Breaking: Supreme Court Upholds ‘Partial Birth’ Abortion Ban
Breaking: Supreme Court Upholds ‘Partial Birth’ Abortion Ban
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has upheld a nationwide ban on “partial birth” abortion, “marking a shift on the high-profile issue and underscoring the impact of President George W. Bush’s two high court appointments.”
The justices “refused to invalidate the 2003 law even though it lacks an exception for cases posing a risk to the mother’s health. The court also rejected claims that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is so vaguely worded it would force doctors to forgo a commonly used, constitutionally protected abortion technique for fear of prosecution. ”
UPDATE: In the majority were swing vote Anthony Kennedy, along with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.
UPDATE II: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned a scathing dissent:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking out in the courtroom for the dissenters, called the ruling “an alarming decision” that refuses “to take seriously” the Court’s 1992 decisions reaffirming most of Roe v. Wade and its 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart striking down a state partial-birth abortion law.
Ginsburg, in a lengthy statement, said “the Court’s opinion tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman’s health.”
UPDATE III: Justice Clarence Thomas authored, and Justice Antonin Scalia joined, a 137-word concurring opinion, which appears to have the sole purpose of stating: “I write separately to reiterate my view that the CourtÂ’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution.”
UPDATE IV: The nation’s leading group of professionals providing health care for women, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, opposed this law because the banned procedure is often the best option for women:
The intact variant of D&E offers significant safety advantages over the non-intact method, including a reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection. These safety advantages are widely recognized by experts in the field of women’s health, authoritative medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, and the nation’s leading medical schools.
UPDATE V: Steve Benen: Elections have consequences.
UPDATE VI: Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “I am disappointed. Criminalizing doctors for performing medically necessary procedures to save a woman’s life or protect her health is wrong. The Court’s decision is a significant step backwards.”
UPDATE VII: In light of today’s ruling, Marty Lederman updates his post on the “profound effects” that Justice O’Connor’s retirement is having on the court.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Neocons have taken over the Supreme Court and are setting up their agenda. Goodbye freedom, it’s was nice to have known you.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:22 amgreat day for america
April 18th, 2007 at 10:23 amA blow to the left’s culture of death.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:23 amWe saw this coming. What with Bush getting the opportunity to propose a relatively large number of justices, and with a good little submissive rubberstamp congress to help, what were we to expect?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:24 amWhy does the media insist on using the pro-life term “Partial Birth” when referring to late term abortions? The procedure is called a dilation and extraction and no birth is involved.
Using emotionally charged words like Partial Birth plays right into the hands of the abortion foes. Personally I find abortion a very sad alternative, but it is one that could be necessary in the event of a problem or to save a mother’s life. As birth control, it is abhorrent, but I still believe it should be legal, safe and rare.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:25 amI can’t even imagine doing that to my own child, so I am glad that they upheld the law. It just seems so cruel. I am pro-choice, but I think there should be time limits. Let’s just hope this doesn’t end up taking all rights away to choose.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:25 amhere we go
April 18th, 2007 at 10:26 amMeanwhile, the Carnage continues in Iraq. None of this makes any sense.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:28 amLife, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. At least the USSC is finally coming back to the first part. We still have some work to do on the other two.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:28 amA blow to the left’s culture of death.
Comment by Patrick1
And just what do you call the “War in Iraq”?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:29 amFor the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman’s health.†– Ginsburg
And the court is smiling beatifically and making the sign of the cross as it goes about it’s business.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:30 amPatrick, I usually ignore you but I can’t this time. The “Left’s culture of death? That’s hilarious – how many people died in Iraq today … thinking, living, breathing human beings? 127? 130? Or doesn’t that matter to you? I guess you’re one of those “life begins at conception and ends at birth” idiots. You sicken me. Go to hell. This ban doesn’t even have a provision in it to save the life of the mother, which I guess to the Supreme Court was just hunky dorey – save the fetus and f*ck the mother. This is a national disgrace and I am disgusted with every Senator who voted to let Alito and Roberts get a free pass. These are activist judges, no matter how often that ridiculous term is used by the reichwing.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:31 amHardy Haberman:
Perhaps because the entire baby’s body except for the skull is “extracted”?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:31 amIdiots took over.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:34 amlack of gun control laws
pro death penalty
war in Iraq
tourture
global warming
and the left has a culture of death
April 18th, 2007 at 10:34 amHmmm.
I wasn’t even aware that “late term” abortions existed. I’ll have to think about this.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:34 am#
A blow to the left’s culture of death.
Comment by Patrick1 — April 18, 2007 @ 10:23 am
#
And when the mother-to-be dies because of a foreseen problem with the delivery of the fetus- that’s ok too?
a$$hole.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:35 amAnd just what do you call the “War in Iraq�
A battle against Islamo Fascism.
The USSC has struck a blow to stop the slide of post modern liberalism, where life hs no value as we saw the example of the results of such thinking two days ago at Virginia Tech.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:35 amThank Heaven! ~ perhaps this will someday be known as the begining of the end to the brutal practice of abortion.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:36 amI’m no expert on the subject, but I find it hard to believe that this type of abortion is “medically necessary”. There are other types of abortion, and abortion is usually not a medically necessary procedure.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:38 ampatrick, who writes your $hit? Is it Rove, Cheney, Eliot Abrahms? you can be that smart to push that many buttons.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:38 amyou should ask for a raise- you are obviously a paid plant.
The Dick and his son Junior . . . should have been an abortion.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:39 amso, now the very few women, who’s health and lives depend on the little used but necessary method of terminating a pregnancy, will be the victims of another wrongheaded policy…
this will not have a good ending… but will it placate the self-righteous for a while? … there will always be abortion – the right needs it to ignite their base, even more than some women need it…
“safe, rare and legal”… what is so hard to understand?…
April 18th, 2007 at 10:39 am…
Come on, ignore this idiot.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:41 amhow cute, patrick found comfort in the reichwing buzzword islamo fascism…. exactly how does that work patrick? islam and fascism together?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:41 amThanks for nothing Justice Kennedy.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:42 amSo, I wonder how Sandra Day OConnor’s husband’s health is these days.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:42 amInteresting how they chose now, during 24/7 coverage of the virginia incident, to uphold this ban.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:43 amThis has nothing to do with being medically necessary. This is about the inconvenience people find in having children. Kill them, problem solved.
It is the left’s belief that human life is meaningless and not a gift from God. You start with babies, then to the elderly, then to the mentally ill and eventually they get around to you. I’m glad the USSC is finally starting to say enough! And taking this back where it belongs in the arena of public debate.
The left knows they are wrong on this which is why they get upset when they lose their majority among nine people.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:43 amHoly rollers need to go away. I’m so sick of them forcing their own twisted morality onto everyone else.
It’s about time we stopped tip-toeing around the issue and call religion what it is: a mental disorder.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:44 amAnyone want to venture a guess as to how long this Massacre Porn news cycle will last? This is gonna be worse than the Anna Nicole story I think.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:47 amRoe V Wade was forcing and twisted morality onto everyone else.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:47 amPatrick1 sez:
As opposed to the right, who dispenses with all the intermediate steps and goes straight to you.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:48 amThe medical language for a late term abortion is “late term abortion”, not “partial birth”. “Partial birth” is a right-wing invention (like “pro-life”, “tax and spend”, and “cut and run”). These invented terms are used to mislead and manipulate. Every time we use any of these terms to debate issues, we buy into their misleading frames.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:48 amThe Right wing talking points about how “liberalism” is a cult of death. Yet it is the Republican Party that rakes in the most from the tobacco industry—-you know, smoking is a lifestyle choice—as opposed to being gay which they call a “deathstyle choice”.
They love the gun industry and the weapons and military industrial complex, you know those lovers of life!
Bush used the death penalty more than any governor in America.
There have been 3,300 US troops killed in Bush’s compassionate world…650,000 Iraqis(more today) in Bush’s compassionate, life loving world.
-GSD
April 18th, 2007 at 10:49 amlet the left have partial birth abortions…let the left have gay marriages…soon no more left of the Left..
April 18th, 2007 at 10:50 amFor example ape?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:50 amPARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION=INFANTACIDE=MURDER.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:51 amwHAT’S SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
Patrick1 sez:
Really? I had no idea.
Please provide links detailing the incidents where a woman was forced to have an abortion as a result of this cruel and godless law.
TIA
April 18th, 2007 at 10:51 amThe Chrisitan Taleban are in control of the Sup’ Court now.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:51 amThe Chrisitan Taleban has started the US on the road to theocracy.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned the Republicans will get slaughtered at the polls.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:52 amIn the mean time, more Iraqis are killed more violently without regard to human health each day by Bush’s fiasco and approved of by the religious right.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:52 amWelcome to the age of the US Taliban. We are now on the road to the prohibition of the ability of a citizen to be able to take care of one’s issues without government interference. Is this now the age of the “neo-comintern” to quote a well-known political commentator?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:52 am“Holy rollers need to go away. I’m so sick of them forcing their own twisted morality onto everyone else.
It’s about time we stopped tip-toeing around the issue and call religion what it is: a mental disorder.”
———–
1st: you are pushing your morality just as much or more so than we are pushing ours.
– please stop pretending that you are morally neutral on this issue. because you are not. you have a morality which greatly differs with pro-life supporters
2nd: everyone has a right to contend for their beliefs in the public square, regardless of what they are.
3rd: abortion on demand is NOT supported by the majority of americans.
4th: if you want your positions to prevail in the public square, win elections, get the presidency and appoint judges.
elections have consequences folks.
I for one am very happy to see this ban upheld. the is never a need for it to “save the mother” if the baby is partially out of the mother “partial birth” then another few inches out and its born, those few inches dont determine the health of the mother, they determine the health of the child.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:52 amI dont know about all the details, but I do know alot of people (non-republicans) that dont like the idea of abortion after the first few months. I would think the concentration should be on how to save the baby AND the mother in late term situations… aka better science to solve that problem rather than late term abortions.
Personally I just dont feel right backing a no limits abortion system.
Its too bad the right has to be stupid and go too far and so does the left. It should be pretty simple to say no way after so many months and in all other circumstances it is the business ONLY of the mother and her doctor.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:53 amThis was the real “Mission Accomplished”. Damn.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:54 amRoe V Wade was forcing and twisted morality onto everyone else.
Comment by Patrick1
Nothing was forced on anyone. Your mentality is twisted.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:55 amHey you knew this was coming. How about a list of the vichy dems who voted for for scalito and roberts. We’re going to be stuck with those bastards for a long long time. Thanks LIEberman
April 18th, 2007 at 10:55 am#32 How exactly was Roe V Wade “forcing and (sic) twisted morality onto everyone else?” No one was being forced to have abortions; however, now women who may have needed to have an abortion to save their own lives will be forced to carry a baby to term.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:56 amSince we’ll probably still be in Iraq in 18 years, this is just a way of making sure that there is enough cannon fodder to be sent there…
April 18th, 2007 at 10:57 amCommon sense dictates that a Doctor will determine if a birth of a child will endanger a mother. The deliberate turning of a pre-born child to become a Breach Born is crazy to begin with. That’s the only way you could legally perform a late term abortion before this monumentous decision.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:57 amBefore you Anti-Choicers begin your high-5s, please take note in Section 111 you will see that ONLY 2 Justices Scalia and Thomas signed on to overturn Roe. This vote will only ban a certain procedure and will ban no abortions.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:58 amWhat is the process for impeachment of supreme court justices?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:58 amPat Robertson for Christian Mullah in 2008! No more gays! No more minorities! More executions! More domestic spying! More secret prisons! More torture and sexual humiliation!
-GSD
April 18th, 2007 at 10:58 ami Comment by chester — April 18, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Sadly, it appears you are not properly informed on that which you are happy to see banned.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:01 amNo one was being forced to have abortions; however, now women who may have needed to have an abortion to save their own lives will be forced to carry a baby to term.
can you give an example where partial birth abortion would be necessary for the health of the mother.
because docs have testified to the fact that partial birth abortion is never necessary for the health of the mother.
if the child can be partially delivered and then killed, and have it be safe for the mother, then it is reasonable to believe that it can be fully delivered without harming the mother.
also , please note that i use the word child not fetus, if you insist on referring to the prego as a mother, then she must be with child.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:01 am#36 Ok, if you reichwingers won’t benefit from stem cell research and other health care and public health advances.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:02 amThis is indeed a great injustice and a removal of one of our most critical freedoms. The right of a mother to abort should be expanded not restricted. In fact, I believe a woman should have the right to abort even after delivery as long as the cord is still attached. After all, nothing has changed as far as the baby being part of the mother except for the baby’s venue. I also think there should be a 10 second rule. You know, like with a potato chip that falls on the ground. The mother should have the right to abort within 10 seconds of the cord being cut. This is an outrageous restriction on our freedoms. I think it’s time to move to Cuba.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:03 amLet’s not get hysterical, my fellow lefties.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:03 amNote what the Supreme Court did here. It refused to invalidate a law of congress. Good for them. The less role unelected judges have in policy making the better.
Us lefties are supposed to be pro-democratic debate, no? Good, then let’s stop relying on unlected judges to win our arguments and let’s persuade congress to change the law.
#32 “How exactly was roe v wade forcing twisted morality onto everyone else?”
DUH! The innocent are being SUCKED INTO A SINK!!!! all in the sanitized name of “choice.”
You people who believe in abortion HAVE NO SOUL.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:03 amI for one am very happy to see this ban upheld. the is never a need for it to “save the mother†if the baby is partially out of the mother “partial birth†then another few inches out and its born, those few inches dont determine the health of the mother, they determine the health of the child.
Comment by chester
I assume we may address you as Doctor Chester?
No? Didn’t think so.
Mind your own business.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:04 am>>”And when the mother-to-be dies because of a foreseen problem with the delivery of the fetus- that’s ok too?
>>a$$hole.”
Not being an MD like Seth, I guess I’d have to ask him under what circumstances that would occur. The AMA’s official stance is that the procedure is never medically required–but what do they know?
And, of course, delivery of a healthy baby via C-section is always an option, but that would leave the mother with an abdominal scar. Sure, she’d be alive and healthy as would her baby, but she might not be able to wear a thong to the beach for a year or so. Horrendous.
Guess my priorities are all screwed up. I don’t want to vacuum a baby’s brains out of his or her head for the sake of convenience.
Boy, am I an a$$hole.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:04 amYou people who believe in abortion HAVE NO SOUL.
Comment by pam
Here’s pam — she’s god.
How many abortions have you had?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:05 amliberalism, where life hs no value as we saw the example of the results of such thinking two days ago at Virginia Tech.
Comment by Patrick1 — April 18, 2007 @ 10:35 am
Your life has NO VALUE to anybody. I’m sure your mother wishes she’d aborted you every day of her life.
Interesting you blame VT on liberals since a wackjob foreign national had no problem getting weapons thanks to the rights gun laws. And he was a christian fundamentalist which is definitely not a liberal thing.
Not to mention liberals are not the pro war pro death penalty party. So take your pro death self and wait your turn to go “RIGHT” to hell.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:05 amDUH! The innocent are being SUCKED INTO A SINK!!!! all in the sanitized name of “choice.â€
Comment by pam
Hey, freak, I just put millions of innocents into a sock. I have no soul, but I would have a better day, thats for sure. ;)
April 18th, 2007 at 11:07 amThe Left considers the decapitation of unborn children a sacrament. Why not simply do what the Romans and Greeks did? Leave unwanted children to the vultures? It’s morally the same thing.
You folks are a bunch of totalitarian Communists.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:08 amfrom the UPDATE IV link:
Bush has had the Department of Justice defend the law all the way to the Supreme Court. A decision is expected from the Court by this June.
well, that’s fortuitously ahead of schedule… hmm?…
April 18th, 2007 at 11:08 amWhat a great day!
April 18th, 2007 at 11:10 amThe US has liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban, only to become like the Taliban itself :(
April 18th, 2007 at 11:10 amWhat is funny about the left wing comments on sites such as this is that they reveal character ~ or lack thereof. I’m not sure you really want your depravity exposed so very much, do you?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:10 amIf picture of these partial birth and other abortions could be published in the media, the public would be outraged that humans could treat humans so inhumanely.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:11 amIf abortionists were honest about their trade they would be put out of business.
We have more laws against animal abuse.
Do you “infanticide” screamers have any idea what a late term abortion is? It’s usually done because the baby has deformities and will probably not survive to delivery. An intact dilation allows parents to have a body to hold and mourn.
Abortions done in the last trimester are of children who were WANTED, by usually married parents, who were put in the horrible position of having a non-viable fetus.
These decisions should be left to the parents and their doctors. Banning this procedure (and using the vaguely defined term “partial-birth” can mean several different procedures) can mean injury and death for the mother. It could ruin her fertility–and remember, for those of you haters who want to punish “sluts”, most 3rd term abortions are of wanted children and with married parents. Should a family lose any chance of having children b/c the first was non-viable and her doctor was prevented from using a method that could have preserved her fertility?
If all of you who are applauding this decision actually knew someone who had to have the procedure, you would be singing a different tune.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:12 am#63: No, I am not God, but I have a good idea which side of the fence He comes down on.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:13 amThe anti-choice movement is about punishing people for having sex. It is religion being forced onto non-religious people.
It’s not a “baby”, it’s a fetus, a collection of cells. If you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one.
If you want to prevent an abortion, ADOPT THE FETUS OR STFU.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:14 amIf picture of these partial birth and other abortions could be published in the media, the public would be outraged that humans could treat humans so inhumanely.
If abortionists were honest about their trade they would be put out of business.
We have more laws against animal abuse.
Comment by Jeff
Ya I would say the same thing about all the Iraqi women and children… I have seen alot of their photos…. It really sucks looking at the picture of a young child with massive damage to their bodies and see the screaming in pain …and then know that was done in the name of America…
April 18th, 2007 at 11:15 amCan somebody please tell me how birthing a baby 3/4’s of the way and not all the way helps the health of the mother?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:16 amSelective indiginity. A victory cry for the unborn. Nary a shrug of the shoulder for another bomb killing 100’s in Iraq. Outraged at the senseless murders at VT. Couldn’t locate Darfur on a map.
Arguments lose their fire when it’s shown to be coming from a hypocrite.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:16 am#63: No, I am not God, but I have a good idea which side of the fence He comes down on.
Comment by pam
The side of unicorns and faires and dragons?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:16 amHillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Jimmy Carter all had partial birth abortions so this ruling proves how bad people they are.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:16 amI’m not sure you really want your depravity exposed so very much, do you?
Comment by pam
Listen, Magdalena, why dont you go supporting pedophiles priests and spare me the moral lessons?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:16 amHey, freak, I just put millions of innocents into a sock. I have no soul, but I would have a better day, thats for sure. ;)
Comment by Juan C
Oh lordy….
April 18th, 2007 at 11:17 amChristianists think that women’s lives don’t matter. Only innocents, and any woman who happens to be pregnant is by their definition not “innocent.”
April 18th, 2007 at 11:17 am#70…Pam…one of the most depraved people in the world calling other people depraved…project much?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:18 am#63: No, I am not God, but I have a good idea which side of the fence He comes down on.
Comment by pam
I just talked to god, and she said ya’ll are sitting closest to the fire when we get to hell.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:18 amYou folks are a bunch of totalitarian Communists.
Comment by John R.
Your god didnt make the nuclear bomb… we humans did. Your fantasies about right and wrong has been proven irrelevant. Science is the marker not “faith”…
April 18th, 2007 at 11:18 amRantingTommy:
Many couples have to adopt out of the country because there is a shortage of babies up for adoption here. You are fine with laws than punish killers for the murder of born babies, right?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:19 amThe left’s view of life is so sick that they cry over the loss of a procedure whose single purpose is to kill a child days before it is born. Not to save the mother’s life but out of the inconvenience of that life. This cheap view of life leads to the mass murder of Monday at Virginia Tech.
Like the cheerleaders for abortion the sick boy at VT believed that life had no value; that because he felt like dying there was no point in others living.
Most modern liberalism is reaping what it sews, when you believe that there is no such thing as right or wrong only how I feel. When you believe that there is no absolute truth then you have to believe there is no absolute wrong. Sick narcissism is the main characteristic of the modern American left, where life is cheap and getting cheaper.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:19 amBushCo has the SCOTUS that he and the NeoCons have always wanted.
BushCo has destroyed the justice system in this country.
BushCo and his NeoCon enablers have destroyed the meaning of what America means to the rest of the civilized world with this reprehensible & illegal war.
BushCo tortures. Bushco renditions and kills.
Now do you understand why it is time to impeach?
We should be marching in the streets. Impeach!!
April 18th, 2007 at 11:19 ampam,
You didn’t answer my question about how many abortions you’ve had.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:20 amYou people who believe in abortion HAVE NO SOUL.
Comment by pam
Souls are no more real than your god.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:20 amAgain, there is no procedure called “partial birth abortion”, but one reason for a late term abortion would be pre-eclampsia or eclampsia/toxemia–extremely high blood pressure that can develop during a pregnancy that can lead to stroke, heart attack, and death for the mother before the baby is viable. The only cure is to deliver the baby.
Pregnancy is not safer than abortion. There are many possible complications, and many of those can lead to death or serious injury to the mother as well as the baby.
A woman can also suffer partial or full placental abruption. That is when the placenta detaches from the uterus. It can cause the mother to bleed to death.
Please note with these conditions, it’s not a case of a mother not wanting a child or not wanting to be inconvenienced. It’s a case of a pregnancy going wrong and endangering her life. Even if the baby is wanted, a late term abortion/D&E may be necessary to save the life or health of the mother.
Anyone who claims pregnancy is always safe and never endangers the life of the mother is a liar.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:20 amathena:
Some Christians want BOTH mother and child to live.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:21 amHow many murders have you committed Zooey?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:22 amZooey:
How many abortions have you had? I’ve had none. Does that mean I’m unqualified to debate the issue?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:22 amActually some of you need to have a vacuum inserted in the back of your skulls, except in this case they may not find any brains to be sucked out.
As of September 28, 2006, there have been 47,282,923 total abortions in America since 1973. This represents 3,542 innocent victims per day.
Yes, that is right, more babies are killed on average every day than have died in the entire Iraq conflict. Wake up. Morons.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:23 am#74 ggibson ~ Iraqi women and children WANT freedom ~ just like you. Freedom from terrorists who want to hijack their country, not from American soldiers who are giving their all ~ including their precious blood so that the Iraqi people can have a chance at LIFE.
the lack of morality on the left is simply stunning.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:23 amCaren:
Pregnancy IS safer than abortion for the child.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:24 amPam = Patrick1…both names start with “P”, both are dumb as rocks, both claim moral superiority, both hate America and our freedom.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:24 amIn the usual second-trimester procedure, “dilation
and evacuation (D&E), the doctor dilates the cervix and then inserts
surgical instruments into the uterus and maneuvers them to grab the
fetus and pull it back through the cervix and vagina. The fetus is
usually ripped apart as it is removed, and the doctor may take 10 to
15 passes to remove it in its entirety. The procedure that prompted
the federal Act and various state statutes, including Nebraskas, is a
variation of the standard D&E, and is herein referred to as intact
D&E. The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact
D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only
a few passes, pulling out its entire body instead of ripping it apart.
In order to allow the head to pass through the cervix, the doctor typically
pierces or crushes the skull.
Wow!! That’s cold.
Anthony
April 18th, 2007 at 11:25 amMany couples have to adopt out of the country because there is a shortage of babies up for adoption here. You are fine with laws than punish killers for the murder of born babies, right?
Comment by Elizabeth
Your straw man is burning. There are thousands of children waiting to be adopted in this country. But who cares about them? They’re BORN.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:25 am#12 Comment by CarolSoprano — April 18, 2007 @ 10:31 am
You are correct; Patrick and his ilk want these fetuses protected only to send them off to die in preemptive wars that are based on lies and deceit.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:25 amMany couples have to adopt out of the country because there is a shortage of babies up for adoption here.
Comment by Elizabeth
What a lie. There are many many many children in America that wished they lived in a real home with parents…
April 18th, 2007 at 11:25 amIn reality I think this action is just throwing a bone to the fundie wackos.
First very few of these procedures are done and when they are it’s usually because there is a problem with the fetus because very few women would stay pregnant that long if their plan was to terminate all along.
That being said, neither the Supreme Court or the neocons will be able to stop a woman from terminating a pregnancy. Women had abortions before Roe v. Wade and if a women feels the need to terminate a late term pregnancy there are medical procedures and conditions that will allow it to happen.
I love when the right is so stupid that they think they’ve accomplished something. What they’ve gotten today is lip service when what they really need is a bl*w j*b.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:26 amThe freedom to kill a baby?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:26 am“Many couples have to adopt out of the country because there is a shortage of babies up for adoption here. You are fine with laws than punish killers for the murder of born babies, right?
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 11:19 am”
WRONG!!!
They go out of country because it takes only MONTHS vs. YEARS to get a baby.
This is the reason….. There are PLENTY of children that can be adopted here, but it takes so long and costs much more than traveling overseas and doing it.
Please do some research!
April 18th, 2007 at 11:26 amto #88 Zoey,
Perish the thought. I have 5 children, one of whom has down syndrome. She is the light of my life and I thank my lucky stars every day for her. Actually, I thank God.
I don’t suppose you on the left could even begin to understand it.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:27 am#74 ggibson ~ Iraqi women and children WANT freedom ~ just like you. Freedom from terrorists who want to hijack their country, not from American soldiers who are giving their all ~ including their precious blood so that the Iraqi people can have a chance at LIFE.
the lack of morality on the left is simply stunning.
Comment by pam
Excellent post!
April 18th, 2007 at 11:28 amAs of September 28, 2006, there have been 47,282,923 total abortions in America since 1973.
Comment by slntnsnty
And this is any of your business how?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:28 amALL babies are “BORN babies”. If they aren’t born, they aren’t a baby yet. And, yes, murder of babies is, and always should be, illegal. But the topic is abortion of a fetus, not babies. Please try to keep up.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:30 amWhat a lie. There are many many many children in America that wished they lived in a real home with parents…
It is hard to find a baby to adopt in the U.S., which is why it is difficult. There are many older kids that can be adopted. There are also age restrictions for adopting an American baby.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:30 amHow many murders have you committed Zooey?
Comment by Patrick1
Last count….about 18. You?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:30 am#74 ggibson ~ Iraqi women and children WANT freedom ~ just like you. Freedom from terrorists who want to hijack their country, not from American soldiers who are giving their all ~ including their precious blood so that the Iraqi people can have a chance at LIFE.
the lack of morality on the left is simply stunning.
Comment by pam
Immoral liar. Americans killing Iraqis that never attacked us and long after saddam is out of power is not “freedom” … but hey many great criminals throughout history have covered their asses by saying they were killing the people for their own good….
April 18th, 2007 at 11:30 am“Yes, that is right, more babies are killed on average every day than have died in the entire Iraq conflict. Wake up. Morons.
Comment by slntnsnty — April 18, 2007 @ 11:23 am”
I love how the RIGHT cries for a unborn baby, but throws them to the side once they are born…..
You people are the MOST DISPICABLE on earth…… You have no concern about life after it exits that vagina!!!! It then becomes a person that needs to defend it’s self and take care of its self….
After all…. If anyone helps it then they are of the “socialist” mindset! So if the baby can’t take care of its self…. TOUGH!!!
Gotta love those repubs….
April 18th, 2007 at 11:31 amWow!! That’s cold.
Anthony
Comment by Anthony
Thats life… is cold when a child gets leukemia.. its cold when a storm blows a tree over onto the bed of a young girl and kills her… its cold when a country invades another and kills its civilians… thats life… your fantasies about a warm cudly god (except when he is killing people) is just that a fantasy.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:32 amRemoveBush:
Therefore, there are not enough babies up for adoption. I’m just responding to that point. Care to answer my other question though: You are fine with laws than punish killers for the murder of born babies, right?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:33 amTry to stay on topic, noone is talking about killing babies. A fetus is NOT a baby.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:33 amThis Supreme Court decision just brings the US to a III World Country.
And this is any of your business how?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:34 amComment by ggibson
Ha ha ha.
The left’s view of life is so sick that they cry over the loss of a procedure whose single purpose is to kill a child days before it is born
Comment by Patrick1inch — April 18, 2007 @ 11:19 am
I was not goint to post on this thread, because the hyprocrisy is just overwhelming (also, my view on this subject is quite moderate. I’m not a firm supporter for abortions, but I’m not a zealous protestor, either. I believe in education for the confused mothers, as well as adoption choices), but then this post by Patrick1inch is totally false, so I will try to clear it up
April 18th, 2007 at 11:34 amA partial birth abortion is a political term, not a medical term (I think the medical term is D&X) It is done in 0.2% of all abortions, and is usually done in the 20th week of pregnancy, not the 40th week as Patrick1inch suggests. The actual procedure, though, is quite horrific, and has been performed on healthy moth rs, to which I totally disagree.
Now, that being said, feel free to flame away (I’s a big boy, I’s can take it), but understand that ultimately, I feel the choice is the woman’s, not our male majority congress’
The freedom to kill a baby?
Comment by Patrick1
Word games dont change reality.
Its not a baby… and its not mission accomplished…
April 18th, 2007 at 11:34 amPerish the thought. I have 5 children, one of whom has down syndrome. She is the light of my life and I thank my lucky stars every day for her. Actually, I thank God.
I don’t suppose you on the left could even begin to understand it.
Comment by pam
I guess we on the left are not human, is that it? We have no chiildren, no families, nothing.
I too have a child with a disability. What’s your point?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:35 am“Caren:
Pregnancy IS safer than abortion for the child.
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 ”
you forgot to add: “and if it weren’t for those pesky doctors and their hippocratic oath, the mother’s health could be ignored completely!”
April 18th, 2007 at 11:35 amThe trolls are paid to come here and be a speed bump or spider’s web. Their job is to tie you up in endless arguement and waste your time and energy. Don’t play their game. Use your precious skills, time and energy to write editorials for newspapers and call your representatives. Its easy to fall into troll quicksand. Be smarter and avoid the trap.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:35 am“It is hard to find a baby to adopt in the U.S., which is why it is difficult. There are many older kids that can be adopted. There are also age restrictions for adopting an American baby.
Comment by rabidbunny — April 18, 2007 @ 11:30 am”
My case in point!!!!!
ONCE it’s born…. To hell with them!!!!!
If your so concerned about children, notice I said children because a baby is a child also, then go and adopt!!! Otherwise, YOU are a postering HYPOCRITE!!!!
Save the baby, kill the child!
April 18th, 2007 at 11:35 amZooey, ggibson, RantingTommy:
Are you claiming there is NOT a shortage of babies available for adoption in the U.S.?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:36 amPregnancy IS safer than abortion for the child.
Comment by Elizabeth
That’s a lie.
Prove your statement is correct. Only links from reputable medical sites, please.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:37 amThe only good thing about liberal moonbats such as you is that your inability to reproduce restricts your potential for seizing power. So in one sense, perhaps you should keep killing your offspring.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:37 amAre you claiming there is NOT a shortage of babies available for adoption in the U.S.?
Comment by Elizabeth
There is no difference. Baby == cute ..child == not so cute??? Is that how you judge these children? They were babies before they grew up as orphans because people wouldnt adopt them.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:40 amLast count….about 18. You?
Comment by Zooey
Its not a baby… and its not mission accomplished…
Comment by ggibson
You are kicking ass. I am laughing so hard now!!
April 18th, 2007 at 11:40 am“Therefore, there are not enough babies up for adoption. I’m just responding to that point. Care to answer my other question though: You are fine with laws than punish killers for the murder of born babies, right?
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 11:33 am”
Unlike the RIGHT…… If a mother is not going to be able to take care of the child, I would rather see her abort it than bring it into a life of missery!!!!
I care more for what the child will have to endure with a life that the mother will not be able to care for them or that they will end up in a orphanage….
Since YOU are more concerned about the baby then the CHILD, I see you care not one once of concern for those children living thier lives in orphanages…..
It’s one thing if the parents die and the child has no one else to take care of them for them to end up in there, but many are there because the parents cannot/will not take care of them……
But the RIGHT does not give a rats A$$ about that……… They saved the baby….. YEAH!!!!! Everyone go home now and let someone else worry about the child…… They are on thier own, and best wishes to them…..
April 18th, 2007 at 11:41 ammen dealing in womens issues. and they continue to get it wrong.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:42 amAh the Right Wing.
They love your fetus, but hate your kid.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:42 am#118 to Zooey : The point is that we now have a test to determine whether or not a baby in the womb has down syndrome or some other possible malady. 90% of these children are now aborted! This sounds suspicously like “the final solution” to me and it makes me heartsick to think about it.
This is what the culture of death (your precious abortion sacrament)has given us.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:42 amIf a woman in the late term of her pregnancy says: “I feel something is wrong, and if I go thru with this pregnancy it will kill me.”
If the doctor says: “I do not think anything is wrong, but women do unexpectly die in childbirth in many cases where we doctors think there is nothing wrong, because we are imperfect doctors and not perfect fortune tellers.
If the laws says: “We do not give a damn about what you and your imune system think, we demand that you go through with something that can and does kill X number of women per year, because anti-abortionists religioous ideas are more important than your life.”
If that woman is denied that late term abortion, and dies in childbirth:
Are you anti-abortionists going to plead guilty of murder in this case, because you preventing her from having the late term abortion that she said she needed to not die in childbirth?
If you anti-abortionist are not willing to plead guilty of murder in this case, then why should we not arrest you and put you on trial for murder and punish you with the death penalty if all life is so “sacred”?
Surely the women’s life is just as if not more “sacred” than the life of a fetus?
Why do anti-abortionists REFUSE to debate this case, but IGNORE it?
Why the hell are MEN deciding this case anyway?
Should not the MEN on the Supreme court have recused themselves from this case, because it is impossible for them to be affected by the ramifications of this decision?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:43 amZooey:
Even a 1% chance of a child surving pregnancy is better than ZERO percent chance surviving an abortion. What “link” do you think I need to prove that?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:43 amThe only good thing about liberal moonbats such as you is that your inability to reproduce restricts your potential for seizing power
Comment by slntnsnty(I’d like to by a vowel!) — April 18, 2007 @ 11:37 am
Umm, I have 4 children (17, 5,5, and 3)
April 18th, 2007 at 11:43 amKinda defeats your statement, eh slntnsnty
Good Morning Lady Z and Juan C…Here we go again with the reich winged, bible thumping, anti choice people who don’t realy give a damn that thousand’s of men, women and children are dieing in Iraq at bull shit bush’s hand but they come on this thread and play the pios and enraged over abortion….Well folk’s wake the hell up, bush was for abortion when it suited him and paid a girl friend to have one….Many troll’s here either can’t get an abortion because they are male and many other’s are to young to even make a baby if they could round up a woman stupid enough to sleep with them…Geees…Why don’t you troll’s get a true grip and go after the mass murderer you voted for instead of screaming about a procedure you can not eliminate no matter what you do…One way or the other doctors and patience will take care of this issue when it is needed or else women will be forced like in the past to get illegal back street abortion’s and many will die..This is a woman’s issue only, it is our body….Another point that was brought home to me the other day…There are more women than men in our country and the world, it’s about time we took the stand further and removed all remain’s of the reich wingers and neo-con’s…It will happen, you troll’s are becoming obsolete….Get over it and get the hell back to red state sites….Blessings
April 18th, 2007 at 11:43 amAre you claiming there is NOT a shortage of babies available for adoption in the U.S.?
Comment by Elizabeth
Are you kidding me? Do you know how many children there are in foster homes or orphanages in the US?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:44 amThe problem is most most people like you want a perfect “white” baby, the hell with the children that already do not have a home.
My case in point!!!!!
ONCE it’s born…. To hell with them!!!!!
If your so concerned about children, notice I said children because a baby is a child also, then go and adopt!!! Otherwise, YOU are a postering HYPOCRITE!!!!
Save the baby, kill the child!
Comment by RemoveBush
My second son was adopted, and he was 5 at the time. He is now 11. For the adoption argument, if the babies were given up for adoption right after birth they would have no trouble being adopted. So it really isn’t a case of after they are born the hell with them. Fact is people want babies, it’s human nature to want to care for a child from the beginning. Sad, but I don’t see that changing.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:45 amAnd, of course, delivery of a healthy baby via C-section is always an option, but that would leave the mother with an abdominal scar. Sure, she’d be alive and healthy as would her baby, but she might not be able to wear a thong to the beach for a year or so. Horrendous
Comment by Ted — April 18, 2007 @ 11:04 am
You think women have late term abortions to avoid a C-section scar. Basically babies flip around until the day of delivery so how would a woman know she needed a c-section.
And there are drugs that can be used to induce labor at any time during pregnancy and a HEALTHY fetus, after 26 weeks has a good chance of surviving. So if you anti-abortion folks want this to be the standard of practice so be it.
Under this procedure the woman has to be hospitalized and medicated and go through a much longer delivery than a normal pregnancy because her cervix is not dialated and ready for delivery. And the medication costs about $750 a dose.
Then of course the baby will need months of neonatal care at about $250,000 a week if it healthy to begin with. Since most late term abortions are because the fetus has some serious abnormality which boost the medical care up from months to a lifetime.
These costs will have to be paid by the government because obviously the mother, who was deprived her right to choice, can’t be expected to pay millions of dollars because you demanded she not have an abortion.
But it’s all good because on of you fundies will no doubt want to “foster care” one of these disabled infants so you can collect that check every month. What, are you saying the money isn’t enough to make caring for that child who will never walk or talk or eat or even breathe on a regular basis practical. Now what?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:46 amggibson:
There is no baby (less than 1 year old) that cannot be adopted here in the U.S. if he or she is legally up for adoption. That being said, I understand that older children are harder to adopt out. RantingTommy said above: If you want to prevent an abortion, ADOPT THE FETUS OR STFU.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:46 amSharon, thank you for showing who the left is. A bunch of lying, sad, sorry little sick people ~ not to mention mental midgets.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:46 amAre you claiming there is NOT a shortage of babies available for adoption in the U.S.?
Comment by Elizabeth
There is no shortage of CHILDREN available for adoption in this country. That’s what I said.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:47 amIf a woman in the late term of her pregnancy says: “I feel something is wrong, and if I go thru with this pregnancy it will kill me.â€
If the doctor says: “I do not think anything is wrong, but women do unexpectly die in childbirth in many cases where we doctors think there is nothing wrong, because we are imperfect doctors and not perfect fortune tellers.
Comment by criticalthinker
If you can post one link of a stituation where a woman has said “I feel something is wrong, and if I go thru with this pregnancy it will kill me.†and the doctor saying that she is fine only to have the woman die during delivery I will re-think my stance on this issue. However, I believe you are simply creating a false hypothetical.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:48 amEven a 1% chance of a child surving pregnancy is better than ZERO percent chance surviving an abortion. What “link†do you think I need to prove that?
Comment by Elizabeth
Abortion is safer than pregnancy FOR THE WOMAN.
Remember her?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:49 amRemoveBush, theswan, and “critical”thinker:
I am a woman. Can I participate in the debate then?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:49 amIt is sad to recall that significant numbers of Democrats supported the legislation that so jeopardized women’s health and reproductive rights:
Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 on October 22, 2003. Large numbers of Democrats joined a nearly unanimous GOP in both houses; the bill passed 63-34 in the Senate, and 281-142 in the House. President Bush signed it into law at a White House ceremony on November 5.
For the disturbing history, see:
April 18th, 2007 at 11:49 am“Slippery Slope: Democratic Wavering in the Battle for Reproductive Rights.”
#120–WELL SAID!!!
Stop being baited by morons like pam, patrick1, etc. let them post and ignore them. they live to engage us and if we ignore them, well, they’ll go away!!
come on people! dont let them get the better of you!!
April 18th, 2007 at 11:49 amSharon, thank you for showing who the left is. A bunch of lying, sad, sorry little sick people ~ not to mention mental midgets.
Comment by pam — April 18, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Care to debate that, pam? I’m right here, my lunch hour is near, so I won’t be going anywhere.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:50 amThe ball is in your court. Let’s go!!!
Wayne:
Most of the babies adopted from outside the U.S. are not the perfect “white†baby either.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:50 amslntztdy: “perhaps you should keep killing your offspring”
Abortion rates are higher in red states than blue states. Check the CDC website.
Conservatives are doing their touchdown dances today. But, oh, oh. The only people who will be happy with this decision are people who would vote for the repub anyway. There are millions of moderate women considering a vote for Hillary Clinton. There are lots of moderately conservative republican women leaning in her direction. This decision may result in 10 to 20 million votes for democrats.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:51 amPam ~
You’re making me ANGRY. Please do not invoke my name in you political agenda.
I’ve got my EYE on you.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:52 amFact is people want babies, it’s human nature to want to care for a child from the beginning. Sad, but I don’t see that changing.
Comment by rabidbunny
So all those poor girls getting knocked up are a perfect source for all the barren middle class couples longing for that little baby.
Hey, that “abstinence only” program really is working!
We could call it “Baby Mining.” That’s cool.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:53 am“If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament” Gloria Steinham
Truer words were never spoken.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:54 am#145 comment by kip. So the only way you can “win” an argument with a conservative is to give up?
Hilarious, and thank you.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:54 amFact is people want babies, it’s human nature to want to care for a child from the beginning. Sad, but I don’t see that changing.
Comment by rabidbunny
So, when you support bombing Iraqi children, do you consider them also…human??
April 18th, 2007 at 11:54 am“Then of course the baby will need months of neonatal care at about $250,000 a week if it healthy to begin with. Since most late term abortions are because the fetus has some serious abnormality which boost the medical care up from months to a lifetime. ”
And don’t forget, if this baby is born in Texas, they stand the chance of being killed by the hospital under the Futile Care Act. More Republican Culture of Death.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:55 am“I am a woman. Can I participate in the debate then?
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 11:49 am”
And what does that have to do with anything????
It’s WOMEN who are having Abortions, not men……. So your comment is the most rediculouos dribble I have ever come across…..
April 18th, 2007 at 11:55 amPam, since you obviously believe abortion procedures should be illegal, please tell us. Should a woman who is pregnant but can’t handle another pregnancy be forced to carry her pregnancy to term? How does that work? Would you build “pregnancy camps?” Would these camps have fences? Armed guards? Would a woman who contracted an abortion provider for the procedure be subject to criminal santions. Would she go to jail? If she was jailed and had other children, who would take care of them? If a doctor was jailed, would the state make sure people in his/her area had proper medical care.
You’re the one who wants this to be illegal. Could you explain some of the details to us on how this will work in the real world?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:56 amCare to debate that, pam? I’m right here, my lunch hour is near, so I won’t be going anywhere.
The ball is in your court. Let’s go!!!
Comment by DRxJ
You go, DRxJ. Sharon doesn’t deserve that.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:56 amMost of the babies adopted from outside the U.S. are not the perfect “white†baby either.
Comment by Elizabeth
As long as you people leave one child in the US without a home and someone to love and care for them, you are hypocrites. Period.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:56 amTake care of the children now alive and needing a home.
Anything less and your words are hollow and mean nothing,
Oh, and by the way – all you men can tell me what to do with my body when you get pregnant – until then, just shut up.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:57 amA bunch of lying, sad, sorry little sick people ~ not to mention mental midgets.
Comment by pam
Pam, when you get the chance to have a small percentage of Sharon´s humanity and integrity, you could be the greatest person in the world. Do yourself a favor and go pray for all the children that the US administration is killing in Iraq.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:57 amIt is interesting that so many people justify killing babies in late term abortions because terrorists are killing people in Iraq. What is that? Do you think for every baby killed a terrorist will kill one less person? Or is your heart filled with so much hatred, as spewed out by hatemongerers like Howard Dean, that you kill babies in hatred of republican leadership? How does a political party become so hate filled that babies have to die as a result?
If you hate conservatives so much, go after them – don’t kill innocent babies in protest.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:59 amMany couples have to adopt out of the country because there is a shortage of babies up for adoption here.
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 11:19 amâ€
WRONG. There is a shortage of PERFECTLY HEALTHY, white, infants to adopt. There are plenty of mentally or physically disabled, drug related problem white infants and many healthy brown babies available for adoption. And there are tens of thousands healthy and disabled older children in foster care waiting for adoption.
A mother who aborts a healthy white baby late term would be a real idiot since she could no doubt make a deal with a wealthy white family to get her medical expenses and tens of thousands of dollars for that child.
What world to you people live in. Try the real world some time would you.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:00 pmThis vote was all but assured when Alito replaced O’Conner on the Court.
Roe is now only 1 vote away from being declared null and void in its entirety.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:00 pmWe could call it “Baby Mining.†That’s cool.
Comment by Zooey
Better than “Baby Killing”
April 18th, 2007 at 12:00 pmIf this is a “woman’s choice” we should only allow women to kill these babies – outlaw all male abortion doctors.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:01 pmSharon, thank you for showing who the left is. A bunch of lying, sad, sorry little sick people ~ not to mention mental midgets.
Comment by pam
Exactely WHO? voted for dipshit in chief TWICE?
I guess when you are this dumb even Bush looks like a wiseman.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:01 pmSo, when you support bombing Iraqi children, do you consider them also…human??
Comment by Juan C
I do not support the bombing of any children.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:01 pmZooey:
I am not forgetting that women die during childbirth or that older children are harder to place than newborn babies. Keep in mind that RantingTommy was the one who said: If you want to prevent an abortion, ADOPT THE FETUS OR STFU.
RemoveBush:
Please review the posts above ranting about men should not have any saying in this issue. Just checking where you stood on that.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:02 pmOh, and by the way – all you men can tell me what to do with my body when you get pregnant – until then, just shut up.
Comment by powkat
I agree, powkat. But it seems to be mostly women having a problem on this thread. How sick is that?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:02 pmBetter than “Baby Killingâ€
Comment by rabidbunny
They are not babies.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:03 pmSo women will die now because of this decision?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:04 pmComment by slntnsnty — April 18, 2007 @ 11:23 am
So much for that abstinence Bush has them teaching today’s kids huh. Maybe you people should think about teaching today’s kids about prevention instead of abstinence and save yourself a couple million abortions.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:05 pmHey Pammie dear, how about dropping the name calling and addressin my statement’s…Did you vote for heir bush, did he not pay for an abortion.? Isn’t he the Iraq pre entive war starting, war for ever prezident.? Do you know how many men women and children he has had killed by intent and design.? Want an answer over 700,00 that’s 10 times the amount of necessary abortion’s in our country in 10 year’s…Hay and I won’t even call you a name……Blessings
April 18th, 2007 at 12:05 pmGary: “outlaw all male abortion doctors.”
And, so, if a male doctor performs this procedure, what is the charge? Murder? 1st degree? 2nd degree? Manslaughter? How many years does the doctor do in prison for this crime? Does the government owe something to the community from which this doctor is yanked? The community needs healthcare. And, isn’t the woman guilty of accessory to a crime. Should the mother also be jailed?
You conservatives do a lot of blathering about morals, but I rarely hear any specifics on how these new laws and new powers for government would work.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:05 pmI do not support the bombing of any children.
Comment by rabidbunny
Probably not. But you support the causes that produces the bombing of children. Read your comments on past threads.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:07 pmZooey: “They are not babies.”
That’s certainly true if you take Genesis to be the word of god.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:07 pmAbortion rates are higher in red states than blue states. Check the CDC website.
Comment by Bluedog49
Wrong-
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005099.html
If you look at the rates for 1996 in CA-39 NY-37 they are both blue states and these are the highest by far (nobody else is even in the 30s). Now look at the lowest-Wyoming-2 Idaho-4 these are the lowest and they are both red states. Actually if you look at the 10 States that had a rate below 10, 8 of them are red states.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pmWayne and shane:
I actually work in an agency that assists with adoptions in the U.S. and outside the country. We can place ANY legally available baby, mentally or physically disabled, drug related problem, etc. “white” infants and any healthy “brown” babies too. If you know any such babies, please let me know what state they are in, and I will post a link for an agency in that state. I could care less if you think my words are hollow to you.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pmSo women will die now because of this decision?
Comment by AkaDad
Some of them, but all of them wont be able to decide what to do with their bodies.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pmI feel sorry for Pam. She believes the voices she hears are God. She is demented and needs help. She thinks that her thoughts are correct and yours are not. She thinks that her invisible friend is more powerful than yours. Christianity has caused more death than any doctor. I wonder haw many people have died because of our Christian President? Pam, know that Jesus loves you and will smile down on you while you burn for eternity in hell. Christians, like Pam, have nothing to do with Jesus. I feel sorry for Pam.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:09 pmIf this is a “woman’s choice†we should only allow women to kill these babies – outlaw all male abortion doctors.
Comment by Gary
Or outlaw busybodies sticking their nose in other peoples private business.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:09 pmI do not support the bombing of any children.
Comment by rabidbunny
If you voted for bush then you do.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:10 pmPerish the thought. I have 5 children, one of whom has down syndrome. She is the light of my life and I thank my lucky stars every day for her. Actually, I thank God.
I don’t suppose you on the left could even begin to understand it.
Comment by pam — April 18, 2007 @ 11:27 am
This is a PUT ON right, your not REALLY THAT STUPID, are you?
You believe nobody on the left has disabled children.
It is this crazy talk from the RIGHT WING that has divided this country to the point we are today. Until your brain start working why don’t you disengage your mouth and shut the f*ck up.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:10 pmAkaDad:
Statistically, more than half of all induced abortions are of FEMALES.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:11 pmXbot — The current President Bush has named two members of the USSC: that’s actually below the historical average of about 2.5 Justices per President (excluding Washington, who named the entire first Court).
CarolSoprano — 1. And how many died during the Anfal campaign? The Kuwait invasion? The Iran-Iraq War?
2. Some anti-abortion groups, by their singular focus, do give the impression that they don’t care about the babies after birth as much as before, but the *members* of those groups generally support other efforts that reach out to needy women and families (food pantries, clothing closets, benevolence funds, homeless shelters, etc).
3. “No exception for the health of the mother” is NOT the same as none for her life. I’m not aware that any pro-life group would prohibit an abortion to save the LIFE of the mother. Exceptions for the “health” of the mother, while well-intentioned, tend to be stretched so far that any mother can say that her emotional health would be threatened by the stress of raising a child (despite the billions of mothers that have gone before her) and have the child killed.
4. Activist judges strike down laws approved by the people and insert their own morality (or lack thereof) in place of the Constitution. Since this decision upholds a law passed by the people’s representatives, there is no evidence for activism here.
“#3 dult” (comment 15): 1. Some gun control is good, but irresponsible laws take guns from law-abiding citizens, and do nothing to the criminals. Neither I, nor any person in my family, has a gun, but I think anyone who chooses that method of self-defense should have that option. (Oh, and did I mention that gun control is one of the ways the National Socialist Party consolidated its hold on Germany in the 1930’s?)
2. The death penalty honors life by making the penalty for taking one unlawfully so high. Every execution involves all three branches of government: the legislature has to pass the law naming death a possible penalty, the executive has to sign & enforce the law, and the judiciary ensures due process is given to each defendant. In practice, it has not always been done well, but in principle, it is important to tell potential murderers that their intended victims are so important to our society, that we are willing to execute the greatest penalty at our disposal against him/her.
3. The War in Iraq was not planned or executed as well as it should have been, but it was intended to take out a ruthless despot who had used WMD before, in war and against his own people, and who *everyone* believed still had WMD and the intent to use it, (even Bill Clinton came out in Pres Bush’s defense on this point). He also routinely killed hundreds and thousands of perceived enemies, including entire villages, and was supporting terrorism among the Palestinians and worldwide (whether or not he helped al Qaeda).
4. The use of torture is reprehensible and indefensible. The President should have known that it violates the moral code he claims, and strictly enforced a ban. For someone that doesn’t have a Christian worldview, however, what objective basis is there for having any moral code, much less one that views every human being as worthy of respect?
5. Despite the media reports, there is still considerable doubt about the cause of Global Warming. After all, even within the past few centuries, there have been larger temperature swings. And there’s still an amazing amount of guessing involved in figuring out what effects it will have. One of the first effects would be to lengthen the growing season in many marginal agricultural areas of the world. Higher temperatures also lead to more ocean evaporation, which means there’s more moisture in the air to rain on arid regions. So, some effects of Global Warming are life-affirming and very good! (I acknowledge fully that bad effects are likely, too, but you hear enough of that in the media, I don’t need to list any.)
seth — see my point #3 to CarolSoprano above.
PS: If you’re a paid plant, don’t ask for a raise; you won’t get it.
katy — In any abortion, someone dies. How is that “safe”?
Its_Me_Ya_Krazy — The term “Islamo-fascism” is intended to do two things: separate those who make Islam an excuse for barbarism from those who make it a reason for right living, and show what it is that’s so bad about them — their desire for total domination of the lives of their subjects and their aggressively expansionist view of who should be their subjects, (first all Muslims, then all in formerly Islamic lands, then the rest of the world). The idea is to show that not every Muslim is our enemy, and that it is their behavior, not religion or ethnicity, that creates the enmity between us.
RantingTommy — Since your comments violate the Blog Community Rules by being hateful, defamatory, and intentionally harassing towards particular individuals or groups, I hereby respectfully request you withdraw them.
TripMaster Monkey — I’m not quite sure what you mean, here. Christians pushed to abolish slavery and promote civil rights. Many prisons are called reformatories or penitentiaries b/c Christians pushed to improve conditions in prison, to encourage convicts to be penitent, and reform. Many early suffraggettes were Christians. The moral pressure of Christian adults led many young people to grow up respecting their elders and respecting each other, leading to happier and more peaceful homes and communities. The influence of Christians kept thousands of women from having abortions, and both they and their children are eternally grateful.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:13 pmRe#142 RabbidBunny
Why the heck would any woman going thru such a PRIVATE scenario post about it on a PUBLIC website so that I could link to it for you to read about it?
From such a post, I can see “critical thinking” is not your strong suit, so I will point something out just for you.
The Supreme court’s decision now makes that “hypothetical” a “reality” because there is no exemption for the health of the mother!
Before this situation could not occur because the physician and the women could always decide that there was a health risk according to the women’s own unique body, and have the late term abortion.
Now that you understand that this scenario CAN and WILL happen, are you going to plead guilty of murder when any women who wanted an abortion was denied it, and died in childbirth?
Or are you simply going to IGNORE any “critical thinking” question that forces you to come to terms with the FACT that bringing a child to term CAN and DOES kill women and doctors HAVE NOT and WILL NOT be able to predict which woman it will happen to?
Or are you so much of a FASCIST that you believe that YOU and the government have the “right” to make someone go thru with something that can kill them?
I will
April 18th, 2007 at 12:13 pm1. Relax, this isn’t the end of all abortions…
2. Late-term abortions are extremely rare and most pregnancy complications are found early (thank god) since there is no provision for “health of the mother.”
3. This is not sealed in as law forever just because the Supreme Court ruled this law is constitutional. Laws are living and breathing and a slant back to a more liberal government is likely. Bills repealing or modifying this law are possible.
Don’t give up hope!!! Keep fighting the good fight. Even if you oppose late-term abortions, I would sincerely hope you at least acknowledge an exception for the health of the mother should always be provided no matter what.
How to stop abortions forever: Get a vasectomy. I’ve done my part!!
April 18th, 2007 at 12:13 pm“I actually work in an agency that assists with adoptions in the U.S. and outside the country. We can place ANY legally available baby, mentally or physically disabled, drug related problem, etc. “white†infants and any healthy “brown†babies too. If you know any such babies, please let me know what state they are in, and I will post a link for an agency in that state. I could care less if you think my words are hollow to you.
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 12:08 pm”
Perhaps you should work as hard for the CHILD??????
OH…. That’s right!!!! Once they are not concidered a “baby” they are not your concern anymore!!!! They are once again on thier own…..
All of your comments have been about the “baby”….. Not ONCE have you stated the “child”. Gotta love the right….. Once again….. Who cares about the child, they are on thier own!!!! If they can’t take care of themselves, then they deserve to die!!!!
This is the mentality of the right!
April 18th, 2007 at 12:14 pmIf you voted for bush then you do.
Comment by ggibson
There are innocent lives lost with any war, I don’t believe the U.S. targets civilians.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:15 pmIt’s been over a half hour since I issued a challenge to pam, and as of yet have not got a response, so I guess I’ll respond on my own:
April 18th, 2007 at 12:17 pmA bunch of lying, sad, sorry little sick people ~ not to mention mental midgets.
Comment by pam — April 18, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Lying? nope, have no need to, unlike JakeA$$, Captain Kirkoff, daryll, etc., I is who I is.
Sad? Actually, a father of four, happily married, started a new business which has exceeded my expectations! I have never been happier. But I will conceded I’m not happy with this current administration
Sorry? Yeah, sorry that Gore never had the cajones to contest the 2000 election further, so we wouldn’t be in this cluster f*ck mess today
Little? Nope, quite large actually (if ya know what I mean, pam..wink, wink) Maybe you could use some largeness in your life!
Sick? Well yeah, I’ve been fighting a rather wicked head cold, but I am feeling better today
Mental? I deal with patients suffering from psychoses everyday. That was not funny
Midgets? Are you implying short people are inferior? Nice compassion there pam.
Okay, I’m off for a 30 minute walk. Take your time in not replying there, pam!
If you look at the rates for 1996 in CA-39 NY-37 they are both blue states and these are the highest by far (nobody else is even in the 30s). Now look at the lowest-Wyoming-2 Idaho-4 these are the lowest and they are both red states. Actually if you look at the 10 States that had a rate below 10, 8 of them are red states.
Comment by rabidbunny
Duh. Um, bunnypants, why don’t you check the populations of those red states? Wyoming has just over 500,000 people, and Idaho doesn’t even have 2 million. Girls from my little piece of Idaho go to Washington State for their abortions.
Later ya’ll! Must get to my monthly abortion appointment!
April 18th, 2007 at 12:17 pmI could care less if you think my words are hollow to you.
Comment by Elizabeth
As long as one child is left without a home while you are forcing women to have children they cannot care for, you are a hypocrite.
Tell me, how many of the preachers you follow have personally adopted a homeless child, not a newborn?
Save the ones already here and needing help first. Anything less and then, yes, you are a hypocrite.
I do volunteer work for the homeless in my off work time. I see what happens on the street day by day to the people society has thrown away.
I can safely say, Yes, your words ARE Hollow.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:19 pmThe point is that we now have a test to determine whether or not a baby in the womb has down syndrome or some other possible malady. 90% of these children are now aborted!
Comment by pam — April 18, 2007 @ 11:42 am
90% are aborted – bullshit. Show us a link or a report with this data. Or do you just make up shit and think we’ll believe it.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:19 pmWhy the heck would any woman going thru such a PRIVATE scenario post about it on a PUBLIC website so that I could link to it for you to read about it?
Comment by criticalthinker
You don’t think that if it had happened a woman wouldn’t have told her husband, mother, father, friend that she was worried and the doctor ignored her? Don’t you think there would be lawsuits for malpractice, or news exclusives? It hasn’t happened, you are just playing what ifs.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:19 pm“There are innocent lives lost with any war, I don’t believe the U.S. targets civilians.
Comment by rabidbunny — April 18, 2007 @ 12:15 pm”
That’s your problem…….
BELIEF!!!!
You think that shooting people in the back because they are running is NOT targeting civilians???
YES, America does target civilians! Of course America tries to limit the civilian deaths, but in a OCCUPATION like this in Iraq we are going to kill civilians. We do not know who the enemy is, so EVERYONE is the enemy!!!
Sounds like YOU never served……
April 18th, 2007 at 12:20 pmThe forced pregnancy and forced birth movement got a big win today, which is too bad for the poor women unable to procure a medically necessary late term abortion to save their lives and health
Unlike those women of the legislators who approved this sham bill signed into law by a clueless President, women who can afford to save their lives and health if an abortion of this type is medically necessary can travel to locations where the procedure is still allowed, while poor women are being told their lives and health don’t count for anything
The claim that this type of abortion-and it’s called late term abortion, as the description “partial birth abortion” does NOT appear in any reputable medical journals-is never medically necessary is complete BS
But hey, if the GOP wants more nails to pound in it’s coffin come election day 2008, I’m all for it, as abortion has been one issue the GOP has never really wanted to end, it brings in far too much in terms of campaign contributions for other forced-birth & forced pregnancy candidates
The bad part is that the GOP knows that if it riles up enough freedom-loving people about abortion, it’s screwed at the polls
When those in the forced birth & forced pregnancy movement start caring about a life after it’s out of the womb, maybe then they’ll have some credibility on this issue, but if past precedent still holds, the only time so many of those who favor forced birth squawk about life after the womb is in backing the death penalty
That’s why I’ll use the terms “forced birth” and “forced pregnancy”, because if they favor the Death Penalty, then they are NOT “pro life”
And if you friggin’ trolls back W’s Iraq MeatGrinder Crusade, then obviously your off-key caterwauling and whining about “the left’s culture of death” is nothing but rank hypocrisy of the most easily debunked kind
If you friggin’ trolls back the Iraq Occupation, you back killing innocent Iraqis, just like Saddam did when the US backed him for decades, meaning you friggin’ trolls are US versions of Usama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Mullah Omar of the now-thanks to W’s cutting and running from finishing off the Taliban, al-Qaeda, bin Laden to instead invade Iraq-resurgent Taliban
What, the friggin’ trolls don’t REALLY believe their “sanctity of life” blather with real actions, but instead, just pay lip service to their supposed goals?
Geez, there’s a surprise
April 18th, 2007 at 12:20 pmGary – as usual, you totally miss the point – the choice to bear a child belongs to the woman – not to the doctor.
Oh, and if all you misyogonists get your way – women will still have abortions – poor women and young women will do what they did before 1973 – risk their lives to have an abortion. Rich women will do what ehy have always done – travel to other countries or their doctors will perform discreet ‘procedures’ in private clinics. Women have had abortions since they figured out how, and the twisted morality of the self-righteous won’t stop it.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:22 pmAlternate Headlines
Conservative Supreme Court rules women can’t be trusted with medical decisions
Conservative Supreme Court decides that all your wombs belong to us.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:22 pmDuh. Um, bunnypants, why don’t you check the populations of those red states? Wyoming has just over 500,000 people, and Idaho doesn’t even have 2 million. Girls from my little piece of Idaho go to Washington State for their abortions.
Later ya’ll! Must get to my monthly abortion appointment!
Comment by Zooey
I was hoping you would come back with that as you did in a previous thread. This is BASED ON RATE-MEANING PER 1000 PEOPLE-overall population is not relevent. That means Wyoming had 2 abortions for every 1000 people and NY had over 30 for every 1000 people. If you look at the totals abortions in Wyoming (208) and NY (152,991) maybe that will help you understand.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:24 pmRemoveBush:
You skipped right over my post to Zooey at 12:02 pm acknowledging that older children are harder to place than newborn babies.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:25 pmTo Sharon and Shane and others:
Its hard to argue with people who can’t spell (what is “pre entive”?) and who resort to profanity because they don’t really have a cogent argument to make.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:25 pmAre you claiming there is NOT a shortage of babies available for adoption in the U.S.?
Comment by Elizabeth
There is no shortage of CHILDREN available for adoption in this country. That’s what I said.
Comment by Zooey — April 18, 2007 @ 11:47 am
These REICH WING nutjobs are the kind of people who take home puppies and kittens and baby chicks and then when they’re not babies take them back to the pet store.
If somebody wants to be a mother or father they shouldn’t need to have a “baby” that’s just twisted. Hou about your ALLEGED right to lifers giving a life to a child not as “desirable” to show off to your friends at Church on Sunday morning.
Hypocrtes.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:26 pmThat’s your problem…….
BELIEF!!!!
You think that shooting people in the back because they are running is NOT targeting civilians???
YES, America does target civilians! Of course America tries to limit the civilian deaths, but in a OCCUPATION like this in Iraq we are going to kill civilians. We do not know who the enemy is, so EVERYONE is the enemy!!!
Sounds like YOU never served……
Comment by RemoveBush
I have never served, but both of my brothers did (one in combat). There is a certain thing called the rules of engagement that limits who a soldier can shoot. Of course there will be soldiers that don’t follow it, but they are tried in a military courtroom if stuff doesn’t add up.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:27 pmDo any of the anti-choice folks posting here have any stats on how many later-term abortions are actually performed each year and why? Would be interested to know.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:27 pmCenter for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood, co-counsels in this case, holding conf call press conference at 12:30 EST
http://www.reproductiverights.org
–Amanda
April 18th, 2007 at 12:27 pmI am a woman. Can I participate in the debate then?
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Yeah, once you are able to pull your head out of your ass.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:27 pmI see the neo-con Catholic’s on the bench have spoken for the rest of us americans.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:28 pmIts hard to argue with people who can’t spell (what is “pre entive�) and who resort to profanity because they don’t really have a cogent argument to make.
Comment by pam
Ahh the great grammar stance… the last refuge of those with no logical or reasoned standing…
And hearing this from someone on the right that cant distinguish reasoning from faith is really rich…rich indeed.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:28 pmIf somebody wants to be a mother or father they shouldn’t need to have a “baby†that’s just twisted. Hou about your ALLEGED right to lifers giving a life to a child not as “desirable†to show off to your friends at Church on Sunday morning.
Hypocrtes.
Comment by shane
How many children have you adopted?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:28 pmYes!!! win one for the good guys…
children will no longer be mass murdered by the so called compassionate left!!!
it is a blessed day in America……
April 18th, 2007 at 12:30 pm“You skipped right over my post to Zooey at 12:02 pm acknowledging that older children are harder to place than newborn babies.
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 12:25 pm”
Why are they so hard?????
The RIGHT claims that “babies” are so important, your party should be out there doing what you claim is important!!!
Your party should be standing in line trying to adopt these children since they are so important!!!!
I have YET to see such a line for adoption of these children by the very people who are proclaiming victory over this abortion law.
You have NOT addressed this in ONE of your posts……
Why are the RIGHT ignoring these children???? If the RIGHT is the “family value” party, why are you not adopting these children so they can have a “family”?????
April 18th, 2007 at 12:30 pmThere are innocent lives lost with any war, I don’t believe the U.S. targets civilians.
Comment by rabidbunny
Hey, those civilians didnt make a choice to be in a war. What a despicable person you are. So, I guess, it is really bad luck all those Iraqi children stock in a war, right?
And I dont think that US troops aim at civilians, but I think they are pretty uptight, so they end up shooting some innocent, but lets forget about that. When you throw a cluster bomb, for example, it doesnt make the distinction between terrorists and children, it just blows everybody away.
Shame on you. I really wish you never have to suffer what those poor families in Iraq have to endure all day. Take a good look at your children and think about all the dead children that you support with this occupation. Karma is gonna catch up.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:30 pmAnd don’t forget, if this baby is born in Texas, they stand the chance of being killed by the hospital under the Futile Care Act. More Republican Culture of Death.
Comment by ann — April 18, 2007 @ 11:55 am
I didn’t know about this act, but have always considered being in Texas the kiss of death anyway. Probably not fair since GWB isn’t really from Texas. And I adored Ann Richards.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:31 pmThere are innocent lives lost with any war, I don’t believe the U.S. targets civilians.
Comment by rabidbunny
In an illegal war of aggression and then an illegal occupation EVERY death of a civilian is wrong.
Iraq didnt attack America. Therefore we are no more morally correct than were the nazis that invaded and occupied Poland or the USSR invading Afghanistan.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:32 pmHypocrtes.
Comment by shane
That’s the definitive word, Shane.
You and I know what it’s like to have fertility problems. We cherish our children.
I don’t parade my son with autism around showing people what a brave and self-sacrificing mother I am. Ugh.
Later, Shane.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:32 pmNo no no…
Conservative Supreme Court decides that all your womb are belong to us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us
April 18th, 2007 at 12:33 pmJust a quick reminder as to who supports what…
* Abortion Rights?
Liberal Position – Favors
NeoCon Position – Opposes
Islamic Fundamentalist
Position – Opposes
* Mandatory Prayer in School?
Liberal Position – Opposes
NeoCon Position – Favors
Islamic Fundamentalist
Position – Favors
* Separation of Church & State?
Liberal Position – Favors
NeoCon Position – Opposes
Islamic Fundamentalist
Position – Opposes
* Interpretation of
Religious Scripture?
Liberal Position – Not Literal
NeoCon Position – Literal
Islamic Fundamentalist
Position – Literal
* Women’s Rights?
Liberal Position – Favors
NeoCon Position – Opposes
Islamic Fundamentalist
Position – Opposes
* Theory of Evolution?
Liberal Position – Accepts
NeoCon Position – Rejects
Islamic Fundamentalist
Position – Rejects
* Contraceptives?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:33 pmLiberal Position – Favors
NeoCon Position – Opposes
Islamic Fundamentalist
Position – Opposes
re#193 rabidbunny
I repeat – This “hypothetical” scenario did not become a “reality” until this Supreme Court decision, therefore it could not have happened yet!
What part of that can you not comprehend?
So I will ask one more time before I give up, and concede that you OBVIOUSLY do not want to answer the “critical thinking” questions that all anti-abortionists refuse to answer, about the RAMIFICATIONS of this Supreme Court decision.
Are you not guilty of murder when a woman dies in childbirth because YOU and the government prevented thatwoman from having an a late term abortion?
Why should not that ME and that women’s family have YOU and all the other anti-abortionists who support this Supreme Court decision responsible for that woman’s death, brought to trial and convicted and sentenced to death for killing that woman?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:33 pmHey, those civilians didnt make a choice to be in a war. What a despicable person you are. So, I guess, it is really bad luck all those Iraqi children stock in a war, right?
And I dont think that US troops aim at civilians, but I think they are pretty uptight, so they end up shooting some innocent, but lets forget about that. When you throw a cluster bomb, for example, it doesnt make the distinction between terrorists and children, it just blows everybody away.
Shame on you. I really wish you never have to suffer what those poor families in Iraq have to endure all day. Take a good look at your children and think about all the dead children that you support with this occupation. Karma is gonna catch up.
Comment by Juan C
Many innocent lives were lost in WWII, do you think we should not have been in that? Many innocent babies were killed in the Civil War, do you think we should have said well I guess we are just going to have to live with slavery?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:34 pmchildren will no longer be mass murdered by the so called compassionate left!!!
Comment by nully
What no more masturbation? Come on!
April 18th, 2007 at 12:34 pmIts hard to argue with people who can’t spell (what is “pre entive�)
Comment by pam — April 18, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
Yet, she began her posting with this…
perhaps this will someday be known as the begining of the end to the brutal practice of abortion.
Comment by pam — April 18, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Now, how do you spell beginning, again?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:34 pmYou’re right, it’s hard to argue with someone who judges others by their spelling, and yet can’t spell.
It’s also hard to debate someone who won’t debate, eh pam???
Shame on you. I really wish you never have to suffer what those poor families in Iraq have to endure all day. Take a good look at your children and think about all the dead children that you support with this occupation. Karma is gonna catch up.
Comment by Juan C
Kick ass, Juan.
I really better go now! Talk to you later.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:34 pm“I have never served, but both of my brothers did (one in combat). There is a certain thing called the rules of engagement that limits who a soldier can shoot. Of course there will be soldiers that don’t follow it, but they are tried in a military courtroom if stuff doesn’t add up.
Comment by rabidbunny — April 18, 2007 @ 12:27 pm”
I know what the military rules are….. I SERVED!!!!
My point is, that unless you have served you do not know what the military is doing.
By the way!!!! Only those that have a concience about the killings come forward and give testimony about shootings like this….. If the entire bunch are Repubs, then more than likely the “illegal” shooting will not become known as it is well known that they don’t have a concience.
This is my point!!!! After all, the Repubs are all for the killing of INNOCENT civilians just because your BELIEVE there is a threat!!!!
I guess I can just bust down my neighbors door and shoot him because I “believe” he has been stealing from me, or sleeping with my wife?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:35 pmAnd I dont think that US troops aim at civilians
Comment by Juan C
I watched an interview of a Iraq vetern where he said that they shoot people along side the roads and they drive around just to make sure they themselves dont get blown up by a remote detonator… he said many appeared to be just famers or whatever… but they were not taking any chances… thats what this occupation has created.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:36 pmNewt Gringo. You just blew the thread away with that info. Good job. :)
April 18th, 2007 at 12:36 pmchildren will no longer be mass murdered by the so called compassionate left!!!
it is a blessed day in America……
Comment by nully
Abortions are just as legal today as yesterday… but the slaughter of children in Iraq in Americas name continues.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:37 pmIn an illegal war of aggression and then an illegal occupation EVERY death of a civilian is wrong.
Iraq didnt attack America. Therefore we are no more morally correct than were the nazis that invaded and occupied Poland or the USSR invading Afghanistan.
Comment by ggibson
I disagree that it was illegal.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:38 pmTexas Futile Care Act:
“Under the Advance Directives Act, Texas hospitals and physicians have the right to withdraw life support on a patient whom they declare terminally ill, if that patient doesn’t transfer to another facility within 10 days. The 10 day cushion provides a family with a choice about whether life sustaining treatment will continue, as would be the case if the patient is transferred, but the 10-day period is the subject of some criticism by those who believe the time period is too short. If no facility will accept the patient, which can happen with gravely ill patients, the hospital is legally permitted to withdraw life sustaining-treament from the patient, and allow the disease process(es) to bring about patient’s death. This situation can occur (as it did in the Andrea Clark case) even if the patient is fully insured and able to pay for treatment.”
“Furthermore, life support may be withdrawn even if the patient has indicated a desire to continue treatment. In cases where there is a dispute, the decision is made by the hospital’s ethics committee.”
That’s short and sweet from Wiki. Too bad Terri Schiavo wasn’t in Texas, would have solved a lot of arguments.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:38 pmIf you know any such babies, please let me know what state they are in, and I will post a link for an Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
Babies, babies, babies. Here’s a clue Liz, babies are just newly born children. Not that I believe for a moment that you work for an adoption agency other than your own hunt for a newborn.
Have you not heard of the adoption parties they have where children are paraded looking for somebody to love them permanently?
Didn’t think so.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:41 pm#215
Thanks for the correction. That’s what I was trying to say. =]
April 18th, 2007 at 12:42 pmPam dear, it is so much easier for you to slam anything, even my spelling and typing skill’s which are bad, than to answer any debate or question…That’s the way it is with the bible thumping, brain washed reich winger’s such as your self….Blessings
April 18th, 2007 at 12:42 pm“I disagree that it was illegal.
Comment by rabidbunny — April 18, 2007 @ 12:38 pm”
Then I suggest you go and READ what the UN charter says about one country attacking another……
According to the charter it is a CRIME to do this without APPROVAL by the UN!!!! Hence a WAR CRIME!!! Hence ILLEGAL!!!
When Bush tapped the UN members before the invassion, this too was illegal…. So, you just see nothing illegal about this iraq invassion????
April 18th, 2007 at 12:43 pmMany innocent babies were killed in the Civil War, do you think we should have said well I guess we are just going to have to live with slavery?
Comment by rabidbunny
Oh, shut up. I just threw up a little. Im sick of all this “just war” propaganda. Read some Howard Zinn, he was bombing Germany facilities in the IIWW. He thought he was doing a good thing. Until he saw what he was really hitting.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:43 pmI repeat – This “hypothetical†scenario did not become a “reality†until this Supreme Court decision, therefore it could not have happened yet!
What part of that can you not comprehend?
So I will ask one more time before I give up, and concede that you OBVIOUSLY do not want to answer the “critical thinking†questions that all anti-abortionists refuse to answer, about the RAMIFICATIONS of this Supreme Court decision.
Are you not guilty of murder when a woman dies in childbirth because YOU and the government prevented thatwoman from having an a late term abortion?
Why should not that ME and that women’s family have YOU and all the other anti-abortionists who support this Supreme Court decision responsible for that woman’s death, brought to trial and convicted and sentenced to death for killing that woman?
Comment by criticalthinker
It won’t happen can repeat the words critical thinking all you want but it is no more than fantasy land thinking. As for your question about me being charged with muder if she were to die in your fantasy land hypothetical-NO. If people are not charged with murder that have abortions then we can talk. The mother’s life is no more important than that baby’s.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:43 pmoh you hateful left wingers….
it is a win for the children of America who don’t have to worry about being murdered int he womb of a mother.
leave it to liberals to believe that murdering a child seconds before it is 100% out of the mother’s womb is not murder……
April 18th, 2007 at 12:44 pmNewt Gringo ~ I’ll second Juan C’s post, that was pretty awesome! Thumbs Up! ;)
April 18th, 2007 at 12:45 pmI know what the military rules are….. I SERVED!!!!
My point is, that unless you have served you do not know what the military is doing.
By the way!!!! Only those that have a concience about the killings come forward and give testimony about shootings like this….. If the entire bunch are Repubs, then more than likely the “illegal†shooting will not become known as it is well known that they don’t have a concience.
This is my point!!!! After all, the Repubs are all for the killing of INNOCENT civilians just because your BELIEVE there is a threat!!!!
I guess I can just bust down my neighbors door and shoot him because I “believe†he has been stealing from me, or sleeping with my wife?
Comment by RemoveBush
No you cannot shoot your neighbors, because war is much differernt than that of ordinary life. I appreciate your service. Did you ever see combat?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:45 pmSorry? Yeah, sorry that Gore never had the cajones to contest the 2000 election further, so we wouldn’t be in this cluster f*ck mess today
Comment by DRxJ — April 18, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
AMEN. It is the one thing that makes me the most angry too.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:46 pmThen I suggest you go and READ what the UN charter says about one country attacking another……
According to the charter it is a CRIME to do this without APPROVAL by the UN!!!! Hence a WAR CRIME!!! Hence ILLEGAL!!!
When Bush tapped the UN members before the invassion, this too was illegal…. So, you just see nothing illegal about this iraq invassion????
Comment by RemoveBush
No I don’t, the U.N. is a sham.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:47 pmRemoveBush,
1) you never served in the military
2)you might want to read UN resolution 1445 which authorized the attack on Iraq.
stop spewing half-truths about international law so it fits your warped arguments.
furthermore, what is legal is not always moral, or immoral. A nation cannot be bound by international laws if they are not to the country’s best interest. Ask France, Germany, Britain, Seriba, Russia, Israel, China, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, who all have broken internationa law when ever it suite their purposes and it was in their best interest.
leave to the left to only be outraged when they believe the USA broke international law, but they stay quite when other nations do do it.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:47 pmCarolSoprano:
You are mistaken about “This ban doesn’t even have a provision in it to save the life of the mother” as the Court correctly noted:
“These facial attacks should not have been entertained in the first instance. In these circumstances the proper means to consider exceptions is by as-applied challenge. Cf. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm’n, 546 U. S. ___, ___. This is the proper manner to protect the woman’s health if it can be shown that in discrete and well-defined instances a condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used. No as-applied challenge need be brought if the Act’s prohibition threatens a woman’s life, because the Act already contains a ‘life exception.’ 18 U. S. C. §1531(a). Pp. 37-39.”
April 18th, 2007 at 12:48 pmEXCELLENT! I’d love to see that list expanded and put into a nice chart like you see when you look at “product comparisons” on sales literature! That’d be something good to put on a billboard too…
April 18th, 2007 at 12:48 pmI disagree that it was illegal.
Comment by rabidbunny
That doesnt make a difference.
After WWII America defined what was legal and what wasnt… and we defined wars of aggression as illegal because of what Japan and Germany had done.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:48 pmYou conservatives do a lot of blathering about morals, but I rarely hear any specifics on how these new laws and new powers for government would work.
Comment by Bluedog49 — April 18, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Amen
And the reason the “not all-out wingnuts” part of the GOP never talks about how to discourage abortions is that they know the “all-out wingnuts” part of the GOP base’s agenda would doom the party to the electoral wilderness
So, I’ll play Devil’s Advocate here
The rabid, Taliban-loving part of the GOP base supports executing anyone who provides an abortion and any woman who receives one, even if it’s to save their life
Of course, the first time one of these rabid forced-birth scum has a woman they care about get raped, all that opposition to abortion is set aside for their case alone, in all other instances its wrong, just like all those imperial powers W claims he has, as long as it’s only W with those powers, then all is right and well in the Taliban loving GOP wingnut base
If it was us guys who could get pregnant, there’d be no debate or fuss about this issue, we’d get paid counseling, time off from work and a Govt subsidy if we were too poor to afford an abortion otherwise
There’d be no stupid attempts to stop us pregnant males from going through an abortion, especially no “24 hour waiting periods” for those of us who had to travel hours to get to the clinic, only to be told we have to wait another 24 hours
Since the woman carries the fetus, it’s completely her choice regarding abortion, and that means at any time, for any reason
But there’s a very simple solution to this, and it relates to “adopt the fetus”
A poor woman will be provided with full, pre-natal care, with all costs provided by forced-pregnancy/forced-birth advocates, and all expenses of the baby covered until the age of 18, even if the birth mother doesn’t want her child to know or meet it’s anti-choice financier
Women who are against abortion, and are of child-bearing age will offer to have the fetus transferred from the mother considering abortion and transplanted into the anti-choicer’s womb, with the knowledge that if the original, biological mother decides she wants the child after all, she gets it back, even after the surrogate has given birth, and still have all child-related expenses paid for by those of the forced-pregnancy/forced-birth mindset until the child hits 18
Sure, these would be hard principles for the anti-choicers to live by, but we’d sure learn real quick if their wallets matched their rhetoric
Oh yeah, that GOP pandering to the wingnut base really paid off in the Terri Schiavo affair, didn’t it?
Please, please, please, GOP wingnuts, start agitating for an all out abortion ban, that’s the quickest way to ensure that the political massacre the GOP’s already sure to suffer in 2008 will be worse than the political Little Big Horn went through in November, 2006
April 18th, 2007 at 12:49 pmrabidbunny,
it is amazing how the left runs to the UN, but they say nothing about the UN doing nothing in Rwanda, in Darfur, in Serbia, etc, etc, etc……
they believe the UN is the authority of all, but they say nothing when the UN is caught stealing from poor countries, when it is caught making deals with dictators that the left supports, when it is caught lying to teenage girls who have been raped by blue helmets……
the UN Is a sham and only the left wing extremist run to this corrupt, shameful, evil organization to justify their warped world view.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:52 pmAnd those who truly value children would be in favor of 1) universal health care for children, 2) assuring that all children have enough to eat and a safe place to sleep at night, 3) equal educational opportunity, 4) access to higher education for all children. They do this in Europe, which is far more ‘unchurched’ than the US. But in this country the same people who oppose abortion also oppose most of the above as ’socialism.’
Back in the ’60’s an ’70’s I really hoped that we were finally emerging from the Victorian mindset that dominated my childhood. But then the crazies and the (self-) righteous began their push to take over the country. And here we are, once again ignorance and primitive, immature religious beliefs hold sway in the government. I weep for my country. But I don’t give up hope – now we know that the battle for fairness and justice is never won, and that we all must be alert for those who would use their fears to rule.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:52 pmlittle children of the left…
don’t be so upset because the children of America will be safer today then they were yesterday!!
yes, awesome that the Ban has been upheld!!!!! take that you extrem wackos of the left.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:53 pmre#233 rabidbunny
Thank you for illustrating that anti-abortionists are FACISTS who believe that they have the “right” to force a woman to do something that can kill them.
But that is something most readers of this thread knew anyway!
April 18th, 2007 at 12:53 pmIts hard to argue with people who can’t spell (what is “pre entive�) and who resort to profanity because they don’t really have a cogent argument to make.
Comment by pam — April 18, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
Gee pam, doesn’t your god teach you to be tolerant. And a typo which OBVIOUSLY looks like preventive, of course you didn’t state who typed it or where, sends you over the top.
There are many cogent arguments in place that you haven’t addressed yet. So are we to assume it’s easier for you discuss typing than to defend the inane comments you made earlier on this thread?
April 18th, 2007 at 12:54 pmBottom line – reproductive rights of American women are being decided by five guys who believe a ghost can get a woman pregnant.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:55 pmNo I don’t, the U.N. is a sham.
Comment by rabidbunny
America is the one that set it up … sounds like you are a traitor that hates the leaders of America during WWII.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:57 pmComment by shane — April 18, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Shane, pam is gone.
I waited over an hour for her to debate, and she couldn’t
bummer, eh?
Now let’s watch nully derail the thread, without ever providing an inclination to debate.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:58 pmI’ll get the popcorn
From what I could find, maternal health risks make up only 2.8% of total abortions.
And here’s the def. of Partial Birth Abortions:
Hurray for SCOTUS
April 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pmHow many children have you adopted?
Comment by rabidbunny — April 18, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
I’m not a proponent of adoption, you are. I spent ten years and tens of thousands of dollars in infertility to have my daughter. And survived two late term failed pregnancies to do so.
I never believed that some woman should be forced to have a baby so it would be easier for me to adopt a baby. That’s the way you right wing neocons think. It’s all about you, you, you, what’s in it for you.
You were the one who brought up the supposed shortage of babies for adoption and I said people who wanted to me parents should be happy to adopt older children. And there is a group happy to adopt older children, gay couples, and you neocons aren’t happy with that solution either.
But tell us again why you love fetuses and newborns and hate children so much.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:01 pmFirst we have this:
RemoveBush,
2)you might want to read UN resolution 1445 which authorized the attack on Iraq.
Comment by nully
Then we have this:
the UN Is a sham and only the left wing extremist run to this corrupt, shameful, evil organization to justify their warped world view.
Comment by nully
So, Einstein, which one is?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:02 pm“No I don’t, the U.N. is a sham.
Comment by rabidbunny — April 18, 2007 @ 12:47 pm”
Whether YOU consider it a “sham” or not, it IS PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION!!!!
Whenever we sign onto anything like a “treaty” or “charter” it becomes the LAW OF THE LAND!!!!!
So YOU consider our LAWS a sham???
April 18th, 2007 at 1:03 pmHey, rabid, if the UN is “illegal”-whatever the Hell that means-then why did W use the UN as cover to do what his own father wasn’t stupid enough to attempt, remove Saddam Hussein from power?
And really, why would anyone with “bunny” in their online id presume to lecture about the virtues of chastity and rail against abortion?
Go gnaw on a carrot, eat a leaf or something, and come back when you’re ready to start making sense
And
Comment by Newt Gringo — April 18, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
EXCELLENT post, it’s astounding how much the wingnut GOP base wants a Taliban style theocracy here, seeing as how both the GOP wingnuts and Taliban have many of the same targets and beliefs, yet it’s us libs who support the terrorists for the same beliefs we hate the rabid rightwingers for
Oh well, that’s the Neocons and Taliban-loving GOP wingnut base for ya, always building bridges to a better yesterday
April 18th, 2007 at 1:04 pm“No you cannot shoot your neighbors, because war is much differernt than that of ordinary life. I appreciate your service. Did you ever see combat?
Comment by rabidbunny — April 18, 2007 @ 12:45 pm”
Please provide the DECLARATION OF WAR by Congress…..
No, but my unit was activated to go in the 1st Gulf conflit!
April 18th, 2007 at 1:04 pmI’ve always felt women should be *forced* to have a baby in order to not *kill* that baby.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:05 pmWe don’t let death row inmates adopt older children either.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:05 pmThanks, but I can’t take all the credit for the info at #216 – it came from an email I received a few years back. It had many more comparisons. I’ll post the whole thing someday on a different thread.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:06 pmNo doctor in their right mind would ever terminate a preganancy this late in a pregnancy unless there was an absolute medical necessity to do so. Isn’t it refreshing to know that the Supreme Court can now determine your medical needs.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:06 pmDale, your wife falls a lot from the stairs, right?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:08 pm“1) you never served in the military
2)you might want to read UN resolution 1445 which authorized the attack on Iraq.
Comment by nully — April 18, 2007 @ 12:47 pm”
1) US Army 1988-1991
Basic: Ft. Jackson
AIT: Ft. Gordon
1st duty station: Korea
Last duty station: Ft. Drum, NY 10th Mountain.
35L 1st year, then the military changed it to 68L
2) Your resolution is DEALING WITH CONGO!!!!
“Recalling its previous resolutions and statements by its President regarding the Democratic Republic of the Congo,”
NIMROD!!!
April 18th, 2007 at 1:10 pm“Furthermore, life support may be withdrawn even if the patient has indicated a desire to continue treatment. In cases where there is a dispute, the decision is made by the hospital’s ethics committee.â€
Comment by ann — April 18, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Oh my goodness, ten days is a very short time. Hopefully we don’t send any soldiers with head injuries from Iraq to Texas.
But why fuzzy up our pretty little heads over this issue. Because somewhere a 20 week fetus is safer and those people on life support in Texas, well their families have 10 days to get over it.
Thanks for the info Ann. Bet there isn’t a neocon here that will address this issue.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:13 pm#261, ah Juan, my friend… can’t come up with a valid reply, so resorting to the Ad hominem yet again, huh?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:13 pmrabidbunny,
it is amazing how the left runs to the UN, but they say nothing about the UN doing nothing in Rwanda, in Darfur, in Serbia, etc, etc, etc……
they believe the UN is the authority of all, but they say nothing when the UN is caught stealing from poor countries, when it is caught making deals with dictators that the left supports, when it is caught lying to teenage girls who have been raped by blue helmets……
the UN Is a sham and only the left wing extremist run to this corrupt, shameful, evil organization to justify their warped world view.
Comment by nully.
Exactly!
April 18th, 2007 at 1:14 pmre#233 rabidbunny
Thank you for illustrating that anti-abortionists are FACISTS who believe that they have the “right†to force a woman to do something that can kill them.
But that is something most readers of this thread knew anyway!
Comment by criticalthinker
And I think it is FACISM to kill babies for convenience.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:15 pmWhether YOU consider it a “sham†or not, it IS PART OF OUR CONSTITUTION!!!!
Comment by RemoveBush
Which article of the constitution?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:16 pmcan’t come up with a valid reply, so resorting to the Ad hominem yet again, huh?
Comment by Dale
So your comment was valid…in which sense?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:16 pmBlessings
Comment by Sharon — April 18, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
Ooooh Sharon, I’m oh so sad, feel so bad, cause Pam doesn’t like our spelling.
But she better think quicker, cause were not going to bicker, with somebody who confuses Rove with god.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:17 pmBluedog-
Any comment on my link that shows blue states have higher abortion rates?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:17 pm#265 (nully/rabidbunny), you forgot the biggie… Food for Oil :-)
April 18th, 2007 at 1:17 pm#268… which comment are you talking about?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:18 pm#267, rabidbunny, I had this argument with RemoveBush before… he seems to feel that once the gov’t signs any document, that doc becomes part of the Constitution.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:19 pmNo I don’t, the U.N. is a sham.
Comment by rabidbunny — April 18, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Oh, here is the important link in the REPUBLICAN CIRCLE JERK that has us where we are today.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:20 pm#267, rabidbunny, I had this argument with RemoveBush before… he seems to feel that once the gov’t signs any document, that doc becomes part of the Constitution.
Comment by Dale —
Good to know.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:23 pmKing Cranky – I think I love you.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:23 pmLook, guys, as Justice Ginsburg points out: “The law saves not a single fetus from destruction, for it targets only one method of performing abortion.” There are plenty of other ways for women to kill their unborn children. No harm, no foul.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:24 pmAnd I think it is FACISM to kill babies for convenience.
Comment by rabidbunny
You really need to think better your answers otherwise your comments are as irrelevant as any other troll. Killing people for whatever reason has nothing to do with a political system ever. Nazis did it, Sumerians did it, Romans did it, Communists did it, and Democratic countries did it. While we are at it, Tim McVeigh bombed a building where there was a school and he lived in the US.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:28 pmI’ll get the popcorn
Comment by DRxJ — April 18, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
No worries, every time you pluck one troll, two appear in its place.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:28 pmYou really need to think better your answers otherwise your comments are as irrelevant as any other troll. Killing people for whatever reason has nothing to do with a political system ever. Nazis did it, Sumerians did it, Romans did it, Communists did it, and Democratic countries did it. While we are at it, Tim McVeigh bombed a building where there was a school and he lived in the US.
Comment by Juan C
Interesting that you didn’t make that comment to critical thinker about possibly killing the mother.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:32 pmComment by Dale — April 18, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
I’ve always felt your mother should not be *forced* to have a baby in order to not *have* that baby become a blithering idiot like Dale.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:33 pmIs there any doubt that, for some women at least, they have come to regret their abortion(s), and consequently suffer from depression and loss of esteem? Even Ginsburg (the last remaining female Justice) admits: “The Court is surely correct that, for most women, abortion is a painfully difficult decision.” She simply thinks abortion is not as dangerous to the mother’s long-term mental health than delivering and parenting a child that she did not intend to have. That’s where ADOPTIONS come in :)
April 18th, 2007 at 1:35 pm“Which article of the constitution?
Comment by rabidbunny — April 18, 2007 @ 1:16 pm”
Since you have a READING problem…..
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
Article. VI. – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:35 pmI see Rabid refuses to explain why W was right to use the UN to go after Saddam Hussein, even though, in Rabid’s own words, the “UN is illegal” while W’s bombing of Iraq “isn’t illegal”
C’mon rabid, show some spine, logic, and ethics, I know those qualities are virtual impossibilities with the rapidly dwindling number of starry-eyed True W believers, but pretend like you actually have ethics and working mind to make your case and answer the conundrum posed
April 18th, 2007 at 1:38 pmWhich article of the constitution?
Comment by rabidbunny
Article Six of the United States Constitution
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This applies directly to the interaction with foreign affairs.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:39 pmHere is the DEFINITION of “treaty” for you, since you lack the ability to know what it means…..
“A treaty is a binding agreement under international law concluded by subjects of international law, namely states and international organizations. Treaties can be called by many names: treaties, international agreements, protocols, covenants, conventions, exchanges of letters, exchanges of notes, etc.; however all of these are equally treaties, and the rules are the same regardless of what the treaty is called. “
April 18th, 2007 at 1:39 pmTo Hardy Haberman: (Comment #5)
Why does the media insist on using the pro-death term “Abortion Rights?†The procedure is the legalized murder of our own brothers and sisters–what about the rights of the child, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Using emotionally charged words like “Abortion Rights” plays right into the hands of the abortion advocates. What is next, Murderer Rights? Pedophile Rights? It makes me sick.
The idea of “if it feels good, do it” is destroying our country, in which no one wants to take responsibility for their actions. Parents using the mantra “It’s my body” are trying to escape responsibility for their actions by commiting muder.
Today the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional “Right” of every human being to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, regardless of the selfishness of his or her parents, and I applaud them for validating 200 years of American tradition.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:41 pmyou know, liberals love to throw the nazi insult at right wingers…..but hmmm…..
just like the nazis dehumanized the Jews, and anyone they chose to exterminate, liberals have dehumanizes babies in the womb of a mother to justify their murder.
think about that liberals, you all claim that a baby in the womb of a mother is not a human being, thus you can get rid of it. Much like the Nazis claimed that jews were not human or much like slave owners justified owning slaves by saying that they were not human.
I wonder who are truly the nazi-like pigs…yes the left wingers.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:41 pmRabid’s own words, the “UN is illegalâ€
I said sham not illegal.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:42 pmA question for the moralists of the Right, who seem so incenced over partial birth abortions. Is it more humane to deliver a fetus with a grave deformity, and watch as it expires before their eyes, or use this procedure? Your answers so far have highlighted the inhumanity of this procedure – do you advocate delivery of these feti, whose deformities are so enormous, no doctor will give them any chance of survival? Where is the humanity in allowing these babies to suffer (sometimes for hours) until they expire? Or do you advocate euthenasia for these post-natal unfortunates, to ease their suffering? Consider your answers carefully, as there will be a follow-up.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:46 pmKingCranky,
Bush went to the UN because the Dumbcrats and left wingers like you were whining about the USA needing USA permission to go into Iraq, even though the Dumbcrats and left wingers like you never made the same demand from Clinton when he, along with NATO attacked Serbia.
let us not forget that the UN clearly stated that it was illegal for any nation to attack Serbia despite the clear violation of human rights that were happening there, yet Clinton attacked Serbia with NATO…..
did NATO and Clinton violate internationa law?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:47 pmthis is a great win for humanity and children…..
incredible that the left who claims to be for both are so outraged by the Supreme Cour decision…..
the fact is that the left cares more for its selfish causes than they do about human rights and saving lives…
they are all over this board crying about the Iraq War and that it kills children, but they have no problem stabbing a child in the back of the kneck sucking out its brain and they say it is ok because the baby had part of its body inside the womb of the mother……do you guys not see what a bunch of monsters you liberals that support partial birth abortion are?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pmComment by nully
Care to answer my question?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:52 pmthe fact is that the left cares more for its selfish causes than they do about human rights and saving lives… Comment by nully — April 18, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
This won’t save lives, it will cost them – which is why previous supreme courts struck down the law. It will force doctors to use less safe procedures, and women will die because of your fanaticism. You’re a liar, a hypocrite, and a fool.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:54 pmthey are all over this board crying about the Iraq War and that it kills children, but they have no problem stabbing a child in the back of the kneck sucking out its brain and they say it is ok because the baby had part of its body inside the womb of the mother……do you guys not see what a bunch of monsters you liberals that support partial birth abortion are? Comment by nully — April 18, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
Reverse what you just said. You cry over a fetus, but don’t care that children are shot, bombed and killed.
You’re a sicko hypocrite.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:56 pmB.Fly,
you are taking about the exceptions….the fact is that murder children activist want the ability to kill any and all children regardless of deformity or not. They want a “mother” to have the right to kill her child whether it is healthy baby or not.
just like the whole rape and incest argument you are speaking of a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, i mean tiny minority that are born deformed.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:56 pmUPDATE IV: The nation’s leading group of professionals providing health care for women, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, opposed this law because the banned procedure is often the best option for women:
The intact variant of D&E offers significant safety advantages over the non-intact method, including a reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection. These safety advantages are widely recognized by experts in the field of women’s health, authoritative medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, and the nation’s leading medical schools.
Yeah, but who are they? They ain’t effin’ Congress, and Congress, like Daddy, knows best about all things medical … like marijuana … and like Terry Schiavo … oh, waiddaminnit, nevermind….
Cheers,
April 18th, 2007 at 1:57 pmRemoveBush,
Now can you post the treaty that we signed saying that we would not go to war with any country without the U.N.s approval?
April 18th, 2007 at 1:57 pmB.Fly,
I did already….
now you answer mine…
why do you guys, the left wingers, just like Hitler dehumanize those that you want to kill? why do you justify the murdering of babies by claiming they are not babies?
and why just like Hitler are you playing God? Hitler also wanted the perfect race, people born with no deformities were the ones to be helped and raised to the highest rank in Nazi Germany, while those that were deformed, gay, dark, etc were to be stepped on. You sound just like the SS and all those that justify the murdering of Jews just because they are Jews.
you may want to think about your argument since it is a slippery slope argument. Who is to decide who lives and dies? you? and yes I am against the death penalty. I say this last thing because I know all of your left wing tactics.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pmyou are taking about the exceptions….
What are you talking about? Be more specific.
You haven’t answered the question yet. I’m still waiting.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:59 pmrabidbunny,
you know you are not going to get an answer. RemoveBush is an anti-Bush cult member and his rants are just fun to read, very sad, but fun to read.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:00 pmSo today it was ruled that, if a fetus has the kind of malformation in which the skull has expanded to two or three times its normal size and there is little or no brain tissue inside, only water — so there’s no chance of viability –, the woman has no right to have the fetus extracted in the safest manner possible. I hope that people like Patrick above, who are cheering “a blow to the left’s culture of death,” understand that it’s in that kind of medical circumstance that this kind of abortion was performed. The Supreme Court has just voted that it’s perfectly legal to require that the woman in that situation die, torn apart by the effort to give birth to a fetus that has no chance to live, or to require that the fetus be removed by other techniques that will involve far more risk to the mother. I don’t see how anyone can say that this is a good day for those who value life.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:01 pmValiant,
wow, you sound just like a Nazi, like a Communist under Stalin who had no problem killing millions of Jews because they were going to cause greater problems to the mother land than any good they were going to bring.
good little nazi you are…..
April 18th, 2007 at 2:01 pm“did NATO and Clinton violate internationa law?
Comment by nully — April 18, 2007 @ 1:47 pm”
If they did NOT get approval by the UN, then YES!
Isn’t it simple???? If you do something that is against the law, then it is ILLEGAL!!!!
That’s like asking if it’s illegal for one man to rob a bank, but he does not show any weapons, but another brandishes a gun and only this crime is declared as against the law…..
If someone does something against the law, its a crime!! PERIOD!
April 18th, 2007 at 2:02 pmjust like the whole rape and incest argument you are speaking of a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, i mean tiny minority that are born deformed.
Comment by nully
Can you post a reputable link that supports this? Regardless, what is your answer for the few that are born this way? What did Jesus say about “what you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me?” Do you say that because they number so few, they should be allowed to expire in inhuman suffering? Or do you advocate euthenasia?
April 18th, 2007 at 2:03 pmB.Fly,
sorry questioned answered, not my fault that you are too slow to know when your questions have been answered. YOu play a very old left wing, communist tactic, pretend your questions were not answer and repeat your same old argument so you don’t have to answer anyone elses questions.
sorry my little nazi friend, your turn to answer my questions or just get out of my way with your fanatism to kill children.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:03 pm“Believing” in abortion. “Believing” in science. “Believing” in global warming. Such googoogajoob gobbledegook!
To the people who are arrogant enough to “believe” that their great big invisible daddy in the sky is watching their every move, ostensibly so that he can torture them for eternity if they show enough independence of thought to even question his existence, everything comes down to “belief.”
But science has nothing to do with “belief.” Medicine has nothing to do with “belief.” It’s not a matter of investing faith in the intangible. Nor does it remotely resemble living in a bubble. Science and medicine are things we “do.” Things we “practice.” They are methodologies, not an object of faith.
Y’know, it used to be illegal to use contraceptives, even if you were married. I suppose some won’t be satisfied until we’re back to the Middle Ages, when churches encouraged reproduction because it improved the chances of their army annihilating the army of the religion next door. Oh yeah, that fits perfectly into the world view of the Armageddonist End Timer who believes Dumbya was put there by the hand of God Hisself Hallelujah to smite the heathens who haven’t accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior, just for being on our God-given oil.
Let me invite you to never have a D&E, even if your fetus has no chance of viability and threatens your life, and particularly if you’re a male trying to reassert your medieval patricarchal world view. And may I suggest that you not avail of any cures that come from stem cells from blastocysts that would have been otherwise discarded.
You have the audacity to speak about a medical procedure as a culture of death, that’s how unbelivably self-righteous and arrogant you are. It’d be comical if not so pathetic.
The only culture of death is going on in Iraq. The only death tax being levied is on the families of our brave fallen military. Oh, and oh boy, let’s not do anything about the proliferation of firearms — can’t piss off the gun lobby. Not to mention the tens of thousands who die every year from the lack of medical care.
The worshippers at Dumbya’s Church of Death and Destruction are the 30% who, poll after poll, support this war criminal in the White House no matter how many he leavs dead in his wake. Pat yourselves on the back for your stunning victory in denying women a life-saving medical procedure, a decision that is unquestionably on the side of death. But you’re all used to that — you’ve built your pathetic lives around death.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:04 pm” … stabbing a child in the back of the kneck [ sic ] sucking out its brain and they say it is ok because the baby … ”
Comment by nully
Was the mother able to claim it as a dependent on Form 1040?
Then it’s not a child.
Nor is it a baby.
It’s a fetus.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:04 pm“Now can you post the treaty that we signed saying that we would not go to war with any country without the U.N.s approval?
Comment by rabidbunny — April 18, 2007 @ 1:57 pm”
Go and look up the damn charter youself……
I’m not going to do YOUR homework for you because youre to damn lazy!!!!
The charter states (paraphrasing) that NO country may invade another without explicit authorization by a unanimous approval of the UN.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:05 pmwhy do you guys, the left wingers, just like Hitler dehumanize those that you want to kill? Nully
But Nully, by your stating that there are so few deformed births which would require this method, aren’t you in fact dehumanizing those poor unfortunates born with grave deformities? It sounds like a double standard.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:06 pmthis is incredible, the liberals cry about Bush using fear to push and justify the Iraq War….but look at all of them here, look at B.Fly and everyone else that justifies this horrific act of murder, using fear to get people to agree with them….hahahahaha!!! how freaking ironic…
the left cries about the right using fear and look at them using fear…
B.Fly your posts are a great example of it……how about if the child is going to be deformed? oh no, what shall we do….fear child deformity, fear, fear, fear….
do you people not see what a bunch of hypocrites you are? no better than the idiots who claim to be pro-life yet they kill doctors that perform abortions.
you fanatic lunatics.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:06 pmToday is a victory for those who want to treat women as second-class citizens.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:08 pmNewt Gringo,
yes my little nazi lunatic, just like those that supported Hitler and carried out his orders, you have dehumanize babies in the womb of the mother to justify their murder.
so tell me, babies were only babies when the government started using 1040 forms for families to claim their dependents?
so i guess anyone before income tax forms were not humnan, eh?
do you not see how stupid your argument is? do you not see how idiotic, moronic and pathetic and how you are no different than a nazi that justified the murder of a Jew because the Law said that Jews were not human?
April 18th, 2007 at 2:09 pmComment by nully
You called me a nazi, and your friend; I am not a nazi. you’ll have to look elsewhere for friends.
If you will notice, I haven’t called you anything but your handle. Let’s try and be civil, eh?
And If you answered my question, I missed it. Please repost your answer.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:10 pmlike a Communist under Stalin who had no problem killing millions of Jews
Comment by silly nully — April 18, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
I’m sorry……what????
April 18th, 2007 at 2:10 pmNully, is calling names all you can do?
April 18th, 2007 at 2:11 pmYOu play a very old left wing, communist tactic…
sorry my little nazi friend…
Comment by nully
Wow, talk about a lack of vocabulary…
April 18th, 2007 at 2:11 pmreally, who can take this idiot seriously?
“Now can you post the treaty that we signed saying that we would not go to war with any country without the U.N.s approval?
Comment by rabidbunny — April 18, 2007 @ 1:57 pm”
Against my better judgement….. Here is just ONE of the articles that state this…..
There are MANY articles that stipulate similar, so read them….. Since we are SIGNATORS to the Charter, it is our LAW OF THE LAND!!!!
Now go read and learn!!!!
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:15 pmI think it’s pretty obvious by Nully’s constant avoidance, the Right really has no answers on this issue- other than to defy their christian teachings to further their political beliefs. So sad …
April 18th, 2007 at 2:15 pmOn the contrary, nuttsy, it is you who want to de-humanize women by forcing them to give birth against their will.
Do you also force women to have intercourse against their will?
April 18th, 2007 at 2:16 pmCharter of the UN
Nowhere in there does it say that the member nations, signatories to the UN Charter, are bound BY LAW to UN regulations/edicts/etc. If that were the case, the UN would be able to dictate law for EVERYTHING.
And think about this:
If the UN was able to dictate laws to member nations, then why would they apply the laws of member states?
ggibson, RemoveBush, the US is *not* bound by law to follow the rules and regulations of the U.N. If you feel otherwise, please show me an opinion written by a Constitutional Law scholar that coincides with your position. Otherwise, you’re just embarrassing yourselves.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:18 pmRemoveBush, basically you’re applying a laymen understanding of the law to the Constitution.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:19 pmMy bad about using “sham” instead of “illegal” regarding Rabid’s UN bashing, but you still haven’t answered my previous point
But at least give me a heads up if I should time such a response with a calendar instead of a stop watch
Thankfully for Rabid, blithering idiocy and stunning hypocrisy isn’t a market it’s cornered, not with the other trolls spewing their willful ignorance here today, which brings us to……
Poor nully
Trying to maintain ethical and logical consistency in slamming the UN except when W needs it’s cover
I feel for ya, you lunatic neocons have SUCH a problem with logic, rationality, ethics, that trying to somehow spin the UN as a positive while blasting it otherwise is indeed enough to make a neocon’s empty head spin
But hey, Lil’ trooper, it’s alright to cry, really it is, and even though I’m not a Dem, like Clinton, I’ll be happy to “feel your pain”
Try again when you have some sense to actually make, preferably the “sense” that comes from dealing with the real world, and not the fantasy driven Bizarro world you W lovers inhibit
Then, yet another entry proving why it’s not a good idea to go unarmed into a battle of wits
#
To Hardy Haberman: (Comment #5)
Why does the media insist on using the pro-death term “Abortion Rights?†The procedure is the legalized murder of our own brothers and sisters–what about the rights of the child, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Using emotionally charged words like “Abortion Rights†plays right into the hands of the abortion advocates. What is next, Murderer Rights? Pedophile Rights? It makes me sick.
The idea of “if it feels good, do it†is destroying our country, in which no one wants to take responsibility for their actions.
Comment by Michael Lahey — April 18, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
First off, when W actually takes responsibility for his clearly incompetent leadership and actually punishes himself for it, THEN that last quote of yours won’t completely accurate otherwise
You want terminology, accurate terminology, then here ya go, as anyone who supports this decision today is properly described as “forced breeders/forced pregnancy/forced birth”
Tell you what sport, when you let the Supreme Court tell you what you can and can’t do with your body and genitals, THEN your rant will have some ethical and logical consistency, but if you’re NOT willing to let others make those decisions for you, then you’re nothing but a hypocrite, pure and simple, end of story
And powkat, thanks for the compliment, where’s the blushing icon/smiley when it’s needed
April 18th, 2007 at 2:21 pm3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Thanks, just what I thought. No specifics, thus not against the law to invade a country. If #4 is followed we would never have a war in the world again. Nice try.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:24 pmMy bad about using “sham†instead of “illegal†regarding Rabid’s UN bashing, but you still haven’t answered my previous point
But at least give me a heads up if I should time such a response with a calendar instead of a stop watch
Thankfully for Rabid, blithering idiocy and stunning hypocrisy isn’t a market it’s cornered, not with the other trolls spewing their willful ignorance here today, which brings us to……
KingCranky
I don’t even remember what you asked. As for responding quickly, sitting here is not the only thing I do. Maybe you should go out and get some sun.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:28 pmit still cost up to 20,000 dollars to adopt ONE non distressed child. Anyone who tells you that it’s easy is lying and has NOT gone through “the process” with any reputable firm
The attorneys fees alone are back breaking, the conservative cult could care less about making this process easier
April 18th, 2007 at 2:33 pmWhat in the hell is “partial birth”? Is it like partial virginity? Such convoluted terminology.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:42 pm“RemoveBush, the US is *not* bound by law to follow the rules and regulations of the U.N. If you feel otherwise, please show me an opinion written by a Constitutional Law scholar that coincides with your position. Otherwise, you’re just embarrassing yourselves.
Comment by Dale — April 18, 2007 @ 2:18 pm”
WRONG!!!!!
By OUR CONSTITUTION, the charter of the UN becomes our “Supreme law of the land”!
Learn to read!!!! Since we are a signator to this charter, we are BOUND by it!!!!
Your rediculous claim about being able to tell us what to do is just that!!!! (REDICULOUS).
It means that WE MUST obide by the charter articles……
Go to school and learn how to use that big watermelon on top of your shoulders!
April 18th, 2007 at 2:49 pm“RemoveBush, basically you’re applying a laymen understanding of the law to the Constitution.
Comment by Dale — April 18, 2007 @ 2:19 pm”
Wrong AGAIN!!!!
It CLEARLY STATES…..
“all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ”
There is no “laymens” interpretation there!!!! It’s in BLACK AND WHITE!
April 18th, 2007 at 2:51 pmTripMaster Monkey — Roe v. Wade allowed about a million babies a year to have someone else’s morality forced on them, fatally.
Bonnie — Over 99% of those dead Iraqis are being killed by the USA’s enemies. The people doing the killing are the ones we’re trying to stop. If we were to go away, what restraint would be left?
bob — Get a grip. One of the government’s most sacred duties is to prevent people from taking “care of one’s issues” by killing someone. Now, you may not agree that a baby is deserving of protection before birth. Fine, but do you think something magical occurs at birth? When does a baby become a person worthy of the protection of the state? When his head comes out? Her shoulders? The hips? The toes? At age six months? Two years? Eighteen years? Or let’s go backwards: at “viability”? By what standard? How much medical intervention can be necessary before it’s “not viable”? And are YOU going to tell the parents that the baby in the incubator, covered in life-sustaining equipment, that their baby is “not viable”, and not worthy of protection? The only logical point to begin protecting someone’s right to life is at conception.
ggibson, Amy — see comment to TripMaster Monkey above.
bob (not the hacker) — Impeachment is the same for executive and judicial officials: The House must pass a bill of impeachment. Traditionally, however, such bills are not sought merely b/c one disagrees with the official’s decisions.
Amy (comment #57): Stem cell research does indeed hold great promise. Embryonic stem cells, however, while *in theory* more promising, have in fact been less effective & safe than stem cells from other sources, (umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, fat deposits, etc). Literally dozens of treatments from “adult” stem cells are in use or promising stages of research; a handful of speculative research projects on treatments using embryonic stem cells are being run.
Juan Kerr — I disagree with your goals, but I applaud your republican (small ‘r’) philosophy. Bravo!
pam — Now, now, let’s not get carried away.
Zooey — Are you a doctor? No? I didn’t think so. Stand up for what’s right — don’t censor those who disagree.
shane — According to an AP report, the VT killer left a note, in which he “also expressed disappointment in his own religion, and made several references to Christianity.” That tells me he was no Christian at all, and certainly not a fundamentalist.
RantingTommy — 1. There are thousands of families on adoption waiting lists.
2. And on what basis do you say that “it’s not a baby”? Yes it is a fetus: and after it’s born, it’s an infant, then a toddler, then a preschooler, etc. Saying “it’s a fetus” does nothing to diminish the force of the argument that a baby deserves protection. What kind of fetus is it? It’s a human fetus. Humans have rights; starting with the right to life.
ggibson — Yes, it’s horrible what we do with the Iraqi children after the death squads pass: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123031670&page=2
hellinabucket — 1. Again, it’s the Islamic terrorists killing hundreds in Iraq; the US is trying to stop them.
2. I dare you to see how many Christian and Jewish groups are on this list of groups pushing for action in Darfur: http://www.savedarfur.org/pages/organizational_members
athena — that is so warped, I don’t know if you could understand the truth if I told you. But I will, anyway. Pro-life groups stand up for the unborn b/c no one else does. If you go to a Crisis Pregnancy Center, you will find caring workers who love you AND your baby. If you go to an abortion clinic, you will find “professionals” who can throw away a baby’s body parts without a flinch. A true Christian knows that no one is innocent; we all need love, support, and forgiveness.
ggibson — 1. The nuclear bomb was made by scientists, but the laws of physics that make it possible were made by God.
Moral relativism was made by philosophers, and is held by faith, just as much as any other religious belief, but without evidence.
2. You are correct that a belief in souls pretty much presupposes belief in God. But since God is a logically necessary being, your argument holds little force.
Caren — 1. Can you document even ONE instance of any pro-life group arguing that pregnancy is without risk?
2. In the banned procedure, most of the baby is “extracted” before he or she is killed. What safety would be sacrificed by not killing the baby, but completing the birth?
Zooey (comment #123) — Abortion is almost 100% fatal for children. Pregnancy to term, followed by vaginal or C-section birth, has almost 100% survival rate. Do you really need references for that?
RemoveBush (comment #121) — What?!?!?
ggibson — Most children up for adoption were not available for adoption when they were babies. They are children who were taken from abusive or neglectful parents, and are often very difficult to deal with, especially for couples who have not already raised children. It takes a great deal of love & patience to deal with them, and those parents deserve a great deal of respect and admiration for taking on such a task.
RemoveBush (comment #127) — Uh, no. Babies given up for adoption in this country are placed in a home IMMEDIATELY.
Crump’s Brother — What makes you think they hate any kid?
criticalthinker — All the Supreme Court Justices, men or women, were affected by an abortion decision: their mothers all decided not to get one.
Sharon — Your body is your body, but the baby is a different person, with different DNA. If the baby is part of the mother’s body, then does that mean that any woman pregnant with a boy has a penis?
Zooey (comment #142): So why not abort all babies, for the extra 1% (or whatever) chance that the woman will survive. Of course there is a small risk to the mother in continuing the pregnancy, just as there is a small risk to the mother in having an abortion. For the baby, there is a small risk in continuing the pregnancy, and a HUGE risk in going to the abortion clinic. Call me crazy, but I don’t think the very small difference between one small risk and another for the mother justifies the nearly-certain death of the baby.
(comment #150) Babies as a commodity — I’m not surprised you would think that way. That is exactly the attitude abortionists and slavers promote. A human being is not a person deserving of respect, but a commodity, to be killed, bought, sold, whatever you like — it’s yours after all. Thank you for providing the opportunity for me to make that point.
Juan C. — Insurgents are killing Iraqi babies, Americans are saving them. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Bluedog49 — Your comments make little sense. Do you think women and doctors don’t commit crimes today, and go to jail? You act like we’ve never encountered that sort of thing.
DallasNE — Only two Justices signed the opinion which stated that Roe v. Wade is without Constitutional foundation.
Bluedog49 — You need to read what you’re commenting on — Gary was being ironic.
James — Hitler, Stalin, and Mao EACH killed more people than all “religious” wars combined.
shane — I am amazed at your statements. Pam was pointing out that disabled children can still have worthwhile lives, since some pro-abortion groups recommend killing babies with “problems”.
April 18th, 2007 at 2:53 pmB.Fly,
do you consider human beings that are deformed less human than those that are born with no deformities?
do you honestly believe that there is any way to humanely kill a baby?
I have never understood why the left is so adamant about killing babies, what have babies done to liberals?
I was lectured this morning by a liberal how killing is never justified, I guess he forgot to inser the liberal caveat……unless it is the killing of an unwanted, deformed, born into poverty baby, right liberals?
April 18th, 2007 at 2:55 pmremoveBush…
ahhhh….sorry, the UN Charter is NOT the supreme law of the land, you are crazy…our Constitution says no such thing…..
April 18th, 2007 at 2:56 pm“…unwanted, deformed, born into poverty baby…”
So I take it you’ve already adopted a couple of non-white special needs kids?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:05 pmUh, regarding my *rediculous* (sic) claim, and us having to *obide* (sic) by the charter articles… (sic)
Can you show one Constitutional scholar who feels that we’re bound by law to the UN rules and regulations? Just one? Any one? Even a con-law *student*????
until then, you’re just talking out of your, uh, articles.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:07 pmAnd the reason the “not all-out wingnuts†part of the GOP never talks about how to discourage abortions is that they know the “all-out wingnuts†part of the GOP base’s agenda would doom the party to the electoral wilderness
Comment by KingCranky — April 18, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
The left never want to discuss the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy, therefore the “need” for abortion..
Don’t give up hope!!! Keep fighting the good fight. Even if you oppose late-term abortions, I would sincerely hope you at least acknowledge an exception for the health of the mother should always be provided no matter what.
How to stop abortions forever: Get a vasectomy. I’ve done my part!!
Comment by Parrotlover77 — April 18, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
I oppose late-term abortion, but I see the necessety for a (physical) health exception for the mother. It only makes sense.
There is only one surefire way to stop abortions forever, but some on the left do not want to concider that option.
They are not babies.
Comment by Zooey — April 18, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
And when your first son was in your body, youwere not a mother. You were a host.
So all those poor girls getting knocked up are a perfect source for all the barren middle class couples longing for that little baby.
Comment by Zooey — April 18, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Those poor little girls should not be spreading their legs. Or they should at least be using some form of pregnancy prevention. Rape/incest is the exception. Then the girls are left without choices.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:13 pmCan’t the 111th Congress, which will clearly be Democratic when that time comes, amend the constitution or add to the constitution abortion laws which can be clearly interpreted, giving a woman the proper right to choose? Laws are needed so this Bush appointed religious right crowd can not force their belief system on the majority. This ban on partial birth abortion, a procedure used only in very rare needed life and death cases is the beginning of a total ban on abortion. The religious right have exploited partial birth abortion, a very sad procedure, for their gain. Wouldn’t it be physically obvious if women actually did use this method as birth control as the right wackos want you to believe? One day eights months pregnant the next not?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:14 pmHey, lets ban abortions. Lets priests rape them all.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:17 pm“ahhhh….sorry, the UN Charter is NOT the supreme law of the land, you are crazy…our Constitution says no such thing…..
Comment by nully — April 18, 2007 @ 2:56 pm”
Hey NITWIT!!!! READ THE CONSTITUTION……
“all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; â€
It says so right there!!!! READ!
April 18th, 2007 at 3:18 pmann,
you typical liberal you…you have zero idea whether I am white or non-white, you have zero idea as to how many of my children are mine and how many i have adopted.
I take it you have adopted children right, that is why you are asking me….
strawman argument lady….try something new.
abortion is murder, and partial birth abortion is a horrific act of murder……
i am sure you would have loved it if your mother asked for you to be taken all the way out, except your head, then be turned on your belly, have a doctor stab you on your kneck and then have your brains sucked out just seconds before you were completly out of your mothers womb….eh?
no wonder groups like NOW and other radical feminsts are now pushing to have the “right” to murder a child within two days after beint out of the mother’s womb.
how pure evil partial birth abortion is, pure and utter evil.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:20 pmThanks Newt Gringo
This bears repeating:
Just a quick reminder as to who supports what…
* Abortion Rights?
Liberal Position – Favors
NeoCon Position – Opposes
Islamic Fundamentalist
Position – Opposes
* Mandatory Prayer in School?
Liberal Position – Opposes
NeoCon Position – Favors
Islamic Fundamentalist
Position – Favors
* Separation of Church & State?
Liberal Position – Favors
NeoCon Position – Opposes
Islamic Fundamentalist
Position – Opposes
* Interpretation of
Religious Scripture?
Liberal Position – Not Literal
NeoCon Position – Literal
Islamic Fundamentalist
Position – Literal
* Women’s Rights?
Liberal Position – Favors
NeoCon Position – Opposes
Islamic Fundamentalist
Position – Opposes
* Theory of Evolution?
Liberal Position – Accepts
NeoCon Position – Rejects
Islamic Fundamentalist
Position – Rejects
* Contraceptives?
Liberal Position – Favors
NeoCon Position – Opposes
Islamic Fundamentalist
Position – Opposes
Comment by Newt Gringo — April 18, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
What’s wrong with you Libruls? Can’t you see you’re outnumbered? The Islamic Fundamentalists agree with us as you can see from the list. We are the light and the way…join us or repent in hell. Our loving god will see to that come the rapture, which is soon upon us, after we set the whole Middle East on fire.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:22 pmYou’re cooked Libruls. Get it? Ynyaaaahaaaaahaaaahaaaa
(snark)
Still can’t come up with a legal opinion, huh?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:23 pm“do you consider human beings that are deformed less human than those that are born with no deformities?”
No. You’ve ducked the question yet again.
“do you honestly believe that there is any way to humanely kill a baby?”
Strawman arguments. I asked you what is to become of these babies – and so far you given me no answers. Do you think it more humane to deliver a grossly deformed baby, and watch it die? Is that your answer?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:24 pmIt depends, are you claiming to be a moonbat?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:24 pmnully, your race is of no consequence to my comment. the race of those special needs babies is, because the non-white ones just aren’t in demand. I was just curious how many children you have personally adopted since you want to force women to be incubators.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:25 pm“Those poor little girls should not be spreading their legs. ”
Perhaps you should focus a bit more on the point that those little boys should be wearing condoms or not trying to convince little girls to have sex.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:26 pmIf you can’t see how the 1.6 million aborted babies last year, and thereby removed from any part of the hope and future of our country, are any of my business, then I suspect the cognitive skills required to entertain a response are lost on you.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:30 pmLet me put it this way:
If, for whatever reason, I find myself pregnant and I don’t want a child. I will have an abortion, legal or not.
It’s my body. No one decides for me about what will be done with my body.
I’m sure this thread will be over 500 storng by the time I get home, so ya’ll enjoy.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:35 pmnot trying to convince little girls to have sex.
Comment by ann — April 18, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
I agree, but as this is a woman’s choice issue, the male is irrelevant.
BTW, did you read the rest of that post?
Or they should at least be using some form of pregnancy prevention. Rape/incest is the exception. Then the girls are left without choices.
Nice try though, I give you that.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:35 pmWayne — Don’t make a lack of perfect results a reason to reject trying to do what’s right.
RemoveBush — I *have* served, and I know how much work goes into avoiding civilian casualties.
ann — I’m not anti-choice, I’m pro-choice. I believe that everyone should grow up and make responsible choices, (even the babies who aren’t born, yet). There are a lot of statistics from the CDC and medical studies in the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States
Juan C — Would you like to ask any of the what it was like under Saddam? How about asking them if they’d like to live under the death squads that would take over if we left?
(#279): You comment only reinforces that abortionists are morally equivalent to Timothy McVeigh. OK, I agree; so what?
Newt Gringo — You seem to be confusing a stereotype of Christian fundamentalists with Neoconservatives. Neocons do not believe most of the things you ascribe to them. Most Christians do not believe what you ascribe to the neocons either. And I could come up with just as damning a list of resemblances between Islamic terrorists and atheistic liberals. Your post is amusing, but without argumentative value.
KingCranky = King wingnut
KansasLiberal — You would hope not, but too many abortionists have so hardened their consciences that they would it for the money. Not all of them would, I’m sure, but far too many.
RemoveBush — That doesn’t make it part of the Constitution; it puts treaties on the same level as federal laws.
(#310) BWAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHA !!!!
trippin — Hmm, how appropriate a name. Anyway, you are wrong; science & medicine ARE about belief, in part. They are based on the belief that the Universe is understandable, and orderly. That belief is based on the fact that we were created by a God of order.
Newt Gringo — that Form 1040 comment was complete nonsense. At least your list, as skewed as it was, made some sense.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:36 pmIf you can’t see how the 1.6 million aborted babies last year, and thereby removed from any part of the hope and future of our country, are any of my business, then I suspect the cognitive skills required to entertain a response are lost on you.
Comment by slntnsnty
Don’t forget about all the babies who were born, idiot.
This is exactly what we “moonbats” are talking about — you sick f*cks forget about BORN children.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:37 pmOne more time!
Bottom line – reproductive rights of American women are being decided by five guys who believe a ghost can get a woman pregnant.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:38 pmThe point I was trying to make with the 1040 comment is all about terminology. Seems that went over some of your heads.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:42 pm“Or they should at least be using some form of pregnancy prevention.”
I certainly did read your post. You meant the little girls should use birth control. You made no mention of the little boys. Little girls don’t get pregnant without the help of little boys. Same old double standard, it’s always the woman’s fault.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:43 pmTo answer your question, B. Fly, yes, it would be more humane to deliver the baby, and love him or her for as long or short a time as we have together. And I pray you never make the other choice, only to discover the diagnosis was wrong.
ann — You’re right, the boys shouldn’t be convincing little girls to have sex. And I do my part to prevent it. Do you? All too often these days, however, it’s the girls as the aggressors.
Zoo — It’s not your body. That’s why some of the pregnancy hormones suppress the immune system, so it won’t reject the baby.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:44 pmTo answer your question, B. Fly, yes, it would be more humane to deliver the baby, and love him or her for as long or short a time as we have together. And I pray you never make the other choice, only to discover the diagnosis was wrong. Webster
That’s absurd; using ultrasound, MRI, and other techniques, medicine can tell months before birth that the child will never survive outside the womb., so making a mistake is virtually impossible. Your hypothetics masks a wilingness to think in very unchristian ways, or so it seems. How is your option more humane? It doesn’t make sense.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:49 pmHow is your option more humane?
I guess that should be “why.”
April 18th, 2007 at 3:52 pmNewt Gringo — You are deliberately misrepresenting Christian beliefs. You also have not made the case that the USSC members who made this decision based it on their own Christian beliefs. Maybe they decided as they did b/c they think that’s what the LAW says.
Zoo — Who’s forgetting about children after birth? Abortion advocates like Peter Singer are the ones that want to kill babies, regardless of whether they are born, yet, or not.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:53 pmB. Fly — If you don’t understand that kind of love, I can’t explain it to you.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:54 pmB. Fly — And the possibility of a misdiagnosis was not the main point of my reply. That was just piling on your indefensible position.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:55 pmI certainly did read your post. You meant the little girls should use birth control. You made no mention of the little boys. Little girls don’t get pregnant without the help of little boys. Same old double standard, it’s always the woman’s fault.
Comment by ann — April 18, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
As I said, it is a woman’s choice issue. If the boy has no say in the termination, then he is not responsable for the conception. No double standard at all. If the woman makes a choice to have sex, then she has to make the choice to prevent pregnancy. After all, it is her choice to terminate it, right?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:58 pmI just don’t get it; dooming a deformed fetus to perhaps hours of pain as it dies outside the womb is more humane? At least in the womb, it was a living organism – but outside the womb it is a dying one. Would we allow animals to suffer in pain for hours as they died? Would you show more compassion to an unwanted pet that to a human being? That is what you assert when you say we should just let them expire once they are delivered.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:58 pm“Who’s forgetting about children after birth?”
Apparently you, by consigning them to a agonizing demise.
“If you don’t understand that kind of love, I can’t explain it to you.”
Because it’s really no kind of love – unless you count the misconstrued “love” of christians who would allow a fetus to expire in agony. It’s two-faced, and morally bankrupt. You remember morals, right?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:02 pm“Because it’s really no kind of love – unless you count the misconstrued “love†of christians who would allow a fetus to expire in agony.”
I thought the FETUS was only in the womb?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:09 pm“As I said, it is a woman’s choice issue. If the boy has no say in the termination, then he is not responsable for the conception. No double standard at all.” HB
If we’re throwing out hypotheticals: what if the “boy” is her father, or another close relative? Not responsible? Would you even want them to have a say?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:12 pm“I thought the FETUS was only in the womb?”
Comment by Elizabeth
Is that going to be your contribution? Can you answer my question?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:13 pmI didn’t see where you asked me any question. I will certainly answer any question you do have as soon as you answer mine.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:15 pmB.Fly — You are the one who says the man has no say.
And, no, I wouldn’t just let him or her suffer, but neither would I inflict the suffering.
Without a God, what basis do you have for morals, anyway?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:18 pmB.Fly — And if you’re so concerned about compassion, then what about the hundreds of thousands of nondeformed babies who are killed in utero every year? Where’s your compassion for them?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:20 pmI just don’t get it; dooming a deformed fetus to perhaps hours of pain as it dies outside the womb is more humane? At least in the womb, it was a living organism – but outside the womb it is a dying one. Would we allow animals to suffer in pain for hours as they died? Would you show more compassion to an unwanted pet that to a human being? That is what you assert when you say we should just let them expire once they are delivered.
Comment by B.Fly
Partial birth abortion method is very rare, but the right to life crowd have exploited this procedure for their gain. I will bet only a fraction of 1% of the population actually know someone who have had this done. It is rare as it is used because the fetus is dead, brain dead or with no brain. In combination with this the mother’s life is threatened, or as she desperately wants children, in her particular case a c-section or having the baby expelled would threaten her chances of conceiving another child. This is such a rare procedure and for the right to life crowd to dig this up and make a scandal of it shows what scum they are.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:21 pmWebster -
Deliberately misrepresenting? Please. Tell us all exactly how *you* “interpret” the Apostles’ Creed?
Re-read the comment – I did not state that those who voted to uphold the abortion ban based their decision on their beliefs. That’s what you inferred.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:21 pm“I will certainly answer any question you do have as soon as you answer mine.”
You seem to want to play semantic games. OK, it a baby outside the womb. Now, answer mine:
“Is it more humane to deliver a fetus (or baby) with a grave deformity, and watch as it expires before their eyes, or use this procedure? Do you advocate delivery of these feti, whose deformities are so enormous, no doctor will give them any chance of survival? Or do you advocate euthenasia for these post-natal unfortunates, to ease their suffering?”
April 18th, 2007 at 4:22 pmComment by B.Fly — April 18, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
I already said that rape/incest were the exception as the girl has no choice.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:23 pmI don’t recall you ever asking me those questions. Although, on another thread, some posts have been disappearing.
“Is it more humane to deliver a fetus (or baby) with a grave deformity, and watch as it expires before their eyes, or use this procedure?”
More humane to deliver.
“Do you advocate delivery of these feti, whose deformities are so enormous, no doctor will give them any chance of survival?”
Yes.
“Or do you advocate euthenasia for these post-natal unfortunates, to ease their suffering?”
No, I would advocate easing their suffering some other way besides killing them.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:28 pmFor all you neocon freaks who “voted your conscience” three years ago, I hope that you are happy.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:29 pm#368, this data is the most current data I’ve found; it’s from 1987, but:
Sorta gives lie to your “it is rare as it is used because the fetus is dead”… etc spin. Nice try, though.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:29 pmIf the boy has no say in the termination, then he is not responsable for the conception.
Comment by hacker bob
JUST WOW.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:30 pm“Without a God, what basis do you have for morals, anyway?”
Comment by Webster
Which God? “Morals” are distilled from many sources. It might upset you to find out that your morals come to you from non-christians?
“And, no, I wouldn’t just let him or her suffer, but neither would I inflict the suffering.”
So, what do you advocate for these poor unfortunates? Drugging them, or euthanizing them? If you advocate drugging them, some will die because the painkiller stops their heart. How is this morally different than euthanasia?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:31 pmHB: Oops.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:32 pmWhy “WOW”? Are you saying a male is responsible for whether or not to procreate (by using protection), not responsible during gestation (by not having a say in abortion/adoption decisions), but then *is* responsible once again when (if) the baby is born?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:34 pm“I don’t recall you ever asking me those questions. ”
I addressed it to “the moralists on the Right.” I also invited you to answer it, just now.
“No, I would advocate easing their suffering some other way besides killing them.”
Comment by Elizabeth
See my last post.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:35 pmPain medication NOT intended to kill someone, at worst, is as different from euthanasia as negligence is different from first degree murder.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:35 pmSo, Juan, still didn’t want to answer my question?
It’s okay if you want to just ignore it… just say so.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:36 pmI’m happy, Karim, and I am not even a neocon freak.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:36 pmSorry, but my invitation got lost somewhere. See my last post about “Pain medication NOT intended to kill someone, at worst, is as different from euthanasia as negligence is different from first degree murder.”
April 18th, 2007 at 4:39 pm“Pain medication NOT intended to kill someone, at worst, is as different from euthanasia as negligence is different from first degree murder.”
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Not when used on mal-formed, dying feti – er, dying babies, whose severely deformed systems cannot handle any form of painkiller. Then, it becomes de facto euthenasia. Since it is so difficult to medicate these dying babies without adverse reaction, how could negligence be charged?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:42 pmSo, hacker bob, you will make an exception for rape/incest. Then you are not judging whether or not abortion is murder – you are judging how a woman got pregnant. I’m so sick of this. Anti-abortion has nothing to do with God or morality. It is and always has been an attempt to control women by using or mis-using their bodies. It is no different than armies raping women – it’s women as chattel, not as independent, sentinent human beings capable of making their own decisions. God is just the word you use to excuse your fear of women.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:42 pm“More humane to deliver.”
Thanks for the sermon, but can you back it up with anything? Like why?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:44 pmIt’s okay if you want to just ignore it… just say so.
Comment by Dale
3 hours ago, I was going to but if you didnt know which comment I was talking about, it is really useless.
I said WOW, becuz hacker bob thinks there should be equal criteria when it comes to deciding conception or abortion. Thats completely stupid. Probably when you both carry a fetus for 9 months, you will get equality, otherwise, you, as I, just get to shut up.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:45 pm“Sorry, but my invitation got lost somewhere.”
It was right here:
“Is that going to be your contribution? Can you answer my question?”
Comment by B.Fly — April 18, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
April 18th, 2007 at 4:47 pmFine, powkat, no exception for rape/incest then. Happy now?
B.Fly, I think administering ANY medication that accidentally causes death is cause for an investigation at the very least. See e.g. Smith, Ann-Nicole. No one was charged there (yet).
April 18th, 2007 at 4:48 pmWell, I’m off. I’ll check back and see if anyone comes up with a good argument; something I’ve yet to see.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:50 pm“Is that going to be your contribution? Can you answer my question?â€
I answered those questions, B.Fly. Let me know if you misplaced those too.
“Why?”
Because, the affirmative and unjustified taking of a human life is homicide.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:51 pmA “good argument” against what? Euthenasia?! I thought this thread was about partial-birth abortions?
April 18th, 2007 at 4:53 pm374 – dale
This study has nothing to do with partial birth abortion…. in fact in 1987 you did not hear about partial birth abortion.
Your comment only reaffirms my statement as you too are putting abortion and partial birth abortion in the same area:
Partial birth abortion method is very rare, but the right to life crowd have exploited this procedure for their gain. I will bet only a fraction of 1% of the population actually know someone who have had this done. It is rare as it is used because the fetus is dead, brain dead or with no brain. In combination with this the mother’s life is threatened, or as she desperately wants children, in her particular case a c-section or having the baby expelled would threaten her chances of conceiving another child. This is such a rare procedure and for the right to life crowd to dig this up and make a scandal of it shows what scum they are.
Comment by goehl
April 18th, 2007 at 4:53 pmComment by Elizabeth You’ve convieniently ducked my question. Or is your answer to just to let them expire in agony? How is this different than partial birth abortions, from the moral standpoint?
And now, I’m really off.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pm“As I said, it is a woman’s choice issue. If the boy has no say in the termination, then he is not responsable for the conception. No double standard at all. If the woman makes a choice to have sex, then she has to make the choice to prevent pregnancy. After all, it is her choice to terminate it, right?”
If it’s completely a woman’s choice issue then you get absolutely no say whatsover. Including your opinion here.
The little boy has a choice to use contraception or abstain from sex to avoid conception or termination. THOSE are his choices. If he chooses to have unprotected sex, he is absolutely responsible. But until the little boy can get pregnant, he cannot compel another human being to bear a child. Just like I can’t compel you to get castrated.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:00 pmThe version I found for This Word is found in the book Samuel Johnson’s Insults, page 51, 2nd entry starting with “L”, and the Johnson book defines it as “One that wants wit”
And that description clearly fits the very boring insult attempt by Webster, as do the others that appear on the Webster’s dictionary page, including the word in sign language
Perhaps a bit more substance than “KingCranky = King wingnut” might positively befit your “attempts” at rhetoric and debate
But that’s a VERY nice try for a first attempt Webster, I’m sure somewhere, there’s someone very proud of you
And RabidBunny, being deliberately obtuse/willfully ignorant does your already insipid and pathetic trolling even more self-inflicted damage than usual
You said the UN was a “sham”
You also said you did not consider Bush Jr’s invasion of Iraq “illegal”
I asked you how you could justify W’s using of the “sham” UN to invade Iraq, but since you ducked that one, I’ve got to ask another question, namely, if the UN is a “sham”, yet W is claiming their orders as justification to invade Iraq, how is W’s invasion, under YOUR own terms, not “illegal”?
April 18th, 2007 at 5:00 pm“Can you show one Constitutional scholar who feels that we’re bound by law to the UN rules and regulations? Just one? Any one? Even a con-law *student*????
until then, you’re just talking out of your, uh, articles.
Comment by Dale — April 18, 2007 @ 3:07 pm”
How about a LAW SCHOOL????
Now STFU!!!!
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v9n3/hakki93_text.html
#
Conclusion
# Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now exists. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iraq is unlawful.
# The intention seems to be to resort to force in order to compel “regime change” and disarmament in Iraq. The use of force against a state in pursuit of such aims is clearly unsupported by international law, and would mark a regression beyond the outlawing of the use of war as an instrument of national policy that was secured generations ago (in part as a result of the beneficent influence of the US Secretary of State of the time) in the Kellogg-Briand Pact in 1928.
# ‘Furthermore, the Resolution No.1441 that has recently been adopted by the UN Security Council can not change the aforementioned conclusions either. The wording, especially when interpreted in the light of the tough bargaining process that led to its adoption, falls short of giving the express authority that President Bush and his allies might need at this stage. To be able to use force, they need a further and more clearly worded resolution. This view is re-inforced by the emphasis placed on the fact that the Security Council remains seized on the matter.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:02 pmElizabeth – no exception is at least consistent, even tho it still totally discounts that women are thinking, reasoning beings. If you think abortion is wrong and don’t ever want to have one, that’s fine with me. But you have absolutely no right to tell any other woman that she can’t have one either. The anti-abortion crowd has never managed to convince America that they have the right to ban abortion, and they never will.
And of course you know the four reasons abortion should be allowed:
1. Rape
2. Incest
3. The health of the mother
4. Whatever ‘my’ reason is
And if you don’t believe that, I can testify about the anti-abortion protesters I saw outside the clinic where I escorted back in the 1980’s. You would plotz if you knew how many of them we saw inside the clinic – but of course, they always insisted they were the exception, that they had a really good reason to be there. And you know what – we took care of them exactly the same way we took care of every other woman there – with compassion and kindness.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:05 pmWhen you get back, B.Fly, remember that you asked “why” it’s more humane to deliver. I did answer that question. All the reasons that REAL murder is inhumane are the same reasons why euthanasia is as well. In addition, doctors swear upon some variation of the Hippocratic Oath (the original version explicitly excludes euthanasia AND abortion).
Further, self-inflicted euthanasia is no different than suicide IMO. That’s still illegal, right? What if the CURE for any such disease is discovered the day AFTER someone kills themself? Euthanasia also brings up issues about mental competence, consent, and undue influence. Some people find this a terrifying prospect.I know it’s a slippery slope argument, but which “undesirable” group will be targeted first once euthanasia is legallized? Homosexuals? Down’s Syndrome? Baby girls? Pretty soon, we will get to someone you do care about.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:10 pmNewt Gringo — The Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost, if you prefer) is not “a ghost” as we use the term today. Today, the word ghost refers to the disembodied spirit of a dead human. In the past, it meant the same as “spirit” means today, which is any noncorporeal being. To say that Christians believe “a ghost” impregnated Mary is as absurd as to say that she and Joseph did not meet before the birth in Bethlehem b/c the KJV says that Joseph did not “know his wife until” Jesus was born.
And, yes, I did read a little too much into your statement. I should have stated that you have not established that they do indeed have orthodox Christian beliefs in this matter. You implied, however, that those beliefs have some bearing.
goehl — Would you care to document your “fetus is dead” claims?
B.Fly — 1. No, the fact that some non-christians advocated the same moral beliefs I hold to would not disturb me in the slightest. In fact, it encourages me. It is yet another confirmation that morals are universal. And universal moral law implies a Universal Moral Lawgiver. Of course, nobody knows or obeys those laws perfectly (least of all, me), but it confirms God’s existence.
2. As you see, I do not deny that you have morals; what I deny is that you have an objective *basis* for them. How do you justify making your morals normative? On what basis do you tell someone they are wrong?
3. I advocate treating the babies. Yes, some would die from the treatment. Some people die from medical treatment today; does that mean we don’t use any treatment that could possibly lead to death? No, we make the best decisions we can with the information we have. It’s morally different from euthanasia b/c you are trying to help, not hurt.
powkat — 1. You are right that the rape/incest exception is being inconsistent. The baby has no less (or more) right to live based upon who his or her parents are.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:40 pm2. There may be some people who think preventing abortion is a way to control women, but I don’t know of any. The emphasis is on the child, b/c the child is the one whose highest right (life) is at stake. Historically, men have used *forced* (not denied) abortion as a way to control women! Unwilling to take responsibility for his actions, the cad forces his girlfriend, mistress, or even wife, to kill the baby she is carrying. This goes back at least as far as the pagan Roman Empire, where the doctrine of “pater familias” gave the man absolute control over the household, even to the power of life or death over its members. Christianity taught, instead, that husbands are to “love their wives, even as Christ loved the church.” In other words, they were to be willing to *sacrifice* their lives, not to save them by the death of another.
Euthanasia leading to slippery slope is not theory, it’s observable fact. A Dutch woman didn’t want to go to the hospital for fear that she would be euthanized. Her doctor assured her that he wouldn’t do that, and she was persuaded to come in. Under treatment, she began to improve. On Monday, her doctor came in to find that another doctor had had her euthanized to free up the bed.
That’s real life, folks.
http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/html/vital/spring2001.html
April 18th, 2007 at 5:55 pmClick on “Dutch Treat?” — it’s in the tenth paragraph.
#396, you’re kidding right? You’re relying on a masters candidate from the London School of Economics and Political Science to interpret the U.S. Constitution? This is a joke, right?
April 18th, 2007 at 6:04 pmpowkat — 1. No exceptions does not discount the woman, it just affirms that the baby is worthy of consideration, too.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:08 pm2. As you present so very clearly, making exceptions tends to lead to more. Whenever my comfort and convenience becomes more important than someone else’s life, there’s no logical stopping point. Fortunately, most pro-abortion advocates do not take their arguments to the logical conclusion, but once you allow killing for anything other than the defense of self or others, how do you know where to stop?
3. Compassion and kindness are to be admired; I only wish you had been so considerate of the babies, too.
ggibson, RemoveBush, the US is *not* bound by law to follow the rules and regulations of the U.N. If you feel otherwise, please show me an opinion written by a Constitutional Law scholar that coincides with your position. Otherwise, you’re just embarrassing yourselves.
Comment by Dale
The UN laws do not apply to domestic law. Treaties whether UN treaties or otherwise DO apply to the US as far as foreign policy is concerned according to the U.S. Constitution. No other law is needed beyond the U.S. Constitution. America started the UN not the UN….
April 18th, 2007 at 6:09 pmNo. 366 Comment by Webster — April 18, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
“Without a God, what basis do you have for morals, anyway?”
This question smacks of arrogance, ignorance, thoughtlessness self righteotiness, judgment and fear.
So, with a god, you have a right to judge and dismiss all who believe differently than you? If you believe this then your god is the anti Christ and you worship the devil.
Judgment is mine, sayeth the Lord. Stop giving Christians a bad name!
April 18th, 2007 at 6:19 pmThe little boy has a choice to use contraception or abstain from sex to avoid conception or termination. THOSE are his choices.
The little girl has a choice to NOT have sex unless the little boy uses contraception. Therefore she does not get pregnant and there is not a need for an abortion.
If he chooses to have unprotected sex, he is absolutely responsible.
If she chooses to have unprotected sex, she is absolutely responsible.
Sorry, unless it is rape or incest, she is not a victim. She is responsible for what comes out of her body, so she is responsible for what goes into her body.
But until the little boy can get pregnant, he cannot compel another human being to bear a child. Just like I can’t compel you to get castrated.
Comment by ann — April 18, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
So are you saying that the boy is responsible for the conception of the “fetus” and , if it is carried to term, for the careing of the child either directly or indirectly thrugh child support but he has no say on whether or not the fetus is allowed to come to term?
Sounds a little lop-sided. You all but remove the “her” from 2 parts of the equation.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:19 pmsaid WOW, becuz hacker bob thinks there should be equal criteria when it comes to deciding conception or abortion. Thats completely stupid. Probably when you both carry a fetus for 9 months, you will get equality, otherwise, you, as I, just get to shut up.
Comment by Juan C — April 18, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Juan, what is wrong with this? You can place responsibilty on the boy for conception but not abortion? He was key in starting the process, why can he not be key in ending the process? He was 50% of the problem so why should he not be 50% of the solution?
And as my wife has carried 3 children to term and agrees with me on this, it is also her view I am posting.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:24 pmZoo — It’s not your body. That’s why some of the pregnancy hormones suppress the immune system, so it won’t reject the baby.
Comment by Webster
That is simply a stunning statement.
I don’t know who the hell you think you are. Are you actually saying to me that this body, which I walk around in everyday, does not actually belong to me? That I am simply a potential host to any zygote that may try to implant itself?
Is that what you are saying to me?
April 18th, 2007 at 6:25 pmI think the reason this has caused so much concern is that it is viewed as a prelude to an outright ban. This talk about the health of the mother has value, but I don’t think it is the central issue in most peoples mind. I know what this issue is about, on a regrettably first hand basis. This will always be an awful thing. This will always be something that you need not interfere with. This is a personal decision that you do not need to judge. It is interesting to me when I find arguments from men about this. It is wrong of you to take personal affront. You need to realize that you do not have the right to tell women what to do. Even if it is you that caused the pregnancy to occur, and I would personally counsel collective agreement, the decision is in the hands of the woman. Come to peace with that. Accept that others will not make the same decisions as you. Realize that you are not the one carrying the child. You can walk away, we can’t.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:28 pmHe was 50% of the problem so why should he not be 50% of the solution?
And as my wife has carried 3 children to term and agrees with me on this, it is also her view I am posting.
Comment by hacker bob
Obviously, I haven’t read ALL the shit on this thread, but here’s my take, Robert:
Since the pregnancy has no way of being anything but 100% within a woman’s body, it is her choice and her responsibility.
Haven’t men had their boots on women’s necks long enough?
April 18th, 2007 at 6:29 pmWrong Webster – if this is not the decision of the woman who is pregnant, it discounts the woman. She may consider other people in her life, she may consider whether or not she wants to bear and/or raise a child. she may decide to allow the opinions of religious leaders to affect her decision. But it is forever and always HER CHOICE and hers alone. It is completely immoral for anyone else to force her to do anything against her will.
And since all of you anti-abortions folks are so delighted with government interference in a personal choice, may I remind you that a government with the power to force a woman to give birth is a government that has the power to force a woman not to give birth.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:32 pmSince the pregnancy has no way of being anything but 100% within a woman’s body, it is her choice and her responsibility.
Haven’t men had their boots on women’s necks long enough?
Comment by Zooey — April 18, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
Zooey, That is not being argued. All I am saying is that if she is the only one that can make a decision about the abortion then she is responsible to prevent the conception.
You want choice you got it. REQUIRE birth control or abstain.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:40 pmChoice=requirement. Interesting. Maybe you need to not be such a control freak.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pmZooey:
You must not live in California, because here, the law is very clear you do not have an “ownership” interest in your own body. I’d guess the law is pretty similar where you live too.
powcat:
The State intervenes all the time to protect children, taking them away from mothers if needed, yes, even against her will. What are you talking about?
April 18th, 2007 at 6:43 pmMerlin — that’s not what I said. I asked a question about his logical basis for morality. I didn’t say that it had to be my God, or that I “have a right to judge and dismiss” anyone. I am not God, and it’s not my job to judge (pass condemnation on) anyone. My God tells me to “Do justice,” but also to “Love mercy,” and “Love your neighbor”. I guess you’re the one jumping to conclusions, eh?
PS: The quote is, “Vengeance is mine,” btw.
Zooey — No, your body IS your body. But your baby’s body is NOT your body. Honestly, I don’t understand what’s so confusing about that.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:45 pmPS: Do you honestly think there are zygotes just “out there” wandering around, looking for a “host”? You make it sound like something out of “The Body Snatchers”.
Comment by shana — April 18, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
Yep, imagine that, putting women in control of reproduction. How dare I.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:47 pmZooey, That is not being argued. All I am saying is that if she is the only one that can make a decision about the abortion then she is responsible to prevent the conception.
You want choice you got it. REQUIRE birth control or abstain.
Comment by hacker bob
That’s f*cked up, Robert. Do you live in a god damned dream world?
I remember the time I was raped, as if it were yesterday. The guy didn’t ask me if I was on birth control — I was not. The guy didn’t think to ask me then if I’d like to abstain — since he was f*cking raping me.
Oh yeah, I wasn’t getting a choice either — to use birth control or abstain.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:47 pmZooey — No, your body IS your body. But your baby’s body is NOT your body. Honestly, I don’t understand what’s so confusing about that.
PS: Do you honestly think there are zygotes just “out there†wandering around, looking for a “hostâ€? You make it sound like something out of “The Body Snatchersâ€.
Comment by Webster
If something is contained within MY BODY, it is 100% under my control.
PERIOD
April 18th, 2007 at 6:50 pmSo simple, yet so wrong.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:55 pmComment by Zooey — April 18, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
You understandably missed the parts earlier where I said that rape and incest were exceptions. I am talking about consensual sex, not rape.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:56 pmpowkat — 1. So, you discount the baby’s rights, and the man. Your assertion that it is “HER CHOICE” is no argument, just a statement of belief. You offer no justification as to why the rights of the baby are to be discounted. My argument is that the baby is genetically human and distinct from his or her mother, and that as a human, he or she is entitled to certain rights, beginning with the right to life, which it is immoral to deliberately deny without due cause and due process.
2. You are forced to do things against your will all the time. You pay taxes, you obey traffic laws, you are forced to do innumerable things every day that are “against your will”. That’s part of living in a civilization, not anarchy.
Zooey — Your selfishness knows no bounds.
Good night, all.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:04 pmZooey — Your selfishness knows no bounds.
Good night, all.
Comment by Webster
F*ck you. Your arrogance is beyond stunning.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:21 pmMy argument is that the baby is genetically human and distinct from his or her mother, and that as a human, he or she is entitled to certain rights, beginning with the right to life, which it is immoral to deliberately deny without due cause and due process.
Comment by Webster
Separate and distinct, huh Webster? Let’s plop that fetus out on the table, independent of it’s host, and we’ll see how well it does.
It has no rights. It is not born.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:24 pmWhat a set of assholes.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:33 pmIts good that the supreme court is finally coming to realize the barbarity of this practice. This is a great to day for the fetal rights progress. Finally the high court understands that it is wrong to murder our nation’s children.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:24 pmThe fetal child is a separate and distinct human being persons in fetal stages of development are not viable outside of their mothers but that is not a relevant distinction. Siamese twins are not viable from each other astronauts are not viable without space suits. Viability is completely unrelated to personhood.
Its a shame that anti-fetal rights extremists are still trying to ignore this so they can shirk their parental responsibilities to their fetal children.
And no, nobody is forcing them to be pregnant either. Potential for pregnancy and therefore parental responsibility is just a natural part of recognized sexual liability. Couples with fetal children did not have to put themselves in that position if they did not want to.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:44 pmProgressiveNeoconservative = Malignant Idiot
April 18th, 2007 at 8:54 pmThat’s all you can say? “Malignant idiot”? That’s an ad hominem. I would have probably fit in quite nicely with liberals of the 1950’s era but the left these days has become increasingly illogical, bigoted, and uncivil. Using fallacious uncivil attacks just demonstrates to me what I suspect.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:57 pmWhatever.
Uncivil is putting the life of a fetus over the life of a woman.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:20 pmNon sequitur FTW.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:30 pmCouples with fetal children did not have to put themselves in that position if they did not want to.
Comment by ProgressiveNeoconservative — April 18, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
What position? Missionary, Doggy-style, Reverse cowgirl? You are a medieval looney.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:22 amComment by Elizabeth
I won’t bother to address you again ,as I see logic is something you’re not capable of. Your assertions don’t hold water, as I’ve pointed out in great detail. I could unpack the various fallacies you’ve presented, but why bother? You will continue to ignore the questions I actually ask, and reframe them to something you feel confident answering. You possess a truly shabby intellect.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:51 amWhat position? Missionary, Doggy-style, Reverse cowgirl? You are a medieval looney.
Comment by Juan C
Now THAT’S funny. :-D
April 19th, 2007 at 10:15 am“Uncivil is putting the life of a fetus over the life of a woman.”
Whoever said anything about a woman’s life here? Abortions are no longer done to save a woman’s life. Current medical technology has elminated that problem. BTW arguing red herring is also fallacious.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:20 amWhat’s uncivil is feticidal parents murdering our nation’s children for their own selfish purposes and then anti-fetal rights extremists having the audacity to suggest that this evil should not be opposed.
“Don’t forget about all the babies who were born, idiot.
This is exactly what we “moonbats†are talking about — you sick f*cks forget about BORN children.”
We don’t. That’s why we don’t support positions such as implosive withdrawals from Iraq which will cause thousands more to die with our coalition peacekeepers there to stop it.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:22 am“What position?”
The position of having parental responsibility for fetal children of course.
“Missionary, Doggy-style, Reverse cowgirl? You are a medieval looney.”
Call me a medieval looney if you will, but I’m not the one who hasn’t progressed passed the urge to smash up fetal children with crude instruments. BTW there was most likely a reason why pre-human hominids evolved passed the urge to smash of infants in fetal stages of development with big wooden sticks sometime in the Pleistocene epoch. It appears that either anti-fetal rights extremists haven’t yet made that leap of perhaps some kind of atavistic mutation in humans is causing the current spate anti-fetal rights extremists due to their revived caveman traits.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:31 amWoman have a right to their own personal moral beliefs but they should not be allowed to impose those beliefs on their fetal children.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:47 amWoman have a right to their own personal moral beliefs but they shouldn’t be allowed to impose those beliefs on their fetal children.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:48 amI cannot understand why Bushitler is forcing all these women to get pregnant against their will and then denying them the right wait until the last possible moment before the fetus emerges from the birth canal to suck the brains out of its skull. What an evil monster!
Call me a dreamer, but if only there were a safe and legal procedure available for a woman to terminate the unplanned parasite within her womb early on before it became a viable human being, perhaps this partial-birth abortion issue would be moot.
The Rethuglicans MUST be defeated at all costs, even if it means supporting victory by the Taliban. After all, the Islamic fascists aren’t concerned with some completely arbitrary distinction as to which side of the birth canal a fetus happens to be on. I’m certain they would be happy to arrange for a pre- or post-natal abortion for any American fetus (or “baby”, as the Right-to-tell-you-how-to-run-your-Lifers like to call it in their propaganda) of any age.
April 19th, 2007 at 1:43 pmZooey had a bad attitude yesterday. Today things are funny again.
Still waiting to see pictures of the aborted in the media. Or is this too gruesome that it would hurt the abortion-on-demand cause?
Show the pictures! Free speech! Rights without moral obligation!
April 20th, 2007 at 9:27 amShow the pictures!
Free speech! Rights without moral obligation!
Show the pictures!
Free speech! Rights without moral obligation!
I think partial birth abortions are wrong
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:39 pmI’m getting sick of the noise. At SOME point there is ANOTHER person involved. And no matter whether you think that point is conception, or when the kid gets a job and moves out, IT’S YOUR PERSONAL SUBJECTIVE OPINION; not ultimate truth OR THE answer. RECOGNIZE YOURS AS SUCH. Further, THIS is NOT termination of a pregnancy; it is termination of a BIRTH. It is NOT a “late term” abortion; it is AT TERM and 3/4 thru the process called BIRTH (giving birth, having a baby?????). Those who STILL won’t allow question or consideration are being, shall I say “unreasonable”. Especially since the Roe v. Wade decision makes reference to “viability”, which is also fuzzy and evolving; but absolutely sometime before THIS.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:46 pmWhat Congress NEEDS to do, is legislate an objective and USABLE definition of when the “tissue” is a PERSON. That will answer most of the questions being argued. Some will keep fighting. But most of us will be SOOOOO happy to end this 30 YEARS of NOTHING more productive than “yes it is”, “no it’s not”, “is too”, “is not”.
My summary of the general response.
HEY, that’s MINE. Gimme. Give me back my RIGHT.
How come I CAN’T I have it? You never let me have ANY rights. It’s NOT FAIR. It’s MINE.
GIMME IT. Mommy Court said I could have it, so you HAVE to give it back. You SAID I could have abortions, YOU SAID. You PROMISED.
It’s the SAME THING. It’s exactly LIKE terminating a pregnancy; it’s just a birth instead. But it’s the same thing. Why can’t I have this kind. I don’t want those other kinds. I want THIS kind. You PROMISED me I could have abortions.
I WANT IT, I WANT IT, I WANT IT. IT’S MINE. GIVE IT BACK.
I’ll show you. I’m gonna run away. I’ll go to Mexico. THEY’LL let me have one. And I’ll probably get an infection and DIE. THEN you’ll be sorry.
Come on, PLEASE?
You’re a poopy-head.
You’re MEAN. I HATE YOU.