PDA

View Full Version : Partial Birth Abortion Ban - The Betrayal Is Now Complete



Turbo
October 13th, 2004, 10:38 PM
PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN - THE BETRAYAL IS NOW COMPLETE (http://www.newswithviews.com/Brownlow/david1.htm[/url)

By David Brownlow
May 9, 2003
NewsWithViews.com


A politician would have a hard time finding a more loyal special interest group than with those of us who oppose the legalized child killing industry. For the last thirty years of the war on the unborn, we have worked tirelessly to elect pro-life, mostly Republican, politicians.

Our loyalty was so strong that even though the Republicans failed to deliver us a single pro-life victory, we continued to send them back to Washington year after year. For thirty years, we trusted the Republicans when they told us to be patient, because they had a plan and a party platform that said abortion was wrong.

We now know that everything they told us was a complete pack of lies.

We know that because the Senate has finally passed the long awaited "Partial Birth Abortion Ban," Senate Bill S.3. Rather than being a useful tool in the fight to stop a barbaric and indefensible method of child killing, S.3 reads more like an instruction manual for abortionists.

In what can only be described as the mildest abortion restrictions that one could possibly put into words, Sec.1531 instructs the "doctor" to make sure and kill the child before "in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother". Or "in the case of breech presentation", make sure the child is killed before "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother". (Actual text of SB S.3 in quotes)

With toothless restrictions like that, it is highly unlikely that even a single life will be saved. The only thing this will do is to make sure all the children are killed before the "entire fetal head" or the "fetal trunk past the navel" is showing. We waited thirty years for this?

...the Senate goes on in Sec. 4, to let us all know "The Sense on the Senate Concerning Roe. v. Wade". I am not sure what kind of sense these people have, but we have definitely found out what we get for thirty years of loyalty. The 48 Republican Senators who voted to approve S.3, pledged that,

"the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and such decision should not be overturned".
...

So now we know why the Republicans have gone thirty years without a single pro-life victory. These guys are not even pro-life! We have been fooling ourselves that somehow, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the years of partisan efforts were getting us closer to ending legalized abortion in America. But if the "sense" of the Senate is any indication, we have not even started the fight...

A decades old policy of voting for the lesser of two evils has left us with a Republican Party that is a mere hollowed-out shell of its former self, broken beyond any hope of repair...

firechyld
October 13th, 2004, 10:45 PM
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.

jeremiah
October 13th, 2004, 11:55 PM
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!

Art Deco
October 14th, 2004, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

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. What do you think of a lawful ban on "Partial Birth Abortions"?

Art Deco
October 14th, 2004, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by jeremiah 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 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.

Imrahil
October 14th, 2004, 07:22 PM
The Republican Party passed the ban on Partial Birth Abortion And what good has it done?

Christine
October 14th, 2004, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by jeremiah
Thank you Turbo, and may your tribe increase!
Oh, Sibbie, :baby: :D

Turbo
October 14th, 2004, 08:00 PM
:chuckle: :bannana:

the Sibbie
October 14th, 2004, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Christine

Oh, Sibbie, :baby: :D LOL!!

Christine
October 14th, 2004, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

:chuckle: :bannana:

Looks like someone wants the tribe to increase. :D :chuckle:

Turbo
October 14th, 2004, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by firechyld

There is a reason for that....There is a reason for what?



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". :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?"

Poly
October 14th, 2004, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Christine

Looks like someone wants the tribe to increase. :D :chuckle:

Turbo and Sibbie's tribe is increasing? :bannana:

the Sibbie
October 14th, 2004, 08:51 PM
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.

firechyld
October 18th, 2004, 10:21 PM
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.

drbrumley
October 18th, 2004, 11:18 PM
I do not base my own personal feelings on this.

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.

Art Deco
October 19th, 2004, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Imrahil

And what good has it done? 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.

Art Deco
October 19th, 2004, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by firechyld

All:

I was not attempting, and will not attempt, to make any moral judgement on this matter. That in itself is a moral judgement.

firechyld
October 26th, 2004, 12:43 AM
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.