User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: Partial Birth Abortion Ban - The Betrayal Is Now Complete

  1. #1
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1029

    Partial Birth Abortion Ban - The Betrayal Is Now Complete

    PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN - THE BETRAYAL IS NOW COMPLETE

    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...

  2. #2
    Old Timer firechyld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    421
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1543
    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 Would Cthulhu Do?

    He who knows one religion knows none. - Max Muller

    That's the kind of liberal thinking that leads to being eaten! - Principal Snyder, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

    Abortions for some, miniature American flags for the rest! - Kang as Bob Dole, The Simpsons

  3. #3
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    389
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    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!

  4. #4
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    247
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    187
    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"?

  5. #5
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    247
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    187
    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.

  6. #6
    LIFETIME MEMBER Imrahil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    619
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    4480
    The Republican Party passed the ban on Partial Birth Abortion
    And what good has it done?
    Put that in your pipe and chew it.

  7. #7
    Over 750 post club Christine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    985
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    198
    Originally posted by jeremiah
    Thank you Turbo, and may your tribe increase!
    Oh, Sibbie,
    “Prevent SIDS---keep your pants on.

  8. #8
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1029
    :bannana:

  9. #9
    Registered User the Sibbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    908
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by Christine

    Oh, Sibbie,
    LOL!!

  10. #10
    Over 750 post club Christine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    985
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    198
    Originally posted by Turbo

    :bannana:
    Looks like someone wants the tribe to increase.
    “Prevent SIDS---keep your pants on.

  11. #11
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1029
    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".


    "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?"

  12. #12
    Just livin' life one day at a time. Poly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    6,607
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 513 Times in 260 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)





    Rep Power
    420471
    Originally posted by Christine

    Looks like someone wants the tribe to increase.
    Turbo and Sibbie's tribe is increasing? :bannana:
    "The most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - Ronald Reagan



    Check out the "rightest" of all right wing moms. FarRightMom


    Upgrade your TOL membership.

  13. #13
    Registered User the Sibbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    908
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    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.

  14. #14
    Old Timer firechyld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    421
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1543
    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.
    What Would Cthulhu Do?

    He who knows one religion knows none. - Max Muller

    That's the kind of liberal thinking that leads to being eaten! - Principal Snyder, Buffy the Vampire Slayer

    Abortions for some, miniature American flags for the rest! - Kang as Bob Dole, The Simpsons

  15. #15
    Gold level Subscriber drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    9,541
    Thanks
    556
    Thanked 3,075 Times in 1,941 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    599230
    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.
    Even in the very best of situations, voting is still an unmitigated failure. The fact that any simple majority of individuals (mob) can determine an outcome that adversely affects the minority (mob rule) is against all natural rights. In the United State today, all who vote harm others so that they might benefit. By voting, they are also sanctioning theft of private property at the point of a gun, and the redistribution of that property to those who did not earn it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us