Louisiana passes abortion bill

Phlegm · Post by **Phlegm** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:58 pm

BATON ROUGE, June 6 (UPI) â€” The Louisiana Senate has passed a conditional ban on abortion that is expected to be signed by Gov. Kathleen Blanco.

The Louisiana abortion ban would punish abortionists with possible 10 year prison sentences and $100,000 fines, but allows exceptions to save the life of the mother or if the mother's health would be seriously damaged.

It can only go into effect if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, or the U.S. Constitution is amended to allow states to decided on the legality of abortion, a spokesman for Operation Rescue said Tuesday.

The group's president, Troy Newman says that this is another example of the people "speaking loud and clear that they do not want abortion in their communities and in their states. And this is a trend that he says is picking up steam" across America.

"It is certain that abortion will come to an end in our nation, whether by judicial decree, Constitutional Amendment, or simply by the people running these abortion chop shops out of their towns," said Newman.

"Americans see through the abortionists' rhetoric and are beginning to realize that abortion hurts women, kills babies, and destroys families and relationships. This sentiment is starting to be reflected in state laws such as Louisiana's abortion ban. We are witnessing the beginning of a decisive victory for the pro-life movement."

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:00 pm

Wow, now that's some uplifting news after the gay marriage ban debacle in the senate.

:cheers:

Post by **Gidan** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:01 pm

If you cant controle your own life, controle somone elses.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:02 pm

If you don't want a child, don't have sex.

Post by **Gidan** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:03 pm

Ever hear of rape? And again, just another attempt to controle the lives of others.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:07 pm

gidan wrote:Ever hear of rape? And again, just another attempt to controle the lives of others.

No I never heard of rape? What is that? :rolleyes:

The measure says "except in cases where the mother is endangered." If a woman gets raped, she is endangered. She could end up with aids or some other nasty crap, and in that instance, a termination of the baby *might* be acceptable because there's also a high probability of the mother passing the virus on to the child while it's gestating.

The other option is that if the mother wasn't infected with any virus or STD, she could always opt to have the child and give it up for adoption. That would be the noble thing to do, yes?

Post by **Arlos** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:08 pm

Yeah, some 14 year old raped by her uncle is REALLY going to want to carry that baby to term, honest.

-Arlos

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:11 pm

Ok, how often does that happen Arlos? How many straws are we going to grasp at with this argument? Besides, that is inbreeding and the child will probably have serious birth defects. Of course there are exigent circumstances where a termination is necessary. The fact that a girl got horny and wanted sex and then got pregnant (oops) is not a good reason for abortion.

Post by **Gidan** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:13 pm

Should Roe vs Wade get turned, based on this law, that 14 year old would be forced to have the child.

Narrock · Post by **Narrock** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:15 pm

gidan wrote:Should Roe vs Wade get turned, based on this law, that 14 year old would be forced to have the child.

I bet they will make exceptions.

Post by **Arlos** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:39 pm

See, Mindia, this is a case where you (and the rest of the Christian Right) is trying to force your religious beliefs down other people's throats. (Gay marriage is another such case) You think abortion is wrong. That's prefectly acceptible, it's against your faith and against your church's teachings. By all means, counsel any member of your church not to have one, and have your pastors stand up and declare it to be against your faith to do so.

However, not everyone is of your faith. Why should your convictions on this issue, which are based in your faith, be forced onto other people of differing faiths, or of people who don't belong to a faith at all? I can more see it in the case of abortion, if you consider it to be murder. But gay marriage, what right do YOU and YOUR faith have to tell people of ANOTHER faith who they can and cannot marry?

-Arlos

dammuzis · Post by **dammuzis** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:45 pm

as much as im against abortion it needs to be legal otherwise we are back to alley abortions

its one of the lesser of two evil choices

now late term or partial birth abortions are pure murder and need to be illegal

Adivina · Post by **Adivina** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:49 pm

If someone raped me I sure as hell would not be able to sit around and watch a product of that grow inside me. I feel like I would not want to ever have an abortion but I don't think I would be physically and emotionally strong enough to carry that child to term.

Not to mention sitting there everyday knowing my husband/boyfriend (whatever Aryy is to me at the time) is watching someone else's child grow in his girlfriend.

Its great to suggest carrying the child to term and then giving it up for adoption, but until you are the one making that choice, it is awfully easy to make suggestions like that.

I have a friend who had a child that was concieved in a rape, and honestly I am amazed at her streangth I do not think I could handle it.

Post by **Arlos** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:25 pm

Not to mention, think about that kid growing up, when he or she asks who daddy was. Imagine growing up with that on your conscience, and always wondering. Man, you'd have to end up fucked in the head, bigtime.

-Arlos

Captain Insano · Post by **Captain Insano** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:59 pm

I don't like this. Christians need to keep their oppression amongst each other and leave everyone else the fuck alone.

Darcler · Post by **Darcler** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:40 am

Adivina wrote:Its great to suggest carrying the child to term and then giving it up for adoption, but until you are the one making that choice, it is awfully easy to make suggestions like that.

Yeah, that.

Post by **Lyion** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:16 am

Because someone raped CERTAINLY wouldnt take Plan B or other contraceptives that almost wholly prevent pregnancy, and are available. We need to have those abortions! Never mind the actual factual numbers.

Then again, to some changing the civil definition of marriage is akin to killing babies. I guess when you don't care about human life, you can segue into any political issue with it.

Maeya · Post by **Maeya** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:05 am

Mindia wrote:The measure says "except in cases where the mother is endangered." If a woman gets raped, she is endangered.

It could be that I'm misinterpreting, but I don't think that's what they meant when they said:

... but allows exceptions to save the life of the mother or if the mother's health would be seriously damaged.

I think this refers to the mother dying in childbirth.

Snero · Post by **Snero** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:14 am

Then again, to some changing the civil definition of marriage is akin to killing babies. I guess when you don't care about human life, you can segue into any political issue with it.

to some people, it's abortion is not killing babies, and this is more of a rights issue, or a freedom issue. Thats how the connection was made

Post by **Lyion** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:17 am

To those on the Pro Choice fence, it's often about unfettered access to abortion on demand. Nice, convenient, and wholly evil.

Snero · Post by **Snero** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:20 am

I really disagree, I don't think most of the pro choice people, or even a large majority want unfettered access, there has to be some limitations. It's just easier to argue the other side of the matter if you can use

To those on the Pro Choice fence, it's often about unfettered access to abortion on demand. Nice, convenient, and wholly evil.

as an argument

Post by **Lyion** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:31 am

Except all the pro choice groups oppose partial birth abortion legislation. They oppose putting time limits on when to get abortions.

I'm not legally against the morning after pill, even if morally I think it's wrong.

The simple truth is the pro choice groups want anytime access to abortion.

You're absolutely right in that most people do not want unfettered access. However, the DNC and most of the liberal groups fight and go to the courts for just such a right.

Snero · Post by **Snero** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:48 am

thats mostly because they're afraid of the slippery slope argument, that if they allow some restriction, then it's just a matter of time before the whole thing is made illegal.

Post by **Lyion** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:54 am

The reverse is true, as well. Those who believe abortion is killing children feel the same.

That said, I can understand fighting for pro choice beliefs, but for the life of me I can't understand whatsoever any support for partial birth abortion.

Snero · Post by **Snero** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:00 am

We agree there, I hate the idea of abortions but I do think it's a necessary evil in some cases. That said, it's something you should make up your mind on quickly