Partial Birth Abortion Ban - The Betrayal Is Now Complete
- Thread starter Turbo
- Start date
firechyld
New member
There is a reason for that.... if the foetus/child/whatever is still technically alive when the head (or torso in case of breech births) is outside the mother's body, it is considered to have been born alive.
Basically, this legislation attempts to ensure that no child will be killed after it has technically been born alive during a "partial birth abortion".
*shrug* Of course, that's just the logistics. Whether or not you consider this to be a positive or negative piece of legislature is a completely seperate question.
Basically, this legislation attempts to ensure that no child will be killed after it has technically been born alive during a "partial birth abortion".
*shrug* Of course, that's just the logistics. Whether or not you consider this to be a positive or negative piece of legislature is a completely seperate question.
It seems to be the eternal American problem. Were the Native Americans, really fully human? Were the black skinned slaves, really fully human? Is any baby not yet born, really fully human?
The Native Americans put some hope in white men's words on paper, and were disappointed for hundred of years. The black skinned people, put some hope in white men's courts and were disappointed, for over a hundred years. Unborn babies advocates, have put some hope on a political party and process, and have been disappointed for the last thirty years.
It is time to say, the Republican party is no friend of the unborn baby, and to realize that many people either hate babies or are as indifferent to their suffering today; as much as they hated or were indifferent to people with red skin and people with black skin.
There is a certain "freedom" you achieve when you realize that your group is on your own, and you disassociate yourself from your enemies who posed as freinds.
Thank you Turbo, and may your tribe increase!
The Native Americans put some hope in white men's words on paper, and were disappointed for hundred of years. The black skinned people, put some hope in white men's courts and were disappointed, for over a hundred years. Unborn babies advocates, have put some hope on a political party and process, and have been disappointed for the last thirty years.
It is time to say, the Republican party is no friend of the unborn baby, and to realize that many people either hate babies or are as indifferent to their suffering today; as much as they hated or were indifferent to people with red skin and people with black skin.
There is a certain "freedom" you achieve when you realize that your group is on your own, and you disassociate yourself from your enemies who posed as freinds.
Thank you Turbo, and may your tribe increase!
Jeremiah, the disappointment comes not from the efforts of the Republican Party's efforts to curb abortion, but from the continual effort by the Democrat Party to defend and support abortion. Let's put the blame where it belongs. If more people voted against Democrats we would have a greater chance to end abortion as we know it. But alas, it's easier to blame the Repblicans for not delivering on their promise to reign in abortion. Sad but true.
The Republican Party passed the ban on Partial Birth Abortion over the objections of a majority of Democrats and two vetos by then President Bill Clinton. Bush signed the bill.
the Sibbie
New member
LOL!!Originally posted by Christine
Oh, Sibbie, :baby:
There is a reason for what?
:duh:
"technically alive?" Do you think that the same "foetus/child/whatever" was alive moments earlier, when it's head was still in the womb? In the case of breech presentation, is the "foetus/child/whatever" alive moments before the navel is out? Now that we have this law, do American babies suddenly spring to life at the moment the navel is exposed to light?
When does a human's life begin, firechyld?
By the way, I emboldened the part of the article that I thought best illustrated the author's point. Are you familiar with "Roe v. Wade?"
the Sibbie
New member
I'd like to know what difference people think it makes to kill a baby before it is completely out vs. when the baby's whole body is delivered.
A doctor that stabs scissors into a baby's head while most of it is still in the womb or tears off the baby's limbs while all of the baby is still within the womb, is no different than if that baby is completely delivered and the doctor just started tearing the baby apart and stabbing it to death.
If any of you see a difference in this, then I challenge you to think about this for at least 30 minutes. If you are still insistent that there is a difference, I further challenge you to mentally picture an 8 month old fetus being torn apart or stabbed in the brain within the womb and then repeat that scenario except this time picture the 8 month old fetus fully delivered on a table being torn apart and stabbed in the brain.
A doctor that stabs scissors into a baby's head while most of it is still in the womb or tears off the baby's limbs while all of the baby is still within the womb, is no different than if that baby is completely delivered and the doctor just started tearing the baby apart and stabbing it to death.
If any of you see a difference in this, then I challenge you to think about this for at least 30 minutes. If you are still insistent that there is a difference, I further challenge you to mentally picture an 8 month old fetus being torn apart or stabbed in the brain within the womb and then repeat that scenario except this time picture the 8 month old fetus fully delivered on a table being torn apart and stabbed in the brain.
firechyld
New member
All:
I was not attempting, and will not attempt, to make any moral judgement on this matter. I was simply presenting some simple facts about the legality and a few legal defintions.
By "technically alive" I meant in the eyes of the law. I do not base my own personal feelings on this.
I was not attempting, and will not attempt, to make any moral judgement on this matter. I was simply presenting some simple facts about the legality and a few legal defintions.
By "technically alive" I meant in the eyes of the law. I do not base my own personal feelings on this.
drbrumley
Well-known member
That's all you have Fire. Every decision you make is determined by something personnel.
Fire, I know that's not true. Your indifference to the fetus is quite telling. You are indifferent to it and that is YOUR personnel feeling. So kill em if the mother decides. That's the attitude I se.
It has highlighted, for those who have spiritual eyes to see, who the real enemy of God's people are. They vote for Democrats who support and defend abortion by denying judgeships to anti-abortion judges who would curtail and then eleminate the "peculiar institution" of abortion.
firechyld
New member
I'd really appreciate it if people would back off on the abortion front when I present factual information, especially when I specifically state that I am not making a moral judgement.
The world is not black and white, and (more importantly) TOL is not the world. The fact that I refrain from aligning myself with one school of thought on an internet message board hardly stands as evidence that I align myself with the opposing ideals.
In this thread, I presented some simple facts, with the intent of giving those reading a little more to think about. That is all I intended.
The world is not black and white, and (more importantly) TOL is not the world. The fact that I refrain from aligning myself with one school of thought on an internet message board hardly stands as evidence that I align myself with the opposing ideals.
In this thread, I presented some simple facts, with the intent of giving those reading a little more to think about. That is all I intended.