Well, I’m not sure exactly how to respond because you haven’t formulated a coherent question.

Let me just re-state the (obvious) basics and the moral principle involved:

The most basic of all rights is the right to life, would you not agree? This is enshrined in our Constitution as well.

There is really no question as to what constitutes human life. If a woman is pregnant and carrying life within her, ask yourself, “what kind of life is it?”

Is it some sort of parasite on the mother? No.

Is it of any other form than Human? No.

Can it live outside the mother’s body? Not until it develops sufficiently.

So, this is very basic stuff. Either a woman is carrying a beating human heart inside a developing human being or not. Which is it?

Therefor, I submit that NO ONE has the right to terminate this life just because they want to. Men have just as much of a right as women to weigh in on this crucial moral issue.

That’s odd, I found a definition at Wikipedia:

Intact dilation and extraction (IDX or intact D&X), also known as intact dilation and evacuation (intact D&E), dilation and extraction (D&X), intrauterine cranial decompression and controversially in the United States as partial birth abortion, is a surgical abortion wherein an intact fetus is removed from the uterus via the cervix. The procedure may also be used to remove a deceased fetus that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction. [1]

Though the procedure has had a low rate of usage, representing 0.17% (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States in the year 2000, according to voluntary responses to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey,[2] it has developed into a focal point of the abortion debate. In the United States, intact dilation and extraction was made illegal under some circumstances by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

Theocracy has no place in democracy.

November 12th, 2008 at 1:48 am
______

One doesn’t have to be religious to believe that life begins at conception. Even so, one law based upon the religious beliefs of the majority hardly constitutes a theocracy.

“Surely, secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square…”

“To say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public-policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion specific, values.”

Barack Obama

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Her body, her choice–same with the wishes of a patient to have or not have cancer treatments. When it comes out of her body, viable and breathing, then the other person can have a say. Just because a woman is the one who bears the child does not mean religious idealists can force her to do so. Theocracy has no place in democracy.

Uptight, if you are a man, and I use that term loosely with you, you have absolutely no sway in the matter of abortion. I mean, unless you had some odd sex change thing, you will never have to deal with it personally, right? Unless there’s some family tie issues or something you could be worried about?

November 12th, 2008 at 1:11 am
______

I responded to your claim that “There is NO SUCH THING AS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION. None at all.” It exists, only under a different technical name.

What difference does one’s gender make? You are of the opinion that a father has no say in the life or death of his child? Presumably, you also believe that a man can’t be made to pay support for a child that he didn’t want?

As I noted previously, the Supreme Court ruling pointed out that all a doctor has to do is use an injection to kill the baby first, then he is free to do as he pleases. The ban is only against partially delivering and puncturing the skull of living babies.

“This traditional rule is consistent with Casey, which confirms both that the State has an interest in promoting respect for human life at all stages in the pregnancy,and that abortion doctors should be treated the same as other doctors. Medical uncertainty does not foreclose the exercise of legislative power in the abortion context any more than it does in other contexts. Other considerations also support the Court’s conclusion, including the fact that safe alternatives to the prohibited procedure, such as D&E, are available. In addition, if intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of “a living fetus,”

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf

And the abortion issue as you stated above is the exact same argument I try to use with these smooth-brains. Like bashing one’s head against a wall, but we must keep trying.

stupid fools who talk about “partial birth abortion” are the most incredibly uninformed and sanctimonious hypocrites in the world.

at first mention of the term, the ignorance is obvious…
a signal that such a person cannot be taken seriously…
except to be kept from making and promoting any kind of policy.

November 12th, 2008 at 12:39 am
______

Of course, as the Supreme Court ruling pointed out, “In addition, if intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of “a living fetus,”
See, no problem.

Most women KNOW they’re pregnant in the first three months. In my opinion, if you haven’t figured out what you’re going to do with the pregancy in three months, you’ve already made your decision (unless it involves your life of course).

This “late term abortion” crap is just a myth staged to get the fanatics in a frenzy.

BTW, if the Republicans were TRULY sincere about having abortion abolished, didn’t they have the PERFECT opporunity from 2000-2006? The Republicans ruled both houses, the executive branch and the court. It WAS THEIR TIME. So you morons who vote for the R’s because they “will end abortion”. Good freaking luck. They had their chance. They didn’t do it. They only use abortion too hook YOU in to vote against your own best interest. Feel used? You should.

how dare anyone judge that man for his decision to save his wife and marriage and future together…

stupid fools who talk about “partial birth abortion” are the most incredibly uninformed and sanctimonious hypocrites in the world.

at first mention of the term, the ignorance is obvious…
a signal that such a person cannot be taken seriously…
except to be kept from making and promoting any kind of policy.