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

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

[Fred Mertz]

I think it's *only* a few hundred a year.

Or at least that's what the Dims told me about 5 or 6 years ago.

[nunya bidness]

Are we now to believe that the GOP haters who oppose this legislation, ie, the Libertarians, paleocons, Buchananites, Reformers, and, apparently, the Constitution Party, along with the Democrats, Socialists, liberals, et al, are correct and the pro-life, pro-family and religious leaders and organizations who support it have been scamming us all this time?

That's a pretty broad brush there Jim. Whether they support the ban as it winds it way through the Congress remains to be seen but I'll be watching to see what Libertarians For Life have to say before I support the bill.

In case you or others are unaware of this organization here's their Libertarian Case Against Abortion:

To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:
1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

This is one of the few groups that I actively support. Hopefully you and/or others can as well.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Would you mind telling me where you get this notion from?

BTW, the scumbags will perform the abortion regardless of what law you pass.

[Kevin Curry]

They won't if they're in jail.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter. "

Hey Freddy...can you read?

Partial birth abortions are benned except in the VERY rare case, a situation that never happens.

Imagine that, the ONLY PBA the bill allows for, is rarely (if ever) needed.

We can't make laws that stop scumbags, we can only make laws that will put them away for a long, long time.

[Jim Robinson]

Never believe a Dim.

[Judith Anne]

You're throwing a lot of insults around and not answering my request:

Name one doctor who will say that a partial birth abortion is EVER medically necessary to save a woman's life. Just ONE.

You challenged my credentials, now I'm challenging yours. What medical reason could there EVER be for a partial birth abortion?

[Mo1]

Mo, the ONLY permissible PBA according to this bill, is one that according to doctors, is never needed.

I understand why it was put in the bill .. I am just stating my personal opinion

[Fred Mertz]

They won't if they're in jail.

Kevin, you really know the deal on this issue. I believe they call it enforceable.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Lady...that's the point!

The section is meaningless, so what's the beef?

[M0sby]

Well, get this bill passed and signed into law saving the thousands of babies that are currently being slaugtered by partial birth abortion, then start work on getting the next bill through that will save the lives of those killed by other procedures.

I get your point...I support it(the bill).
I am just wondering if I missed something along the way???
Is there a big loophole? Or are there other "Things" banned in another part of the bill that take care of this?

[DLfromthedesert]

"The issue of abortion should be left to each individual state"

I agree; that's why Roe v Wade MUST be overturned.And THAT is why we need more GOP Senators to confirm Bush judges.

[Judith Anne]

Sounds to me like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Cool...

:-)

[Fred Mertz]

Please answer Judith Anne's question, Darkdrake.

Thank you.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Thoughts, please?

[Howlin]

Name one doctor who will say that a partial birth abortion is EVER medically necessary to save a woman's life. Just ONE.

Aren't you reading his posts? He's already said that not one doctor would recommend it. How can he name a doctor that will?

[RedBloodedAmerican]

If he's darkdrake, can I call you WonderBuns?

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's been the point.

You insert that passage so that the argument is covered.

I believe that a mother's life should not be risked by a law restricting the free actions of doctors doing their job, this law allows for the most extreme and rare cases to proceed unhindered.

Is it a bad thing?

No.

Does it render the bill useless?

Absolutely not.

[Kevin Curry]

Suppose a perfectly healthy woman were carrying twins. It is the third trimester and all tests show the twins to be perfectly healthy. The mother's obstetrician assures her that there is minimal risk--this pregancy for twins is as serene as any he has seen in 40 years of practice.

Now suppose an abortionist reviews the charts and performs a partial birth-abortion anyway. When asked why he did this to a healthy mother and healthy twins he shrugs his shoulders and says, "I know she and the twins looked healthy but in my opinion she would have died had she taken them to term."

You would not hold the abortionist accountable. You wouldn't even permit him to be second-guessed. You support giving the abortionist free license to murder on whim as long as he mouths the magic words: "life of the mother."