Partial Birth Abortion... OMG, I just found out what this is

[krunchyfrogg]

...and that John Kerry supports it.

Now, make no mistake, I wasn't going to vote for him anyway. But when I found out what this is, how horrific an act, I can't believe anyone with a concience could do such a thing.

[Grojlach]

A few things.

1) It helps if you provide us with some background information on what a partial-birth abortion is - I had to do some googling before having a general idea of the act itself, but have yet to grasp its nuances - there's probably more to it than simply stating that the foetus is killed during birth, and there are probably reasons as to why there are those who oppose a ban (other than the usual 'OMG EvAl BABY EATERS!!!!1 ones), or why Kerry opposes it in particular. So do you have some more info, and in particular more info on why Kerry opposes the ban? As I wouldn't be surprised if there's a difference between opposing a particular bill and actually endorsing the act it was meant to ban; it wouldn't be the first time if people deliberately took Kerry's acts completely out of context to make him look worse than he is. So why did he oppose the ban, and did he actually state that he opposed the ban because he's in favour of partial birth abortion? And if that's the case, what are his reasons?

2) You will find that abortion is a big nono to discuss around here - courtesy of the moratorium on discussions of a religious nature. They always tend to end ugly, and there's a good chance your topic will be closed before long.

[ 10-31-2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Grojlach]

And there you go:

John Kerry voted repeatedly against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. He says that a health exception is necessary. Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter has stated that Kerry would support the ban if it included a "clear exception for life or health of women." http://womensissues.about.com/od/par...ialbirth_2.htm

So nothing of this "Kerry supports it" spinning of yours whatsoever, he simply disagrees with the way the bill is worded and that's why he votes against it.

[ 10-31-2004, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Grojlach: And there you go: quote: John Kerry voted repeatedly against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. He says that a health exception is necessary. Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter has stated that Kerry would support the ban if it included a "clear exception for life or health of women." http://womensissues.about.com/od/par...ialbirth_2.htm

So nothing of this "Kerry supports it" spinning of yours whatsoever, he simply disagrees with the way the bill is worded and that's why he votes against it. [/QUOTE]Yep!


It should also be noted that two different courts have recently deemed the ban unconstitutional, I believe for similiar reasons Kerry voted against it- though I am not certain.

edit- Make that three courts and for the same reasons Kerry rejected the law:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...n-ruling_x.htm
****************

Federal abortion ban gets 3rd rejection
By Richard Willing, USA TODAY
A federal court in Nebraska ruled on Wednesday that a U.S. law that bans a late-term abortion procedure is unconstitutional because it does not allow doctors to perform it to protect the health of the mother.
In a 476-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf in Lincoln rejected Congress' ban on the rarely used procedure, which involves ending a pregnancy by partially delivering a fetus and crushing or puncturing its skull. Abortion rights advocates call it "intact dilation and extraction"; critics call it "partial-birth abortion."

Wednesday's ruling followed similar decisions by federal courts in New York City and San Francisco against the law, which easily passed the Republican-led Congress last year and includes a two-year prison term for doctors who perform the procedure. (Related site: PDF of Nebraska ruling)

The legal battle over the procedure represents the latest turn in the war over abortion rights. It could be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2000 ruled that a Nebraska law banning the procedure was unconstitutionally vague because it could have been read to outlaw other types of procedures.

The Justice Department made it clear Wednesday that it will fight for the federal ban. "After signing this act of Congress, President Bush pledged that 'the executive branch will vigorously defend this law against any who would try to overturn it in the courts,' " the department said in a statement. "We will continue to defend the law to protect innocent new life."

Justice lawyers already had said they planned to appeal the San Francisco court's ruling against the ban in June. The department also is likely to appeal a ruling by a federal judge in New York City who struck down the U.S. law last month.

Justice officials are not enforcing the law pending the resolution of the court cases.

In signing the law last year, Bush said the measure "affirmed a basic standard of humanity, the duty of the strong to protect the weak." (Related site: Text of Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act)

But LeRoy Carhart, the abortion doctor who challenged the federal ban in the Nebraska case, said "the government has no business in a medical professional's office determining the safest or best treatment for patients with no knowledge of the medical circumstances." It was Carhart who successfully challenged the Nebraska law before the Supreme Court four years ago.

The federal ban passed last year was Congress' attempt to impose a law that wasn't as vague as the Nebraska statute that the Supreme Court rejected. But in his ruling Wednesday, Kopf said the federal law remained vague and that its drafters ignored testimony from doctors who suggested the procedure was sometimes necessary to preserve a mother's health.

"According to responsible medical opinion, there are times when the banned procedure is medically necessary ... and a respectful reading of the congressional record proves that," Kopf wrote.

Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented Carhart, said the decision was in line with Supreme Court rulings in abortion rights cases that have stressed the importance of protecting a woman's health.

"Congress ignored Supreme Court and medical opinion in enacting this ban," she said.

But Jay Sekulow of the anti-abortion American Center for Law and Justice said the "so-called health exception" is a false argument aimed at undermining a "law designed to end (a) horrific procedure."

[ 10-31-2004, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[krunchyfrogg]

LINK
(for those who don't want to view diagrams, I'll sum up below):


Ok, the abortionist manuevers the fetus, still inside the mother with tongs, and starts pulling the baby out feet first.

Then, while everything is out of the mother, except the head, the doctor inserts scissors into the base of the baby's skull, opens the scissors, and then suctions out the brains.

Since the head hasn't come out yet, the baby isn't considered alive, and this is legal.


You guys can spin my words any way you'd like, but if someone isn't against this, then they support it. It's the same thing as switching the term "Pro-Choice" into "Anti-Choice," which I've heard quite a few times.

If you can support not making this vile act illegal, you're the ones who have to sleep with yourselves. It's utterly disgusting.

---------

My point has partially been made with Grojlach's initial statement.

1) It helps if you provide us with some background information on what a partial-birth abortion is - I had to do some googling before having a general idea of the act itself

Exactly. Most people who are voting for Kerry don't even know why. They don't know what he supports, what he's against, they just know he's not George Bush.

Originally posted by Grojlach: And there you go: quote: John Kerry voted repeatedly against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. He says that a health exception is necessary. Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter has stated that Kerry would support the ban if it included a "clear exception for life or health of women." http://womensissues.about.com/od/par...ialbirth_2.htm

So nothing of this "Kerry supports it" spinning of yours whatsoever, he simply disagrees with the way the bill is worded and that's why he votes against it. [/QUOTE]
Before he votes for it....one thing we can count on, if the polls show it's expedient, he will be for it [img]smile.gif[/img] and will happily change his mind once the political wind shifts.

Partial Birth Abortion: Allowing the baby to be partially born...ie the head emerges from the vaginal canal and then hs its spine severed with a pair of sheers not unlike those used in trimming hedges.

(we call it Murder where I come from...and if you kill a woman who is pregnant, you will be tried as a double murderer...so it seems like there is precident for my opinion.)

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by krunchyfrogg: You guys can spin my words any way you'd like, but if someone isn't against this, then they support it. It's the same thing as switching the term "Pro-Choice" into "Anti-Choice," which I've heard quite a few times. If you can support not making this vile act illegal, you're the ones who have to sleep with yourselves. It's utterly disgusting.

You seem to have either misunderstood or completely ignored Groj's point that Kerry does not ideologically support PBA, but that he wishes the ban to be redefined to allow PBA to be utilised when the mother's life is clearly in danger due to complications of birth/caesarian.

I know that I (and many others) really don't care about what you happen to find 'vile' and 'disgusting' (and I'm assuming you'd be the kind of person that would call it 'evil' too right?). If your delicate moral sensibilities have been offended here, well, that's too bad. Console yourself in thinking those who aren't 'with you' are all 'against you'. We are, after all, godless, immoral, heathen scum now arn't we?

(pre-emptive anticipation of someone quoting the above tongue-in-cheek statement and smarmily commenting; 'your words, not mine' )

[ 10-31-2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Cloudbringer]

Hiero, that last post of yours was unnecessarily rude. Putting your 'assumed' words in someone else's posts is hardly fair debating, not to mention the tone you've applied. Take it down a notch from here on in or we'll be handing out yellow cards and shutting this thread down.

In general to everyone participating here: This is easily one of the more controversial topics on the forum and I hope to see DOUBLE the usual 'think before you post' going on as well as a whole basketful of tact being applied when disagreeing with the other guy's point of view.

[shamrock_uk]

Frankly I think it's a damn good thing Kerry had the courage to vote against this bill until there's an amendment, even on such a politically damaging issue like this when his stance is mis-represented.

I can't help feeling that anybody who thinks that the life of an unborn baby is worth more than that of the mother has to have lost sight of their perspective...the mother must have the right to a termination if her health is at risk.

It's the lesser of two evils - no-one is saying that killing unborn babies is a good thing, but refusal to have an abortion in certain cases would lead to the death of both mother and baby. To deny her the right to protect her health is just another example of why religious beliefs should stay the hell away from law-making.

[ 10-31-2004, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by krunchyfrogg: You guys can spin my words any way you'd like, but if someone isn't against this, then they support it. It's the same thing as switching the term "Pro-Choice" into "Anti-Choice," which I've heard quite a few times. If you can support not making this vile act illegal, you're the ones who have to sleep with yourselves. It's utterly disgusting.

It is quite evident that is not such a black and white issue. One can be against PBA and yet for provisions to protect the health of the woman. There is no bait and swith happening here. No spin. The issue is simply a little more complex than just for or against.

John Kerry recognized this small complexity and has stated frankly he doesn't support legalizing late-term abortions. He also recognized that leaving out a provision to protect a woman's health was an error. His veiwpoint and decision to vote no on a bill that lacked provisions for a woman's health has been reinforced by three diffferent judges in three different juridstictions.

Exactly. Most people who are voting for Kerry don't even know why. They don't know what he supports, what he's against, they just know he's not George Bush.

I doubt the "most people" part, but you are free to believe it if it makes you feel better.

[ 10-31-2004, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]