Posted on 08/02/2003 10:39:40 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
Would that "egg-donor" also be called the mother of the baby?
It's ok, I'm just having a bad hair day .. a little hair spray and I'll be back to normal
Take care.
The language in this bill most certainly will outlaw partial birth abortion.
Our Congress has never yet attempted to outlaw any other type of abortion, to my knowledge, since the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade in 1973. Up until that heinous SCOTUS ruling abortion was allowed/disallowed on a state-by-state basis.
I maintain that our right to life is God-given; it is protected from abuse by the United States Constitution, clarifying the rightful role of government; it is self-evident; codified in our Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, and in the Fourteenth Amendment.
No one was attempting by this bill to overturn Roe v. Wade. That can only be expected to be done by another Supreme Court body and ruling, because those '73 wankers were never impeached, as they ought to have been. Norma McCorvey, the 'Roe' of the decision, is very active in trying to have that decision overturned; her case is that the whole decision was based on lies, and no testimony was heard pertaining to the rights of the unborn victim or the safety of the mother.
As I understand it, unless we pass a brand new Constitutional Amendment protecting the life of unborn Americans, or unless Roe v. Wade is overturned by a Supreme Court that better understands our Constitution, Congress can only act to reduce the horrors of specific practices of abortion incrementally. They've been trying to do just that for years: Bill Clinton vetoed this legislation twice. We never had enough of a majority of Republicans in the Senate to override his veto.
The tide of opinion on the murder of innocents (aka abortion) has turned in America since the 1970's. This is due to experience under anytime/anywhere/for any reason abortion, to advances in science and technology which allow us to peek into the living womb and at DNA's ribbon, to advances in medicine which enable us to operate on tiny infants still in utero, and to education.
I firmly believe that once this bill is signed into law our elected Republican leadership will move even further ahead in the restoration of Constitutional rights for the unborn. 70% of Americans now know the details of and appropriately abhor partial birth abortion.
I believe that impeaching and replacing current Supreme Court Justices is rationally and Constitutionally in order. It should have been done in 1973; well over 40,000,000 human beings of American descent who were denied their Constitutional right to life would now be alive if that had been done. But it was not, and abortion on demand has scarred our nation and our people for 30 years. We know in 2003 that abortion on demand is untenable - it kills babies and harms women. We know, more specifically, that partial birth abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother, and is a proceedure which abortionists use to suck the brains out of partially-delivered, very much alive babies.
The language in this bill most certainly will outlaw partial birth abortion. The language inserted by the Senate, reaffirming Roe v. Wade, is a Demonrat trap, and will be struck from the final version in committee, after which it will be signed by President George W. Bush. That is a very good thing.
ROFLMAO!
Dead on.
After the passage of this bill, there will be no form of legal partial birth abortion.
Find me some other form of PBA that is currently in practice. If it's likely that abortionists will start performing PBAs some other way to get around this legislation, as you attest, you ought to be able to find something concrete to defend your position.
Otherwise you are creating theories out of thin air. I didn't take you for that type.
Having had a daughter who was born more premature than some of the babies killed by PBA, I have a hard time calling women who seek infanticide, "mothers."
***we can let Hillary and Co run the country to hell and when the people finally see what full blown hell on earth is really like, they will suddenly see the light, repent, and rise up against the heathen politicians***
You know, I actually considered this tactic for a while; let the unwashed masses have what they want and surfeit of it!
Alas, on pondering the matter I was reminded of Rome, where the masses simply got more and more demanding: FEED ME! ...and the emperor was afraid not to. [That's true democracy in action.]
Then I think of the present situtation in California - your very own beautiful state; now you have a chance to turn the tables and discard all that Marxist garbage that has all but crippled your lives there.
Will California emerge from the Dark Ages of Socialism? ...or will its citizens continue to stab themselves with a communist dagger?
I am not optimistic...
=====================
This thread reminds me of the night Drudge broke the Lewinski scandal... and the night that I posted about Alec Baldwin and NBC calling for the murder of Henry Hyde... [we've seen some strange times, eh?]
All sides have some points to make; but I DO think - on balance - that doctors are not only technicians but also businessmen, and as such they cannot afford to practice in an area that will tie up their time and money in court fights... and therefore the effect of the legislation - regardless of its shortcomings - is likely to be an end to PBA.
What would be a killer for a bill like this is the old loophole [bring on the Transcontinental Limited through this one] - ...except in cases where the mother's health is threatened.... We learned that that included 'mental health', which meant that every case was a threat to the health of the mother unless she was allowed to commit infanticide.
It is beyond me how civilised people can support infanticide, but we see it is quite prevalent in fact. Maybe it has the same to do as with body piercing and tattoos: a rush to return to barbarism.
Hope youse is well; FReegards...
I understand ..
Question .. how many women go to a clinic instead of a hospital for an emergency when their life is in danager?
That's my point .. thank you
It's a wonderful cause for celebration! Children are finally getting their right to be born back!
This sounds reasonable, but says very little. One can bash Republicans on the 99.857% of FR threads other than the ones you carved out and still meet this standard. Or Kevin Curry might say:
"Look at this thread, or any other on PBA and/or this legislation. Have I said anything critical of homosexuals in this regard?"
BTW, what do you call a paleo-con who limits Bush/Republican/neo-con bashing to 99.857% of FR threads?
A moderate.
How anyone can argue with this fact is beyond me. I can only assume it is part of the "all-or-nothing" mindset! I cannot believe...I refuse to believe....that someone would argue against this legislation for purely political reasons.
It's a wonderful cause for celebration! Children are finally getting their right to be born back!
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.