PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN - THE BETRAYAL IS NOW COMPLETE [BARF ALERT - ANTI-GOP PROPAGANDA]

NewsWithViews.com ^ | May 9, 2003 | By David Brownlow

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Laws are supported based on the transgression of acts under the observation of law enforcement personel or a witness."

Absolutely not. You are saying that sans a witness to the act, laws can't be enforced.

That's simply not true. There were no witnesses in the David Westerfield trial, he is in jail.

[Sabertooth]

It just occurred to me that jj has multiple J's. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[nunya bidness]

Absolutely not. You are saying that sans a witness to the act, laws can't be enforced.

Evidence is a witness. How do you define evidence in this case?

[Mo1]

When a man murders another man he has to have been witnessed by another man and challenged based on testimony in a court of law. Who is the witness in this case? The sworn testimony of the abortion doctor? Hardly a reliable source by any standards.

Would there not also be other people in the room .. like a nurse or two?

[MS.BEHAVIN]

Hello my friend..

I mean no disrespect to you, but I could give a Tinkers dam what Mertz has to say about anything..

All I will say on this subject is this..

I miscarried the only baby ever given to me, and was never able to have another..

How someone could PURPOSELY do this is beyond comprehension, at least to me..it doesn't interest me, what Mertz has to say about it, or anyone else who has never been through it, has to say about it..

Part of my spirit died that day..

Pro-choicers flame away..nothing really could ever hurt that much

"Anyone who is for abortion HAS been born"...Ronald Reagan

Ms.B

[CWOJackson]

They pars, spin, weave and dodge. I'm trying to figure out if they're real or some kind of new slinky toy. Are they wind up or battery operated.

[CWOJackson]

Great tag line.

[Sir Gawain]

I think jj's a retread too.

[Cultural Jihad]

And now we're trying our best to piss all this progress away by screaming and kicking and holding our breath like little children throwing temper tantrums because we didn't get everything we wanted. And since we didn't get everything, by God we'll take nothing! And all the while that so many of us are pitching fits while playing little semantics games with one another, the people who would destroy the Republican Party, nay, the people who would DESTROY OUR NATION to make room for their little anarchist utopia, sit back and chuckle at us "Bots."

An apt description of the moral-liberal anarchists posting here as 'patriots.'

[jjbrouwer]

Feel free. I've always found intelligent women more to my personal liking.

You may be fishing in the wrong pond then, CWO! (For the nannies, "That was a joke, that was a joke...")

Seriously though, I don't agree with Mercuria's political views (or indeed many people's political views...!) but she has a wonderful sense of humour and is very quick on the uptake. I wish she would post here but I doubt she will.

[justshe]

Anyone who flames you will have me to contend with too!

Great quote from President Reagan.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm not an attorney, but I understand a few things.

The vast majority of people do not wish to run afoul of the law, doctors certainly do not for the most part.

It would be difficult for an abortionist to argue that a PBA (something that takes days to prepare and perform) was done as an emergency ue to a life-threatening condition to the mother.

Without that concession, the bill may have encountered serious challenges, and may not have passed.

Would that have been a better scenario for you?

Without this bill, many babies would die. With it many babies may be saved, and a few may die.

Which would you prefer?

[jjbrouwer]

I think jj's a retread too.

If you are going to insult me, please get it right. It is spelled R-E-T-A-R-D...

[CWOJackson]

While I consider voting for Mondale and buchanan funny I don't consider it a measure of a sense of humor or being very quick on the uptake.

[Sabertooth]

Sabertooth, How will it be sidestepped?

Let me set this up... As I understand it, this PBA ban was crafted to meet certain SCOTUS requirements, as written by Sandra Day O'Connor. As a result, an fairly narrow definition of PBA was necessary.

In the case of a head first extraction, the head must not be fully exposed. In the case of a breach delivery, the navel of the baby must not be exposed. Either is the case with most PBAs now performed.

However, what is being outlawed here are techniques. So, the legislation can be sidestepped by way of new techniques that kill the baby further up into the mother's womb, without navel or full cranial exposure.

Think about the various "assault weapons" bans, and how easily many of them were sidestepped.

So again, as I see it, this legislation is better than nothing, but only if we recognize its limits and shortcomings.

[Sir Gawain]

All I know is someone used to post here under your name and they were much cooler.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm so sorry I asked you here, I did not intend to cause you pain.

This bill saves lives that would not have been saved before, but its political value to malcontents is far more important than that fact.

Thanks for answering.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"In the case of a head first extraction, the head must not be fully exposed. In the case of a breach delivery, the navel of the baby must not be exposed. Either is the case with most PBAs now performed."

But ONLY in the case of the mother's life being in danger..that requirement has to be met first.

[jjbrouwer]

All I know is someone used to post here under your name and they were much cooler.

TLBSHOW no longer has access to my password.

[MS.BEHAVIN]

Is that a promise?

Thanks so very much for your support...

Ms.B