Louisiana passes abortion bill

Real Life Events.

Go off topic and I will break you!

Moderator: Dictators in Training

Postby Gidan » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:06 am

I seem to remember that both sides were working toward legislation against partial birth abortions but neither side would agree to the wording of the other side.

But again it comes down to a simple question. How does somone having an abortion effect the pro life people? No one is forcing them to have one. Pro choice people want to give everyone the choice as to how they will proceed, pro life people want to force their moral views on everyone and take away that right.
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
User avatar
Gidan
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:01 am

Postby Zanchief » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:10 am

I'm of the same mind as Snero, I don't think it's a good idea and I probably wouldn’t let (or want) any of my little creations to get aborted, but I just don't think it's my decision to make for everyone else.

Also, I love these terms conservatives use to describe things, but partial birth is my absolutely favourite. It just conjures up images of a baby that’s half way out the birthing canal when the doctor takes a hammer to the poor guy’s skull. How about we call em third trimester abortions or something slightly more apt? Or we could just call em baby killing abortions, either way really.
User avatar
Zanchief
Chief Wahoo
Chief Wahoo
 
Posts: 14532
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:31 pm

Postby Lyion » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:15 am

gidan wrote:But again it comes down to a simple question. How does somone having an abortion effect the pro life people? No one is forcing them to have one. Pro choice people want to give everyone the choice as to how they will proceed, pro life people want to force their moral views on everyone and take away that right.


How does someone getting killed in another state affect you, Gidan? Because it doesn't directly, should it be legal and fine?

You can promote ignoring evil, because you think its not, but for those of us who do, it's about doing what is right and just.

Pro Life people want to protect the innocent. The unborn children being killed. Even from a scientific standpoint, many abortions are of babies who can think, dream, and feel pain.

Democracy is about society making choices based on our moral views as a society. It is not about people doing whatever they want because they feel it's their right, as you wrongly propose.
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
C. S. Lewis
User avatar
Lyion
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby Agrajag » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:35 am

arlos wrote: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.


Why is it always religious with you people. Pro Lifers aren't just Christians. Now, I am not a religious person in the least. I am definately not Pro Life. But I see this line of crap all through this board. Pro Life isn't necessarily a religious thing. Some non religious people feel pretty strongly that abortion is killing a child. Religion may have been the origin, but it damn well isn't the real source anymore. Its Society, now.
Agrajag
NT Veteran
NT Veteran
 
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 2:46 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Postby Harrison » Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:44 am

I am not religious.

I am vehemently against slaughtering children in the womb.

I think that's pretty fucking clear.
How do you like this spoiler, motherfucker? -Lyion
User avatar
Harrison
NT Legend
NT Legend
 
Posts: 20323
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:13 am
Location: New Bedford, MA

Postby Mop » Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:06 am

I think your example Lyion is a bit of a stretch - The sniper in DC effected alot of the east coast - as an easy example I dont find that the same as a girl in NY made some shitty descions and isnt going to provide good parenting ( and isnt thinking of adoption )
User avatar
Mop
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:46 am
Location: Who knows?

Postby Mop » Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:07 am

btw im arguing that single point, just to be a cock what ever you retort with I shall just emote something back
User avatar
Mop
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:46 am
Location: Who knows?

Postby Lyion » Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:12 am

:bluegrab:
What saves a man is to take a step. Then another step.
C. S. Lewis
User avatar
Lyion
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 14376
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:42 pm
Location: Ohio

Postby Mop » Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:19 am

:ugh:
User avatar
Mop
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:46 am
Location: Who knows?

Postby Donnel » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:06 am

Zanchief wrote:I'm of the same mind as Snero, I don't think it's a good idea and I probably wouldn’t let (or want) any of my little creations to get aborted, but I just don't think it's my decision to make for everyone else.

Also, I love these terms conservatives use to describe things, but partial birth is my absolutely favourite. It just conjures up images of a baby that’s half way out the birthing canal when the doctor takes a hammer to the poor guy’s skull. How about we call em third trimester abortions or something slightly more apt? Or we could just call em baby killing abortions, either way really.


But Zan... many partial birth abortions are just that.

Deliver the baby feet first, with it's skull still in the canal. Take a pair of scissors to the back of the baby's skull puncturing into the brain. Take a vacuum and suck out the insides of the skull.
<a href="http://wow.allakhazam.com/profile.html?384300">Treston</a>
Donnel
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:00 am

Postby Zanchief » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:08 am

Well that's just silly, no one can be for that.
User avatar
Zanchief
Chief Wahoo
Chief Wahoo
 
Posts: 14532
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:31 pm

Postby Donnel » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:09 am

That's what we've been trying to say!
<a href="http://wow.allakhazam.com/profile.html?384300">Treston</a>
Donnel
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:00 am

Postby Gidan » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:15 am

I dont think anyone here and on the whole I think you would find very very very few who agree with partial birth abortion.
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
User avatar
Gidan
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 2892
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:01 am

Postby The Kizzy » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:31 am

Anyone want to bet that in the next 10 years there will be a huge increase in the children in the welfare system in Louisiana?
Zanchief wrote:
Harrison wrote:I'm not dead


Fucker never listens to me. That's it, I'm an atheist.
User avatar
The Kizzy
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 15193
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: In the closet with the ghosts

Postby Mop » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:32 am

i dont think they can get much higher in that state.
User avatar
Mop
Dictator in Training
Dictator in Training
 
Posts: 4670
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:46 am
Location: Who knows?

Postby Darcler » Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:15 pm

Donnel wrote:
Zanchief wrote:I'm of the same mind as Snero, I don't think it's a good idea and I probably wouldn’t let (or want) any of my little creations to get aborted, but I just don't think it's my decision to make for everyone else.

Also, I love these terms conservatives use to describe things, but partial birth is my absolutely favourite. It just conjures up images of a baby that’s half way out the birthing canal when the doctor takes a hammer to the poor guy’s skull. How about we call em third trimester abortions or something slightly more apt? Or we could just call em baby killing abortions, either way really.


But Zan... many partial birth abortions are just that.

Deliver the baby feet first, with it's skull still in the canal. Take a pair of scissors to the back of the baby's skull puncturing into the brain. Take a vacuum and suck out the insides of the skull.


Are you serious? That's awful!
User avatar
Darcler
Saran Wrap Princess
Saran Wrap Princess
 
Posts: 7161
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:54 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Postby Donnel » Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:49 pm

Legally a baby isn't "born" til it's head passes all the way through the canal.

Hence the feet first delivery. So according to current abortion law (well minus the ban) it was not considered murder to do such a heinous act since the child wasn't actually a "human" yet and still only a fetus.

Note: this may have changed recently regarding the legal status of unborn babies and such, but years ago when this was a much bigger and more prevalent issue, this was indeed the case.
<a href="http://wow.allakhazam.com/profile.html?384300">Treston</a>
Donnel
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:00 am

Postby Arlos » Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:08 pm

From what I understand, the only reason the ban on this procedure has never either passed or been upheld by the courts, is that they never give a clause to the ban of "Except when necessary for the health of the mother" or suchlike. From the statistics I've seen, this procedure is an infinitesimal fraction of all of the abortions performed worldwide. I could be wrong on the following, but it is also my understanding that in some very rare cases, this is the ONLY procedure that is workable in order to perform the abortion.

That's why there needs to be the "Except in the case of the health of the mother" clause, if what I read is correct. If the mother would die, or be permanently crippled (such as rendered permanently unable to bear children) and the only solution is to abort the fetus, and the ONLY way of doing it is this procedure, then an absolute ban won't work. The problem is, those who keep writing up the ban legislation, keep refusing to add such a clause.

I think we are ALL in agreement that such a procedure should NEVER be used for any voluntary abortion, and if used ever, should only be reserved for the most absolute extreme cases, when there is no other choice. I'm rabidly pro-abortion and I feel that way. But you MUST make allowances for the life and health of the parent bearing the fetus. Period.

-Arlos
User avatar
Arlos
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:39 pm

Postby Drem » Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:08 pm

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


Crazy, I would be so afraid of sex if I thought things like that were morally wrong. I basically make the girl promise that if something goes wrong with other means of protection, that she'll take the pill to ensure no babies. I don't know how i feel about birth control pills tho. Doesn't it make the girl feel strange etc. while she's on it? I hear it makes you feel bad. :/
User avatar
Drem
Nappy Headed Ho
Nappy Headed Ho
 
Posts: 8902
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 3:02 pm

Postby Eziekial » Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:34 am

So if something only occurs in "infinitesimal fractions" it's ok?
User avatar
Eziekial
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 3282
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:43 pm
Location: Florida

Postby Donnel » Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:41 am

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


Crazy, I would be so afraid of sex if I thought things like that were morally wrong. I basically make the girl promise that if something goes wrong with other means of protection, that she'll take the pill to ensure no babies. I don't know how i feel about birth control pills tho. Doesn't it make the girl feel strange etc. while she's on it? I hear it makes you feel bad. :/


So you are against something that makes the girl "feel bad" but aren't against something that causes her body to eject a fertilized egg that given time would be a fully formed human being.

BTW, abortion causes women to "feel bad" too.
<a href="http://wow.allakhazam.com/profile.html?384300">Treston</a>
Donnel
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:00 am

Postby dammuzis » Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:51 am

just out of curiosity arlos, you do realize that in order to perform a partial birth abortion they have to induce a breach birth thereby putting the mothers life in danger (since breach births are always dangerous)

there is NO reason why a mother to be should be able to say at 9 months
"i changed my mind. kill her/him"
User avatar
dammuzis
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 1337
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: my cubicle

Postby Donnel » Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:55 am

It's really surprising to me that people would ever suggest that a late term abortion would be okay "to save the life of the mother"

Try a cesarian next time, not as dangerous and still saves the mother!

Now we see that it's never been about saving her life as it really is saving her from being responsible for a new child.
<a href="http://wow.allakhazam.com/profile.html?384300">Treston</a>
Donnel
NT Traveller
NT Traveller
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:00 am

Postby Tossica » Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:57 am

Abortions are bad, mmmkay?
User avatar
Tossica
NT Patron
NT Patron
 
Posts: 12490
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:21 pm

Postby Arlos » Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:52 am

there is NO reason why a mother to be should be able to say at 9 months
"i changed my mind. kill her/him"


Show me where I've disagreed with this statement in any way, shape, or form. I never have, ever, period.

It's really surprising to me that people would ever suggest that a late term abortion would be okay "to save the life of the mother"

Try a cesarian next time, not as dangerous and still saves the mother!

Now we see that it's never been about saving her life as it really is saving her from being responsible for a new child.


Oh please. NO ONE here is in any way disagreeing with banning the procedure for people who just want to get rid of the kid. Personally, I think that's a rather rare case anyway, but regardless, yes, that *SHOULD* be banned.

However, what if that fetus is badly deformed or has serious birth defects, and the chances of it surviving more than a day or 2 once born are zero. Say it's missing the entire frontal lobe of the brain (yes, this does happen on rare occasions), so that it would have no higher brain functions whatsoever, and even if born would need constant life support for whatever time it did live. Should the mother be forced to carry that fetus to term?

How about if you're at 21 weeks of gestation, which is too early for the fetus to survive outside of the mother's womb, there are problems with the fetus and the pregnancy, and the mother's health has deteriorated to the point where if she carries that fetus even for another week, she's dead. Admittedly, this will be a HIGHLY rare occurance, no one is arguing that. But it DOES happen. At that point, this may be the ONLY procedure for aborting that fetus, and if it's not done, the mother's dead.

THAT is all anyone sane is asking for there to be a clause about in the bans on the procedure. Yes, absolutely, ban it for voluntary abortions, I have no problems with that whatsoever, and I am, as I said, very strongly for abortions being legal. But you MUST have a clause in there that gives recourse for those 1 in a million cases where there ARE no other options, and it is ABSOLUTELY necessary in order to save someone's life.

-Arlos
User avatar
Arlos
Admin Abuse Squad
Admin Abuse Squad
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:39 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests