Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 2/21/2006 6:27:06 AM EDT
On FoxNews...they have agreed to revisit a decision concerning late term abortion.....now we shall see...
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 6:27:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/21/2006 6:30:51 AM EDT by w4klr]
Well... there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 6:29:28 AM EDT
I suspect that if they claim it can be banned, the pro-infanticide folks will riot in the streets.....
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 6:30:00 AM EDT

Late term abortion = "kill it"

Link Posted: 2/21/2006 6:32:40 AM EDT
late term is outright murder.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 6:32:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:
I suspect that if they claim it can be banned, the pro-infanticide folks will riot in the streets.....



Is that the same as a target rich environment?
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 6:34:49 AM EDT
[dawnofthedead]Rosie O'Donnel![/dawnofthedead]
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 6:40:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/21/2006 6:47:30 AM EDT by PBIR]
Nothing on Fox's website yet but this is on CNN's:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/21/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.

The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York.

The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito.


Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito's nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation.

Alito, in his rulings on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, has been more willing than O'Connor, the first woman justice, to allow restrictions on abortions, which were legalized in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.

Justices on a 9-0 vote vote reaffirmed in January that states can require parental involvement in abortion decisions and that state restrictions must have an exception to protect the mother's health.

The federal law in the current case has no health exception, but defenders maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



This is the partial-birth abortion ban from 2003, yes?





The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (Public Law 108-105, HR 760, S 3) (1) (or "PBA Ban") is a United States law that bans partial-birth abortion made in or affecting interstate commerce. Partial-birth abortion is defined in the law as:

an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.

The PBA ban enjoyed the support of the American Medical Association and large majorities of the American public. It passed both chambers of Congress with sizeable bi-partisan majorities: 281-142 in the House of Representatives and 64-34 in the United States Senate. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 5th, 2003. At the time it became law, whether it would take legal effect in all 50 states was uncertain due to several court challenges. The bill was declared unconstitutional by federal judges in San Francisco, California, New York and Lincoln, Nebraska before it could be implemented. For further information on the political and legal issues surrounding the bill, see Abortion in the United States.

In Stenberg v. Carhart, the Supreme Court had struck down a similar Nebraska law, stating that an exemption for the health of mothers would be necessary for such a ban to be constitutional. While the PBA bill does not contain a general exemption for the health of the mother, it does have an exemption to save her life. The bill states that it "does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

Status of the Law

The law has never been enforced.


June 1, 2004

Federal District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of California struck it down on June 1, 2004 on three grounds (2):

* Because it places an 'undue burden' (i.e., "a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.") on women seeking abortion.
* Because its language is unconstitutionally vague.
* Because it lacks constitutionally-required provisions to preserve women's health.

A nationwide injunction was withheld while waiting for similar decisions from the Federal Courts of Nebraska and New York.

(Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft)


August 26, 2004

New York District Judge Richard C. Casey found the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional. He ruled that the act must contain exceptions to protect a woman's health.

(NAF v. Ashcroft)


September 8, 2004

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf in Nebraska concluded that, "the overwhelming weight of the trial evidence proves that the banned procedure is safe and medically necessary in order to preserve the health of women under certain circumstances. In the absence of an exception for the health of a woman, banning the procedure constitutes a significant health hazard to women."

"The court does not determine whether the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is constitutional or unconstitutional when the fetus is indisputably viable," Kopf wrote.

(Carhart v. Ashcroft)


July 8, 2005

Three judges of the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis unanimously agreed, "Because the Act does not contain a health exception, it is unconstitutional."

(Carhart v. Gonzales)


January 31, 2006

Two federal appeals courts on opposite sides of the country declared the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Tuesday, January 31, 2006, saying the measure lacks an exception for cases in which a woman's health is at stake.

The first ruling came from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hours later, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued a similar decision in a 2-1 ruling.

Link Posted: 2/21/2006 6:46:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By supersix4:
late term is outright murder.




All abortion is outright murder
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 6:46:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PBIR:
Nothing on Fox's website yet but this is on CNN's:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/21/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.

The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York.

The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito.

Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito's nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation.

Alito, in his rulings on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, has been more willing than O'Connor, the first woman justice, to allow restrictions on abortions, which were legalized in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.

Justices on a 9-0 vote vote reaffirmed in January that states can require parental involvement in abortion decisions and that state restrictions must have an exception to protect the mother's health.

The federal law in the current case has no health exception, but defenders maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



This is the partial-birth abortion ban from 2003, yes?



That is such a fucking abomination.

I can't even express how evil that is.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 6:48:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 7:25:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 7:42:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PBIR:
This is the partial-birth abortion ban from 2003, yes?



Medically there's no such thing as a "partial-birth abortion." This is merely a term invented by the anti-abortion crowd to make it sound scary and horrifying. Just like the anti-gunners did with terms like "assault weapon," "Saturday Night Special," and "cop killer bullets."


Originally Posted By w4klr:
Well... there is light at the end of the tunnel.



Congratulations - you anti-abortionists have stooped down to the same level as Sarah Brady. How does it feel?
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 7:43:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By supersix4:
late term is outright murder.



+1
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 7:47:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JavaMan:

Originally Posted By PBIR:
This is the partial-birth abortion ban from 2003, yes?



Medically there's no such thing as a "partial-birth abortion." This is merely a term invented by the anti-abortion crowd to make it sound scary and horrifying. Just like the anti-gunners did with terms like "assault weapon," "Saturday Night Special," and "cop killer bullets."


Originally Posted By w4klr:
Well... there is light at the end of the tunnel.



Congratulations - you anti-abortionists have stooped down to the same level as Sarah Brady. How does it feel?



Feel fine. Alot better than I'd feel after pulling a child out between some skank's legs and crushing it's skull.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 7:47:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JavaMan:

Originally Posted By PBIR:
This is the partial-birth abortion ban from 2003, yes?



Medically there's no such thing as a "partial-birth abortion." This is merely a term invented by the anti-abortion crowd to make it sound scary and horrifying. Just like the anti-gunners did with terms like "assault weapon," "Saturday Night Special," and "cop killer bullets."


Originally Posted By w4klr:
Well... there is light at the end of the tunnel.



Congratulations - you anti-abortionists have stooped down to the same level as Sarah Brady. How does it feel?



Bullshit! The procedure is totally different than a regular abortion.

Pulling a babies head out of a vagina, sticking needle into the base of it's skull, scrambling the brains, then sticking the baby back in and the delivering it is murder plain and simple.

Link Posted: 2/21/2006 7:48:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JavaMan:

Originally Posted By PBIR:
This is the partial-birth abortion ban from 2003, yes?


Medically there's no such thing as a "partial-birth abortion." This is merely a term invented by the anti-abortion crowd to make it sound scary and horrifying. Just like the anti-gunners did with terms like "assault weapon," "Saturday Night Special," and "cop killer bullets."

Bringing a living, viable infant "partially" out of the "birth" canal before it is killed is in common terms a "partial birth" abortion.

The only scary part is when people believe it's equivalent to wart removal.

Link Posted: 2/21/2006 7:51:08 AM EDT
Oh my God, if they decide against it, we might not be able to kill our babies! Oh the horror!
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 7:54:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By JavaMan:

Originally Posted By PBIR:
This is the partial-birth abortion ban from 2003, yes?



Medically there's no such thing as a "partial-birth abortion." This is merely a term invented by the anti-abortion crowd to make it sound scary and horrifying. Just like the anti-gunners did with terms like "assault weapon," "Saturday Night Special," and "cop killer bullets."


Originally Posted By w4klr:
Well... there is light at the end of the tunnel.



Congratulations - you anti-abortionists have stooped down to the same level as Sarah Brady. How does it feel?



Bullshit! The procedure is totally different than a regular abortion.

Pulling a babies head out of a vagina, sticking needle into the base of it's skull, scrambling the brains, then sticking the baby back in and the delivering it is murder plain and simple.




Don't bother explaining it. They know the difference they simply want the unregulated ability to kill thier own, not only to do it, but to wait until late in the pregancy to do so. Who cares about the living feeling thing they are crushing, ripping, smashing.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:05:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JavaMan:

Originally Posted By PBIR:
This is the partial-birth abortion ban from 2003, yes?



Medically there's no such thing as a "partial-birth abortion." This is merely a term invented by the anti-abortion crowd to make it sound scary and horrifying. Just like the anti-gunners did with terms like "assault weapon," "Saturday Night Special," and "cop killer bullets."


Originally Posted By w4klr:
Well... there is light at the end of the tunnel.



Congratulations - you anti-abortionists have stooped down to the same level as Sarah Brady. How does it feel?



Well, here is what I meant by my statement.

Abortion and 2nd amendmend rights are two subjects that the SCOTUS HAVE NOT BEEN TOUCHING FOR YEARS, there is light at the end of the tunnel for our 2nd amendment rights.

I choose not to throw my thoughts on abortion here, or anywhere for that matter. But on another note, guns don't kill people, but abortion clinics /doctors do.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:05:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By JavaMan:

Originally Posted By PBIR:
This is the partial-birth abortion ban from 2003, yes?


Medically there's no such thing as a "partial-birth abortion." This is merely a term invented by the anti-abortion crowd to make it sound scary and horrifying. Just like the anti-gunners did with terms like "assault weapon," "Saturday Night Special," and "cop killer bullets."

Bringing a living, viable infant "partially" out of the "birth" canal before it is killed is in common terms a "partial birth" abortion.

The only scary part is when people believe it's equivalent to wart removal.




Well Said. +1
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:09:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JavaMan:
Congratulations - you anti-abortionists have stooped down to the same level as Sarah Brady. How does it feel?



I feel like lighting up a cigarette.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:12:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Schulze:
Oh my God, if they decide against it, we might not be able to kill our babies! Oh the horror!


Actually, it would be a MAJOR victory for states rights. Precedence would be set that would allow a state to place a limit on abortion. I would hope that this would allow Roe to be struck down, allowing states to legislate abortion as they wish.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:30:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/21/2006 8:42:27 AM EDT by fish223]

Originally Posted By w4klr:
Well... there is light at the end of the tunnel.



edited at thread posters request in light of proper context.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:31:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
Actually, it would be a MAJOR victory for states rights. Precedence would be set that would allow a state to place a limit on abortion. I would hope that this would allow Roe to be struck down, allowing states to legislate abortion as they wish.




I'll tell you what: Even though I am pro-life under all but the most restricted circumstances, I'd be happy if the "constitutionality" of this "right" was debunked, once and for all. It isn't, and never was.

Some states will ban it. Others won't. That's a far better state of affairs (and much more constitutional) than the farce we have now.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:32:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JavaMan:
Congratulations - you anti-abortionists have stooped down to the same level as Sarah Brady. How does it feel?



Yeah.

Because being against a procedure where a VIABLE fetus is partially extracted from the womb so his or her skull can be split open and his or her brains sucked out makes us crazy people who are just out to stomp on people's freedom.....

Crimony.

You need help.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:34:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fish223:

Originally Posted By w4klr:
Well... there is light at the end of the tunnel.



sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.



See my second post, then edit your first please.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:36:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:37:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Schulze:
Oh my God, if they decide against it, we might not be able to kill our babies! Oh the horror!


Actually, it would be a MAJOR victory for states rights. Precedence would be set that would allow a state to place a limit on abortion. I would hope that this would allow Roe to be struck down, allowing states to legislate abortion as they wish.



Actually this is a Federal ban that's being argued. I'd prefer to see it be a state law myself, but it is hard to see this as anything but plain 'ol murder and many states sitting on their hands while viable humans are being smashed to death or impaled in the head invites the Feds to act.

I may not be a hardcore anti-abortion person. My view is early on that it is immoral and wrong, but I could live with it's existance in the first few days and weeks. This is however outright barberism and inhumanity. I can't even understand how a person can live with performing such a thing.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:39:00 AM EDT
Barbara Boxer must be crapping a brick
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:39:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By JavaMan:
Congratulations - you anti-abortionists have stooped down to the same level as Sarah Brady. How does it feel?



Yeah.

Because being against a procedure where a VIABLE fetus is partially extracted from the womb so his or her skull can be split open and his or her brains sucked out makes us crazy people who are just out to stomp on people's freedom.....

Crimony.

You need help.



I'm gonna have give you a big +1 on this. Late term abortion is horrible. The idea that a fetus is partially delivered, is moving its arms and legs and all that, could just as easily go into an incubator, but the mother decides to inject clorox into its head is morally bankrupt.

Doctors should refuse to perform this procedure. I couldn't imagine being the one that does it. How much money is worth it?
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:45:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/21/2006 8:48:59 AM EDT by ScaryGuy]

Originally Posted By JavaMan:
Congratulations - you anti-abortionists have stooped down to the same level as Sarah Brady. How does it feel?



Ask the baby having it's head crushed that question.

I wish you pro abortionist ghouls would at least have the common fucking decency to call it what it is....murder for convenience.

I call a spade a spade and a ghoulish fucktard a ghoulish fucktard.

How's that feel?

SG

Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:54:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By buckfever34:

Originally Posted By supersix4:
late term is outright murder.




All abortion is outright murder



+1.

If killing a 9-month-old baby is wrong, killing a 1-day-old baby is wrong.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 8:59:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
Actually this is a Federal ban that's being argued.


Crap, your right. I read the article wrong.


Originally Posted By Grunteled:
I'd prefer to see it be a state law myself, but it is hard to see this as anything but plain 'ol murder and many states sitting on their hands while viable humans are being smashed to death or impaled in the head invites the Feds to act.


I'm not so sure. There is no sweeping federal "murder" law. If you kill a federal employee, yeah, but federal law does not bar all murder. I feel that this should ONLY be a state issue.

I guess this could eventually be another (overly broad) interstate commerce ruling since people would cross state lines to get abortions.

What a mess.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 9:02:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
If killing a 9-month-old baby is wrong, killing a 1-day-old baby is wrong.


That depends on your definition of "baby..." I'd love to see a scientific debate on viability instead of the hysterics you see on both sides.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 9:06:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
Actually this is a Federal ban that's being argued.


Crap, your right. I read the article wrong.


Originally Posted By Grunteled:
I'd prefer to see it be a state law myself, but it is hard to see this as anything but plain 'ol murder and many states sitting on their hands while viable humans are being smashed to death or impaled in the head invites the Feds to act.


I'm not so sure. There is no sweeping federal "murder" law. If you kill a federal employee, yeah, but federal law does not bar all murder. I feel that this should ONLY be a state issue.

I guess this could eventually be another (overly broad) interstate commerce ruling since people would cross state lines to get abortions.

What a mess.



Well... I'm also not sure, but feds can intervene if for instance a state decides that killing latinos is no longer murder and can be freely done by anyone without punishment as long as you do it by jabbing a hole into their head and ripping the brains out. Perhaps this is along those lines.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 9:09:09 AM EDT
Looks at watch.....

When will garandman arrive?
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 9:11:48 AM EDT
LTA's suck but then I feel those likely to seek an abortion probabaly shouldn't be reproducing in the first place. I'm inclined to let it be the woman's decision. I don't think I want the .gov wasting my time and tax dollars on this and I don't want to see political battles on this subject taking time and resources away from more important issues.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 9:15:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
If killing a 9-month-old baby is wrong, killing a 1-day-old baby is wrong.


That depends on your definition of "baby..." I'd love to see a scientific debate on viability instead of the hysterics you see on both sides.







are you serious, man? a baby that is killed in late term is viable. Hell, babies that are born premature are growing it to healthy kids. WTF, over
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 9:20:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Barbara Boxer must be crapping a brick




Why? Kalifornia would most likely become the lead abortion supplier in the western U.S., which would mean big bucks and more taxes.

It's all about money for those scumbags, anyway.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 9:24:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By skpp108:
LTA's suck but then I feel those likely to seek an abortion probabaly shouldn't be reproducing in the first place. I'm inclined to let it be the woman's decision. I don't think I want the .gov wasting my time and tax dollars on this and I don't want to see political battles on this subject taking time and resources away from more important issues.[/quote]

Could you please cite a more important issue than murdering humans? You can call them fetuses, or you can call them babies, or you can call them just about anything you desire to help ease the moral shock....doesn't change the fact that they are humans and they are being slaughtered.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 9:25:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pcsutton:
Originally Posted By skpp108:
LTA's suck but then I feel those likely to seek an abortion probabaly shouldn't be reproducing in the first place. I'm inclined to let it be the woman's decision. I don't think I want the .gov wasting my time and tax dollars on this and I don't want to see political battles on this subject taking time and resources away from more important issues.[/quote]

Could you please cite a more important issue than murdering humans? You can call them fetuses, or you can call them babies, or you can call them just about anything you desire to help ease the moral shock....doesn't change the fact that they are humans and they are being slaughtered for convienence.




right on, pcsutton
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 9:32:13 AM EDT
How often does LTA occur? And is it ever done when not *medically* necessary?
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 9:56:35 AM EDT
I'm not in favor of late term abortions unless there is a strong medical need. If there is a good chance that the woman will die before/during giving birth however, I think it should be her decision.

I also not in favor of rhetorical terms such as "Partial Birth Abortion" for late term abortions, or "Abortionist" for medical doctor.

Ed
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:08:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/21/2006 10:09:00 AM EDT by Grunteled]

Originally Posted By TexasEd:
I'm not in favor of late term abortions unless there is a strong medical need. If there is a good chance that the woman will die before/during giving birth however, I think it should be her decision.

I also not in favor of rhetorical terms such as "Partial Birth Abortion" for late term abortions, or "Abortionist" for medical doctor.

Ed



Why not? You "partially birth" the baby to gain access to the head to destroy the baby's brain, but not so far as to create a "live birth" which would forbid you from performing the abortion. Seems to be a perfect description of the process to me.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:26:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By TexasEd:
I'm not in favor of late term abortions unless there is a strong medical need. If there is a good chance that the woman will die before/during giving birth however, I think it should be her decision.

I also not in favor of rhetorical terms such as "Partial Birth Abortion" for late term abortions, or "Abortionist" for medical doctor.

Ed



Why not? You "partially birth" the baby to gain access to the head to destroy the baby's brain, but not so far as to create a "live birth" which would forbid you from performing the abortion. Seems to be a perfect description of the process to me.



And a 9mm semi-automatic pistol is a weapon that can be used to assault someone, therefore it is an "assault weapon" right ?
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:31:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasEd:
And a 9mm semi-automatic pistol is a weapon that can be used to assault someone, therefore it is an "assault weapon" right ?




Only if it is ACTUALLY used in an assault. You're comparing a theoretical with a factual.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:49:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By TexasEd:
And a 9mm semi-automatic pistol is a weapon that can be used to assault someone, therefore it is an "assault weapon" right ?




Only if it is ACTUALLY used in an assault. You're comparing a theoretical with a factual.



Gee talk about hair splitting. So how about "abortionist" instead of medical doctor? My point is that using rhetoric with anyone who can see past it hurts your cause rather than help it. I'm not against your ideas, just trying to help get your point across. I shut down completly when I hear of someone talking about "Saturday Night Specials" as I know that it will do no good to try to have an intelligent conversation. I'm just suggesting that sticking to factual language instead of rhetoric can help you be more convincing in an argument to win someone over to your side.

Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:51:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasEd:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By TexasEd:
I'm not in favor of late term abortions unless there is a strong medical need. If there is a good chance that the woman will die before/during giving birth however, I think it should be her decision.

I also not in favor of rhetorical terms such as "Partial Birth Abortion" for late term abortions, or "Abortionist" for medical doctor.

Ed



Why not? You "partially birth" the baby to gain access to the head to destroy the baby's brain, but not so far as to create a "live birth" which would forbid you from performing the abortion. Seems to be a perfect description of the process to me.



And a 9mm semi-automatic pistol is a weapon that can be used to assault someone, therefore it is an "assault weapon" right ?



I'm not into rhetorical terms such as "Medical Doctor" for Abortionist. Isn't sucking out the brain of a human being considered assault?

Following your logic, one would have to add "assault" to anything that can be used to assault a person...'assault abortionist', 'assault tire iron', 'assault bottle', 'assault toothbrush', 'assault squirt gun', 'assault spray paint can', 'assault medical doctor', 'assault dead kitty'....ad nauseum.

By definition, 'late term abortions' means killing a viable human being. Said human being can be surgically delivered and survive. The Mother isn't going to die by having a baby surgically delivered.

Y'all are grasping at straws.
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 10:58:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasEd:

Gee talk about hair splitting. So how about "abortionist" instead of medical doctor?




Who is splitting hairs? A doctor who performs abortions is an abortionist, just as a doctor who performs cardiac surgery is a cardiac surgeon.

If a man commits murder, he is a murderer. Just because someone MIGHT commit murder, however, doesn't make him one.



I shut down completly when I hear of someone talking about "Saturday Night Specials" as I know that it will do no good to try to have an intelligent conversation. I'm just suggesting that sticking to factual language instead of rhetoric can help you be more convincing in an argument to win someone over to your side.


I would agree with you, and the example you cite is perfect. The "Saturday Night Special" is a term coined by opponents of guns for the specific purpose of misleading others. However, the term "abortionist", as I describe above, is perfectly legitimate based upon specific actions done by certain people.

It's why the pro-abortion side hates the term; it's the TRUTH, and they know it. We can argue how the Saturday Night Special is a construct of an opinion. They cannot argue against the title "abortionist".
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 11:12:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JavaMan:

Medically there's no such thing as a "partial-birth abortion." This is merely a term invented by the anti-abortion crowd to make it sound scary and horrifying. Just like the anti-gunners did with terms like "assault weapon," "Saturday Night Special," and "cop killer bullets."

Congratulations - you anti-abortionists have stooped down to the same level as Sarah Brady. How does it feel?



How does it feel being a Hitlery Klinton social agenda supporting dipshit?



www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm
www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top