Make yourself a cup of joe and lets talk about Senate's ban on partial birth abortion

70% of Americans are against abortion, unless the mother is going to die giving birth.

So now we're going to go back in time to the back alley with a coat hanger. I believe people should leave it to the pregnant mother.

[moshen]

i believe that this law is absolutely horrific.

abortions are biodegradable.

[bfp]

a report from kansas, which holds partial birth abortions stated that out of the 182 cases of pba's, all 182 were done because the mother's were "mentally" unstable to have the child, they had nothing to do with health. so sad.

its nazi-lite if you ask me. the house and senate both approved in 96 to do away with pba, but clinton of course vetoed the bill. i also heard on the news that they take the baby parts and sell them on the market.

[kit'n]

ive read about all the lives they'll be saving ... like we really need anymore fucking unwanted people running around. of course, i have a fairly strong neo-malthusian streak running through me, so im all for abortions, early or late.

[bfp]

Originally posted by kit'n
ive read about all the lives they'll be saving ... like we really need anymore fucking unwanted people running around. of course, i have a fairly strong neo-malthusian streak running through me, so im all for abortions, early or late.

yea... thanks for your input..

i personally, am not for abortions(especially late term), pulling the 9½ month baby out while leaving the head in while its kicking, snipping its neck open, pulling the brains out and crushing the skull. yummy. but if its a life and death situation, i suppose. but not because the woman cannot handle it mentally. selfish if you ask me. but if you want to know how many abortions have taken place since the 70's, oh, around 30 million.

very passionate of you kit'n.. maybe i should take you down to the nearest animal shelter and put you to sleep. it would do society a favor.

[Dionysos]

Personally the details of a partial-birth abortion procedure sound hideous. If I were to have a pregnancy that I was responsible for I would probably choose to have the child. That said, I'm a pro-choice person. I don't believe it's my right to impose my will on another woman/couple who is in an entirely different situation than me.

[Clover]

I'm very prochoice, but can't understand why if your not going to have the baby, you wait that long to get an abortion.

If you've already waited that long and then decide not to keep it, there's this nifty thing called adoption.

I'm okay with abortion at early stages, but when the fetus is that developed it is pushing a line. I don't agree with PBAs. That the world could do without.

[kit'n]

i personally, am not for abortions(especially late term), pulling the 9½ month baby out while leaving the head in while its kicking, snipping its neck open, pulling the brains out and crushing the skull. yummy. but if its a life and death situation, i suppose. but not because the woman cannot handle it mentally. selfish if you ask me. but if you want to know how many abortions have taken place since the 70's, oh, around 30 million.

perhaps u should have paid more attention in school... if late term abortion happened at 9 1/2 months, then the docs would be killing the baby 2 weeks AFTER it was already born! or did u not know that 9 months is a full term pregnancy? late term is in the 2nd and 3rd trimester... not after they've been born

oh... and 30 million u say? well FUCK YEAH!!! like we need that extra 30 million wastes of space! we, as a nation cant raise the kids (past and present) right, why do we need to add more?

and since when has mental instability not been a health issue... oh yeah... its sooo selfish of a woman who cant afford to feed the child to bring it into the world (oh, adn dont get started about adoption and foster homes... that just makes childrens lives more miserable)... its so selfish for the woman who doesnt know right from wrong to bring a child into the world, if she doesnt do something fucked up to it, then it'll pick up her instability and carry it on to others.... its so selfish for a woman who knows that she is incapable of being PROPERLY responsible for another human being to bring that human being into the world.

oh yeah... and its COMpassionate i believe u were thinking about, not passionate.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by kit'n
its so selfish for a woman who knows that she is incapable of being PROPERLY responsible for another human being to bring that human being into the world.

To be fair, if she knows she can't be responsible for a child she shouldn't be having unprotected sex. While I agree that we don't need more unwanted children, there's something to be said for not putting yourself in the position to get pregnant.

If kitn was unborn child, I would have the abortion if I wasn't ready to take care of her. It's my life too and I've put more time on this planet than some kid who can't even see the world around him or her, not even conscious of it, and hasn't even sucked their first breath of fresh air.

It's pretty stupid to be forced to have a kid you can't take care of and given two options:

1) throw away the responsibility to some other entity that may or may not find a loving family for the infant.
Leaving it up to chance: How many mothers actually do this when forced into such a situation?

2) I think most will try to take care of the kid themselves, whether they're fit to or not, end up on welfare, and ask us the taxpayers to show them the money.


or nevermind the above and 3) If you fornicated and got knocked up, and can't deal with the shame from your puritanical family, you'll grab a coat hanger, some lysol and go into a back alley. Hopefully you'll survive it.

posted by Rosebud:

To be fair, if she knows she can't be responsible for a child she shouldn't be having unprotected sex.

To be fair, people also have accidents and miss their pill days, or a condom breaks, or just plain uneducated about sex to think a guy can pull out in time. These are probably the consequences of sex education that stresses only abstinence, if they even get that much. I never got any sex ed. at the schools I went to.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by Hachi Krachi
posted by Rosebud:

To be fair, people also have accidents and miss their pill days, or a condom breaks, or just plain uneducated about sex to think a guy can pull out in time. These are probably the consequences of sex education that stresses only abstinence, if they even get that much. I never got any sex ed. at the schools I went to.

Granted, there are exceptions to the scenario I laid out. However, I think more often than not these situations arise because of one's own actions rather than a malfunctioning piece of protection.

i personally dont agree with abortion. the only time i feel its ok is if the childs birth would kill the mother, a case of rape or incest. i dont feel a child should be aborted if its going to be deformed or retarded (thats playing the eugenics card, which is a whole different debate in and of itself). I also disagree with it when its a cheap alternative to avoiding consequence of your actions.

yet, i understand that there are people who get pregnant accidently and cant afford or want the child.
there is also the lack of availability of birth controll that is safe and reliable to certain segments of the population. there is also a lack of education about sex and its consequences in america as well. and quite often the education that is provided, is with a biased and ignorant view of the world.
(strangely, when i was in the 5th grade, my catholic school in mississippi had an adult education class that taught us about sex and condoms and such, i consider that shocking and strangely progressive for the south and the catholic church)

so henceforth we find our society in a catch-22.
if i may be so full of myself to offer a suggestion....
maybe we should spend more money on making sex education updated and widely available. why not make it mandatory in school? screw the religious uptights....this is not thier world, its a non-secular education. dont want your kids to learn about it, send em to parochial school.
we should also make birth controll available to those who want it. this birth controll should be safe, inexpensive, and easily used, and most importantly, reliable.

using these methods abortion would not then become illegal, as i dont feel it would ever become again. but why not have it become unneccessary?

[c double]

these partial birth abortions are not abortions at all
I think they're over the line, I would never consider it
should it be a woman's choice to throw a newborn in the dumpster?
that's murder, but if the doctor pulls the child halfway out and then kills it, it's just health care..

but is it government's place to decide? Our government is not moral in any meaning of the word. I refuse to accept its guidelines for right and wrong, which it doesn't even follow.

I'm pro choice. I'm not religious, and I don't necessarily think that taking a life is always wrong. I wonder sometimes if there is even such thing as right and wrong. As our ultimate goal as a race is survival, and that the most reasonable basis on which to decide whether or not something has value, or "is right", I'd have to say that many commonly accepted "right and wrong" behaviors are not really accurate when you view our human existence as a struggle to survive. Anything goes, and it's been pretty clear through history that that's the way it is and that morality imposed upon men by completely immoral religious and political leaders, is more often than not a hindrance to the goals of survival and improvement.
Viewed in that context, it first seems that abortion would be one of the most evil acts men could achieve, considering that reproduction and population growth would typically be desired for the achievement of these goals. But we face a situation on Earth where the growing population of our species is one of the greatest threats to survival.
So its right and wrong at the same time, or neither, or something like that.. I say people should be free to choose. But I know I would never be able to choose to let a doctor kill my child after it is already almost completed the transformation into being a human being, just like me.

What I would like to know is a reliable (not done by pro-choicers or pro-lifers) source explaining why women have this horrific, horrific, HORRRRRRIIIIIIFFFFFFIIIIIICCCC (!!!!!!) procedure done.

I can't imagine that any woman would want to have that done because of convenience ("Gee - the baby is due in two weeks but I changed my mind - suck out my babies brain so that I don't need to clean his'/her's ass"). There **must** be a really life-threatening reason (for the woman) to do something terrible like this procedure. Please!!!

That said - why can't this procedure be banned with a loop-hole that if it is really, really the last resort to save the mother, it could be done as an exception? Why does it have to be totally outlawed? Imagine the horror, if you are a pregnant woman in the last trimester, who learns that her pregancy will KILL her (and possibly the baby), if the pregnancy is not terminated by an outlawed procedure (as shocking as it is). IMO, this is an example, where non-medical professionals should not make an absolute law. Why does it have to be so black-and-white and drowned in ideology from both sides?!?

..Octo.