Louisiana passes abortion bill

Post by **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.

Zanchief · Post by **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 wouldnâ€™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 thatâ€™s half way out the birthing canal when the doctor takes a hammer to the poor guyâ€™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.

Post by **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.

Agrajag · Post by **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.

Harrison · Post by **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.

Post by **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 )

Post by **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

Post by **Lyion** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:12 am

Post by **Mop** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:19 am

Donnel · Post by **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 wouldnâ€™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 thatâ€™s half way out the birthing canal when the doctor takes a hammer to the poor guyâ€™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.

Zanchief · Post by **Zanchief** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:08 am

Well that's just silly, no one can be for that.

Donnel · Post by **Donnel** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:09 am

That's what we've been trying to say!

Post by **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.

The Kizzy · Post by **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?

Post by **Mop** » Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:32 am

i dont think they can get much higher in that state.

Darcler · Post by **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 wouldnâ€™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 thatâ€™s half way out the birthing canal when the doctor takes a hammer to the poor guyâ€™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!

Donnel · Post by **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.

Post by **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

Drem · Post by **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. :/

Eziekial · Post by **Eziekial** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:34 am

So if something only occurs in "infinitesimal fractions" it's ok?

Donnel · Post by **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.

dammuzis · Post by **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"

Donnel · Post by **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.

Post by **Tossica** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 9:57 am

Abortions are bad, mmmkay?

Post by **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