already with God and saved.

Some would say that an unbaptized child won't enter heaven. I have a problem believing that. And if a mother chooses to risk or give up her own life to allow her child to have a life, she has made the supreme sacrifice. Therefore, she may have paid the price for her sins and be immediately welcomed by God if she dies.

However it goes, it is a harrowing situation to face and fortunately most of us are spared this decision.

There is a 1963 movie called The Cardinal which deals with this very subject. I watched it years ago and I think I will try to find it and see it again.

10 posted on 04/06/2014 11:25:57 PM PDT by IIntense (WH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: agrarianlady
---millions of babies are aborted for convenience...

That's true and it's a big black mark on our society. Those who have no conscience in doing that won't ever have a dilemma if they have to decide between be the lives of the mother or the unborn child.

Then we have pro-life people who may possibly face the "life of the mother versus the life of the baby". Thankfully I haven't been put in that situation. As I suggested in a previous post, a 1963 movie, The Cardinal is an interesting film on the subject. I watched it years ago and want to see it again with my older eyes to find out what I think now.

11 posted on 04/06/2014 11:48:27 PM PDT by IIntense (WH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: IIntense
And if a mother chooses to risk or give up her own life to allow her child to have a life, she has made the supreme sacrifice. Therefore, she may have paid the price for her sins and be immediately welcomed by God if she dies.

Only Jesus Christ can pay the price for anyone's sins -- not one of us is able to redeem him/herself. All we have to do is accept His free gift of grace.

12 posted on 04/07/2014 12:20:37 AM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WKB; onyx; Black Agnes

Ping!


13 posted on 04/07/2014 8:05:30 AM PDT by houeto (Rand Paul, the NEW face of Establishment Republicanism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana; Din Maker; Malichi; WXRGina; duffee; onyx; DrewsMum; Tupelo; mstar; jdirt; ...

Mississippi\Baptist ping


14 posted on 04/07/2014 3:21:12 PM PDT by WKB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson