| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2005 11:57:07 AM |
| Object: |
ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
Hi,
The abortionists have been subscribing to Christian news
groups (note that they are the only groups listed in some
of their posts), for the purpose of harassing Christians.
And while they claim that I am running away and that
they have already answered these questions, the reality
is that they are the ones who keep trying to change the
subject, attacking me and I have even bagged them later
saying that I don't deserve answers, which means that all
of the times that they claimed that they already answered
them, they lied.
The abortionists are afraid of these questions regarding
partial birth abortion and it shows. They haven't even had
their facts straight, equating D&X to partial birth abortion
and trying to claim that the bill (later in message) was
rejected, when in reality, it was a different bill than the
one I'm quoting (further down) and it was only set aside,
because it didn't leave an option for saving the mother's
life if necessary.
Craig calls it "self defense", even though less than 2%
of all abortions are done for medical reasons, according
to the women themselves.
So let's look and see what Craig and his foolish cronies are
running away from. And please check the links in my sig. :)
Partial Birth Abortion: The questions you keep dodging.
Even you would agree that once the baby is coming out,
that it's a baby. Thus, there are five questions posed...
1) What in the following words is not true?
2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?
3) Since all but the babies head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can it be self defense?
4) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can a partial birth abortion
be for medical reasons that would threaten a woman's
life if she tried to deliver? How is it self defense?
5) And why does the Bill call it a baby and equate "fetus"
and "baby" to the same person, if it is not murder?
They take the baby out, all but it's head and then
claim it isn't born and ram a sharp object into its
skull and drain the brain out and then claim not
to be murdering a baby.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965)
"the person performing the abortion deliberately and
intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until,
in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire
fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in
the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal
trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,
and then kills the baby."
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Craig threatens me with a law suit:
http://Craig-threatens-PastorDave.notlong.com
I prove that Craig does indeed like young girls
and that it is not libel:
http://PastorDave-proves-his-case.notlong.com
Craig knowing he has been bagged, wooses out
of suing me:
http://Craig-wooses-out.notlong.com
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 09:15:37 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:17:08 -0400, Adam H.
<adam@mailinator.com> spake thusly:
Of all the procedures I'm aware of the fetus was alive and they had to
kill it so it could be born dead.
Just because a fetus is alive doesn't mean it's going to survive
birth. Even a fetus with no brain can be alive, you know.
Can I just get some clarification here? Adam, you're saying that D&X is
never elective, is never performed where the foetus is healthy, and is a
potentially high-risk procedure (to the mother) which would not be used if
another option, such as stillbirth delivery, were feasible - is that
correct?
So, we're talking about a comparatively rare procedure which would only be
used, for instance, in cases of anencephaly or similar?
Unfortunately, the procedure cannot be said to be *never elective or
never used on healthy fetuses, since some physicians violate
regulations/laws when they perform it - but the fact is that such use
is not allowed, so a ban will not affect such cases.
They aren't violating regulations. They are performing what
has been legal.
Dave is lying. Late-term abortions are regulatedm regardless of the
method used.
In fact, under federal law, an abortion was
not illegal at all.
There's another example of dishonesty - abortion is regulated by the
states.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 10:00:45 AM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
"Jude Alexander" <Jude@thebayou.LA> wrote in message
news:s%x_e.11578$eB3.6644@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
<Louise> wrote in message
news:q58lj1t3445nlj7rfpil86kdhdf1gnlq9b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:45:34 GMT, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:42:26 -0400, Louise <> spake thusly:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:41:27 GMT, <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dhd2ge$irq$1@bolt.sonic.net...
<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
I
believe that partial birth abortions are tantamount to murder.
That's because you're stupid. You believe is evil fairy tales
as an
excuse to hate people.
******I am neither stupid nor hate people. At some point,
deliberately
killing a living human organism is murder.
Your very existence "deliberately kills another living human
organism"
because you want to live.
Feel better?
Partial Birth Abortion:
Doesn't exist.
Partial birth abortion is a common term for the Intact Dilation and
Extraction (D&X) abortion procedure. President Bush signed a ban on
this procedure into law in November, 2003. You can read the act in its
entirety by clicking on:
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/partialbirth/a/partialbirthact.htm
Current Status
The House voted overwhelmingly to ban the procedure with a vote of
281-142 (63 Democrats joined most Republicans in favor). The Senate
voted 64 to 34 to ban the abortions. President Bush signed the bill
into a law on November 4th. Kate Michelman, head of NARAL has declared
that they will challenge the law, and trials are going on across the
nation. Many judges have struck down the ban.
History
1995 Federal Bill Banning Partial Birth Abortion: This bill, if
passed, would have illegalized partial birth abortion and set a
sentence of a fine and/or 2 years in prison for people who broke this
law. The exceptions for performing;a partial birth abortion would have
been in cases where the abortion was necessary to save the life of the
woman who was having the procedure.
The House of Representatives passed the bill, followed by Congress.
President Clinton vetoed the bill in 1996.
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997: This bill was very similar
to the 1995 bill, and was also passed by the House and Congress.
President Clinton vetoed this bell as well.
State Laws: Currently 23 states have passed laws to ban partial birth
abortion. These include AL, AK, AZ, AR, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, LA, MI,
MS, MN, NE, NJ, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, and VA.
http://womensissues.about.com/od/partialbirthabortion/i/ispartialbirth
.htm
What's your opinion on the procedure?
I think the procedure is barbaric and STRICT restrictions should be put in
place, it shouldn't be allowed, unless it is absolutely necessary to save a
woman's life and there is absolutely no other alternatives available.
I still have a major problem with the idea of oversight. Who would be
making the decision that the woman is in danger if not the attending
doctor, who, how and when would be issuing the approval what would be
considered "sufficient" danger to the woman? I don't like the idea of
either politicians or political appointees making decisions on something
they are not (in general, unless doctors themselves) qualified to make
or issue decisions on, or a committee monday-morning quarterbacking
after the fact. The idea of having to obtain advance approval could in
and of itself be life-threatening as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 10:16:32 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127919801_30239@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
osprey wrote:
"Jude Alexander" <Jude@thebayou.LA> wrote in message
news:s%x_e.11578$eB3.6644@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
<Louise> wrote in message
news:q58lj1t3445nlj7rfpil86kdhdf1gnlq9b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:45:34 GMT, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:42:26 -0400, Louise <> spake thusly:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:41:27 GMT, <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dhd2ge$irq$1@bolt.sonic.net...
<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
I
believe that partial birth abortions are tantamount to murder.
That's because you're stupid. You believe is evil fairy tales
as an
excuse to hate people.
******I am neither stupid nor hate people. At some point,
deliberately
killing a living human organism is murder.
Your very existence "deliberately kills another living human
organism"
because you want to live.
Feel better?
Partial Birth Abortion:
Doesn't exist.
Partial birth abortion is a common term for the Intact Dilation and
Extraction (D&X) abortion procedure. President Bush signed a ban on
this procedure into law in November, 2003. You can read the act in its
entirety by clicking on:
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/partialbirth/a/partialbirthact.htm
Current Status
The House voted overwhelmingly to ban the procedure with a vote of
281-142 (63 Democrats joined most Republicans in favor). The Senate
voted 64 to 34 to ban the abortions. President Bush signed the bill
into a law on November 4th. Kate Michelman, head of NARAL has declared
that they will challenge the law, and trials are going on across the
nation. Many judges have struck down the ban.
History
1995 Federal Bill Banning Partial Birth Abortion: This bill, if
passed, would have illegalized partial birth abortion and set a
sentence of a fine and/or 2 years in prison for people who broke this
law. The exceptions for performing;a partial birth abortion would have
been in cases where the abortion was necessary to save the life of the
woman who was having the procedure.
The House of Representatives passed the bill, followed by Congress.
President Clinton vetoed the bill in 1996.
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997: This bill was very similar
to the 1995 bill, and was also passed by the House and Congress.
President Clinton vetoed this bell as well.
State Laws: Currently 23 states have passed laws to ban partial birth
abortion. These include AL, AK, AZ, AR, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, LA, MI,
MS, MN, NE, NJ, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, and VA.
http://womensissues.about.com/od/partialbirthabortion/i/ispartialbirth
.htm
What's your opinion on the procedure?
I think the procedure is barbaric and STRICT restrictions should be put
in place, it shouldn't be allowed, unless it is absolutely necessary to
save a woman's life and there is absolutely no other alternatives
available.
I still have a major problem with the idea of oversight. Who would be
making the decision that the woman is in danger if not the attending
doctor,
I believe the doctor is the only one who can make that decision.
who, how and when would be issuing the approval what would be
considered "sufficient" danger to the woman? I don't like the idea of
either politicians or political appointees making decisions on something
they are not (in general, unless doctors themselves) qualified to make or
issue decisions on, or a committee monday-morning quarterbacking after the
fact. The idea of having to obtain advance approval could in and of itself
be life-threatening as well.
I see your point and you are right. Politicians or political appointees are
nto qualified to make those decisions. So it's important that in any type of
legislation, that it be written that only a medical professional be able to
determine if it is needed to save a woman's life.
I still think that the procedure is barbaric though and I don't see how
anyone with a concious could just look away from such an awful procedure
that is, without a doubt, killing a innocent human being.
And the other question I have is just how often is such a procedure
necessary?
Like my opinion on war, I do not endorse war nor do I condone it because war
is nothing but "death"; however, I also recognize that it is sometimes a
necessary evil.
Partial Birth Abortion to me, is the same thing. It may be a necessary evil
if a woman's life is truly in danger and it is the only way to save her.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 10:23:26 AM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127919801_30239@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
osprey wrote:
"Jude Alexander" <Jude@thebayou.LA> wrote in message
news:s%x_e.11578$eB3.6644@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
<Louise> wrote in message
news:q58lj1t3445nlj7rfpil86kdhdf1gnlq9b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:45:34 GMT, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:42:26 -0400, Louise <> spake thusly:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:41:27 GMT, <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dhd2ge$irq$1@bolt.sonic.net...
<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
I
believe that partial birth abortions are tantamount to murder.
That's because you're stupid. You believe is evil fairy tales
as an
excuse to hate people.
******I am neither stupid nor hate people. At some point,
deliberately
killing a living human organism is murder.
Your very existence "deliberately kills another living human
organism"
because you want to live.
Feel better?
Partial Birth Abortion:
Doesn't exist.
Partial birth abortion is a common term for the Intact Dilation and
Extraction (D&X) abortion procedure. President Bush signed a ban on
this procedure into law in November, 2003. You can read the act in its
entirety by clicking on:
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/partialbirth/a/partialbirthact.htm
Current Status
The House voted overwhelmingly to ban the procedure with a vote of
281-142 (63 Democrats joined most Republicans in favor). The Senate
voted 64 to 34 to ban the abortions. President Bush signed the bill
into a law on November 4th. Kate Michelman, head of NARAL has declared
that they will challenge the law, and trials are going on across the
nation. Many judges have struck down the ban.
History
1995 Federal Bill Banning Partial Birth Abortion: This bill, if
passed, would have illegalized partial birth abortion and set a
sentence of a fine and/or 2 years in prison for people who broke this
law. The exceptions for performing;a partial birth abortion would have
been in cases where the abortion was necessary to save the life of the
woman who was having the procedure.
The House of Representatives passed the bill, followed by Congress.
President Clinton vetoed the bill in 1996.
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997: This bill was very similar
to the 1995 bill, and was also passed by the House and Congress.
President Clinton vetoed this bell as well.
State Laws: Currently 23 states have passed laws to ban partial birth
abortion. These include AL, AK, AZ, AR, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, LA, MI,
MS, MN, NE, NJ, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, and VA.
http://womensissues.about.com/od/partialbirthabortion/i/ispartialbirth
.htm
What's your opinion on the procedure?
I think the procedure is barbaric and STRICT restrictions should be put
in place, it shouldn't be allowed, unless it is absolutely necessary to
save a woman's life and there is absolutely no other alternatives
available.
I still have a major problem with the idea of oversight. Who would be
making the decision that the woman is in danger if not the attending
doctor,
I believe the doctor is the only one who can make that decision.
who, how and when would be issuing the approval what would be
considered "sufficient" danger to the woman? I don't like the idea of
either politicians or political appointees making decisions on something
they are not (in general, unless doctors themselves) qualified to make or
issue decisions on, or a committee monday-morning quarterbacking after the
fact. The idea of having to obtain advance approval could in and of itself
be life-threatening as well.
I see your point and you are right. Politicians or political appointees are
nto qualified to make those decisions. So it's important that in any type of
legislation, that it be written that only a medical professional be able to
determine if it is needed to save a woman's life.
Not a bad idea.
It would pretty much negate the force of the law, tho.
I still think that the procedure is barbaric though and I don't see how
anyone with a concious could just look away from such an awful procedure
that is, without a doubt, killing a innocent human being.
And the other question I have is just how often is such a procedure
necessary?
Like my opinion on war, I do not endorse war nor do I condone it because war
is nothing but "death"; however, I also recognize that it is sometimes a
necessary evil.
Partial Birth Abortion to me, is the same thing. It may be a necessary evil
if a woman's life is truly in danger and it is the only way to save her.
It can be a danger to limb as well as life, and I think that's a point
that needs addressing too. If there is a fetal deformity and the woman
is unable to have a C-section (which has multitudes of risks of it's
own), which would be the only reason to utilize the procedure, there is
also the possibility of permament damage to the uterus or surrounding
organs.
It's just my opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 10:34:02 AM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127921163_30273@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
osprey wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127919801_30239@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
osprey wrote:
"Jude Alexander" <Jude@thebayou.LA> wrote in message
news:s%x_e.11578$eB3.6644@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
<Louise> wrote in message
news:q58lj1t3445nlj7rfpil86kdhdf1gnlq9b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:45:34 GMT, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:42:26 -0400, Louise <> spake thusly:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:41:27 GMT, <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dhd2ge$irq$1@bolt.sonic.net...
<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
I
believe that partial birth abortions are tantamount to murder.
That's because you're stupid. You believe is evil fairy tales
as an
excuse to hate people.
******I am neither stupid nor hate people. At some point,
deliberately
killing a living human organism is murder.
Your very existence "deliberately kills another living human
organism"
because you want to live.
Feel better?
Partial Birth Abortion:
Doesn't exist.
Partial birth abortion is a common term for the Intact Dilation and
Extraction (D&X) abortion procedure. President Bush signed a ban on
this procedure into law in November, 2003. You can read the act in its
entirety by clicking on:
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/partialbirth/a/partialbirthact.htm
Current Status
The House voted overwhelmingly to ban the procedure with a vote of
281-142 (63 Democrats joined most Republicans in favor). The Senate
voted 64 to 34 to ban the abortions. President Bush signed the bill
into a law on November 4th. Kate Michelman, head of NARAL has declared
that they will challenge the law, and trials are going on across the
nation. Many judges have struck down the ban.
History
1995 Federal Bill Banning Partial Birth Abortion: This bill, if
passed, would have illegalized partial birth abortion and set a
sentence of a fine and/or 2 years in prison for people who broke this
law. The exceptions for performing;a partial birth abortion would have
been in cases where the abortion was necessary to save the life of the
woman who was having the procedure.
The House of Representatives passed the bill, followed by Congress.
President Clinton vetoed the bill in 1996.
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997: This bill was very similar
to the 1995 bill, and was also passed by the House and Congress.
President Clinton vetoed this bell as well.
State Laws: Currently 23 states have passed laws to ban partial birth
abortion. These include AL, AK, AZ, AR, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, LA, MI,
MS, MN, NE, NJ, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, and VA.
http://womensissues.about.com/od/partialbirthabortion/i/ispartialbirth
.htm
What's your opinion on the procedure?
I think the procedure is barbaric and STRICT restrictions should be put
in place, it shouldn't be allowed, unless it is absolutely necessary to
save a woman's life and there is absolutely no other alternatives
available.
I still have a major problem with the idea of oversight. Who would be
making the decision that the woman is in danger if not the attending
doctor,
I believe the doctor is the only one who can make that decision.
who, how and when would be issuing the approval what would be
considered "sufficient" danger to the woman? I don't like the idea of
either politicians or political appointees making decisions on something
they are not (in general, unless doctors themselves) qualified to make or
issue decisions on, or a committee monday-morning quarterbacking after
the fact. The idea of having to obtain advance approval could in and of
itself be life-threatening as well.
I see your point and you are right. Politicians or political appointees
are nto qualified to make those decisions. So it's important that in any
type of legislation, that it be written that only a medical professional
be able to determine if it is needed to save a woman's life.
Not a bad idea.
It would pretty much negate the force of the law, tho.
I still think that the procedure is barbaric though and I don't see how
anyone with a concious could just look away from such an awful procedure
that is, without a doubt, killing a innocent human being.
And the other question I have is just how often is such a procedure
necessary?
Like my opinion on war, I do not endorse war nor do I condone it because
war is nothing but "death"; however, I also recognize that it is
sometimes a necessary evil.
Partial Birth Abortion to me, is the same thing. It may be a necessary
evil if a woman's life is truly in danger and it is the only way to save
her.
It can be a danger to limb as well as life, and I think that's a point
that needs addressing too. If there is a fetal deformity and the woman is
unable to have a C-section (which has multitudes of risks of it's own),
which would be the only reason to utilize the procedure, there is also the
possibility of permament damage to the uterus or surrounding organs.
It's just my opinion.
You raise another very interesting point and a valid one, one that will most
likely be debated for a very long time.
The argument would be, Just because a fetus has a deformity does that mean
we should deprive the fetus of life?
It's a good argument on your part. Again, I think that decision should rest
on the medical doctor and the woman, I also think in this issue with
deformity that the father's opinion is important too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Louise" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 10:33:30 AM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127921163_30273@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
osprey wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127919801_30239@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
osprey wrote:
"Jude Alexander" <Jude@thebayou.LA> wrote in message
news:s%x_e.11578$eB3.6644@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
<Louise> wrote in message
news:q58lj1t3445nlj7rfpil86kdhdf1gnlq9b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:45:34 GMT, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:42:26 -0400, Louise <> spake thusly:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:41:27 GMT, <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dhd2ge$irq$1@bolt.sonic.net...
<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
I
believe that partial birth abortions are tantamount to murder.
That's because you're stupid. You believe is evil fairy tales
as an
excuse to hate people.
******I am neither stupid nor hate people. At some point,
deliberately
killing a living human organism is murder.
Your very existence "deliberately kills another living human
organism"
because you want to live.
Feel better?
Partial Birth Abortion:
Doesn't exist.
Partial birth abortion is a common term for the Intact Dilation and
Extraction (D&X) abortion procedure. President Bush signed a ban on
this procedure into law in November, 2003. You can read the act in its
entirety by clicking on:
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/partialbirth/a/partialbirthact.htm
Current Status
The House voted overwhelmingly to ban the procedure with a vote of
281-142 (63 Democrats joined most Republicans in favor). The Senate
voted 64 to 34 to ban the abortions. President Bush signed the bill
into a law on November 4th. Kate Michelman, head of NARAL has declared
that they will challenge the law, and trials are going on across the
nation. Many judges have struck down the ban.
History
1995 Federal Bill Banning Partial Birth Abortion: This bill, if
passed, would have illegalized partial birth abortion and set a
sentence of a fine and/or 2 years in prison for people who broke this
law. The exceptions for performing;a partial birth abortion would have
been in cases where the abortion was necessary to save the life of the
woman who was having the procedure.
The House of Representatives passed the bill, followed by Congress.
President Clinton vetoed the bill in 1996.
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997: This bill was very similar
to the 1995 bill, and was also passed by the House and Congress.
President Clinton vetoed this bell as well.
State Laws: Currently 23 states have passed laws to ban partial birth
abortion. These include AL, AK, AZ, AR, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, LA, MI,
MS, MN, NE, NJ, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, and VA.
http://womensissues.about.com/od/partialbirthabortion/i/ispartialbirth
.htm
What's your opinion on the procedure?
I think the procedure is barbaric and STRICT restrictions should be put
in place, it shouldn't be allowed, unless it is absolutely necessary to
save a woman's life and there is absolutely no other alternatives
available.
I still have a major problem with the idea of oversight. Who would be
making the decision that the woman is in danger if not the attending
doctor,
I believe the doctor is the only one who can make that decision.
who, how and when would be issuing the approval what would be
considered "sufficient" danger to the woman? I don't like the idea of
either politicians or political appointees making decisions on something
they are not (in general, unless doctors themselves) qualified to make or
issue decisions on, or a committee monday-morning quarterbacking after
the fact. The idea of having to obtain advance approval could in and of
itself be life-threatening as well.
I see your point and you are right. Politicians or political appointees
are nto qualified to make those decisions. So it's important that in any
type of legislation, that it be written that only a medical professional
be able to determine if it is needed to save a woman's life.
Not a bad idea.
It would pretty much negate the force of the law, tho.
I still think that the procedure is barbaric though and I don't see how
anyone with a concious could just look away from such an awful procedure
that is, without a doubt, killing a innocent human being.
And the other question I have is just how often is such a procedure
necessary?
Like my opinion on war, I do not endorse war nor do I condone it because
war is nothing but "death"; however, I also recognize that it is
sometimes a necessary evil.
Partial Birth Abortion to me, is the same thing. It may be a necessary
evil if a woman's life is truly in danger and it is the only way to save
her.
It can be a danger to limb as well as life, and I think that's a point
that needs addressing too. If there is a fetal deformity and the woman is
unable to have a C-section (which has multitudes of risks of it's own),
which would be the only reason to utilize the procedure, there is also the
possibility of permament damage to the uterus or surrounding organs.
It's just my opinion.
You raise another very interesting point and a valid one, one that will most
likely be debated for a very long time.
The argument would be, Just because a fetus has a deformity does that mean
we should deprive the fetus of life?
You're such an airhead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 12:11:42 PM |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2005 08:33:30 -0700, "Louise"
<louisemallard@journalist.com> spake thusly:
Partial Birth Abortion to me, is the same thing. It may be a necessary
evil if a woman's life is truly in danger and it is the only way to save
her.
It can be a danger to limb as well as life, and I think that's a point
that needs addressing too. If there is a fetal deformity and the woman is
unable to have a C-section (which has multitudes of risks of it's own),
which would be the only reason to utilize the procedure, there is also the
possibility of permament damage to the uterus or surrounding organs.
It's just my opinion.
You raise another very interesting point and a valid one, one that will most
likely be debated for a very long time.
The argument would be, Just because a fetus has a deformity does that mean
we should deprive the fetus of life?
You're such an airhead.
We know you don't like the questions that logically follow,
because they interfere with the lie.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Craig threatens me with a law suit:
http://Craig-threatens-PastorDave.notlong.com
I prove that Craig does indeed like young girls
and that it is not libel:
http://PastorDave-proves-his-case.notlong.com
Craig knowing he has been bagged, wooses out
of suing me:
http://Craig-wooses-out.notlong.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Louise " |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 02:28:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:11:42 GMT, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On 28 Sep 2005 08:33:30 -0700, "Louise"
<louisemallard@journalist.com> spake thusly:
Partial Birth Abortion to me, is the same thing. It may be a necessary
evil if a woman's life is truly in danger and it is the only way to save
her.
It can be a danger to limb as well as life, and I think that's a point
that needs addressing too. If there is a fetal deformity and the woman is
unable to have a C-section (which has multitudes of risks of it's own),
which would be the only reason to utilize the procedure, there is also the
possibility of permament damage to the uterus or surrounding organs.
It's just my opinion.
You raise another very interesting point and a valid one, one that will most
likely be debated for a very long time.
The argument would be, Just because a fetus has a deformity does that mean
we should deprive the fetus of life?
You're such an airhead.
We know you don't like the questions...
The question has been answered factually by us so many times that
seeing the question pop up again is irritating.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 03:29:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:28:17 -0400, Louise <> spake thusly:
We know you don't like the questions...
The question has been answered factually by us so many times that
seeing the question pop up again is irritating.
Oh, you mean when you claimed that it isn't a baby, after
admitting that it is during the birth event, including the
vaginal delivery, which means that it is also a baby, when
it's almost all the way out, as it is during a partial birth
abortion, which is a real thing, as I proved with both a
medical dictionary and a diagram of the procedure?
http://Partial-Birth-Abortion-Exists.notlong.com
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/
And btw, how is this procedure necessary to save the
mother's life, when the baby is just about out of her when
the procedure is performed, all but the top of it's head?
Partial Birth Abortion: The questions you keep dodging.
Even you would agree that once the baby is coming out,
that it's a baby. Thus, there are five questions posed...
1) What in the following words is not true?
2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?
3) Since all but the babies head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can it be self defense?
4) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can a partial birth abortion
be for medical reasons that would threaten a woman's
life if she tried to deliver? How is it self defense?
5) And why does the Bill call it a baby and equate "fetus"
and "baby" to the same person, if it is not murder?
They take the baby out, all but it's head and then
claim it isn't born and ram a sharp object into its
skull and drain the brain out and then claim not
to be murdering a baby.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965)
"the person performing the abortion deliberately and
intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until,
in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire
fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in
the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal
trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,
and then kills the baby."
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Craig threatens me with a law suit:
http://Craig-threatens-PastorDave.notlong.com
I prove that Craig does indeed like young girls
and that it is not libel:
http://PastorDave-proves-his-case.notlong.com
Craig knowing he has been bagged, wooses out
of suing me:
http://Craig-wooses-out.notlong.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
29 Sep 2005 03:40:07 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:28:17 -0400, Louise <> spake thusly:
We know you don't like the questions...
The question has been answered factually by us so many times that
seeing the question pop up again is irritating.
"Partial Birth Abortion" (D&X): The Answers Dave Keeps Dodging
Partial Birth Abortion: The questions you keep dodging.
Even you would agree that once the baby is coming out,
that it's a baby. Thus, there are five questions posed...
1) What in the following words is not true?
"Baby", for starters...
Wrong. That ignores my later question and proof.
What proof? You haven't offered any.
What proof? You haven't offered any?
2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?
For starters, because it's still in the body of the woman.
Next, if the woman is requiring a D&X, it's because there is a
fetal abnormality that would kill it and maim her.
Otherwise, a C-section is used.
Partial birth abortion is under discussion here
and you already knew that.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/
Yes, and I just told you why it would be done. If you want specifics
and are willing to read them, ask. I'll be happy to answer you.
Furthermore, I don't read propaganda sites. Come up with a reputable
link and I'll read it.
Why it would be done has nothing to do with it.
Yes, it does.
"2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?"
So I gave you the short version of why it is self defense, although the
murder part is a legal question and has a real simple answer- if it's
not illegal under the murder statutes, it's not murder.
Are you incapable of remembering what you asked?
Your statements are your assumptions. The
problem is that you claim it is not a baby. It is
It ain't. How does your age date, Dave? From your birthday or from your
conceptionday? Viabilityday?
and you are afraid to answer the questions
directly.
I'll keep reposting the answers until it sinks into your head that
you've been answered then.
3) Since all but the babies head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can it be self defense?
Repetitive.
Not answered.
Answered above. The question is repetitive, as in you already asked it.
You are being evasive.
You are trolling. Here are the answers again:
"Partial Birth Abortion" (D&X): The Answers Dave Keeps Dodging
Partial Birth Abortion: The questions you keep dodging.
Even you would agree that once the baby is coming out,
that it's a baby. Thus, there are five questions posed...
1) What in the following words is not true?
"Baby", for starters...
2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?
For starters, because it's still in the body of the woman.
Next, if the woman is requiring a D&X, it's because there is a fetal
abnormality that would kill it and maim her.
Otherwise, a C-section is used.
3) Since all but the babies head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can it be self defense?
Repetitive.
4) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can a partial birth abortion
be for medical reasons that would threaten a woman's
life if she tried to deliver? How is it self defense?
I can explain it to you if you really want to know. Let's see if you do
first.
5) And why does the Bill call it a baby and equate "fetus"
and "baby" to the same person, if it is not murder?
Blatant emotionalism.
They take the baby out, all but it's head and then
claim it isn't born and ram a sharp object into its
skull and drain the brain out and then claim not
to be murdering a baby.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965)
"the person performing the abortion deliberately and
intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until,
in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire
fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in
the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal
trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,
and then kills the baby."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
29 Sep 2005 10:26:23 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 01:40:07 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:28:17 -0400, Louise <> spake thusly:
We know you don't like the questions...
The question has been answered factually by us so many times that
seeing the question pop up again is irritating.
"Partial Birth Abortion" (D&X): The Answers Dave Keeps Dodging
Partial Birth Abortion: The questions you keep dodging.
Even you would agree that once the baby is coming out,
that it's a baby. Thus, there are five questions posed...
1) What in the following words is not true?
"Baby", for starters...
Wrong. That ignores my later question and proof.
What proof? You haven't offered any.
What proof? You haven't offered any?
2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?
For starters, because it's still in the body of the woman.
Next, if the woman is requiring a D&X, it's because there is a
fetal abnormality that would kill it and maim her.
Otherwise, a C-section is used.
Partial birth abortion is under discussion here
and you already knew that.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/
Yes, and I just told you why it would be done. If you want specifics
and are willing to read them, ask. I'll be happy to answer you.
Furthermore, I don't read propaganda sites. Come up with a reputable
link and I'll read it.
Why it would be done has nothing to do with it.
Yes, it does.
"2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?"
So I gave you the short version of why it is self defense, although the
murder part is a legal question and has a real simple answer- if it's
not illegal under the murder statutes, it's not murder.
Are you incapable of remembering what you asked?
Your statements are your assumptions. The
problem is that you claim it is not a baby. It is
It ain't. How does your age date, Dave? From your birthday or from your
conceptionday? Viabilityday?
and you are afraid to answer the questions
directly.
I'll keep reposting the answers until it sinks into your head that
you've been answered then.
3) Since all but the babies head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can it be self defense?
Repetitive.
Not answered.
Answered above. The question is repetitive, as in you already asked it.
You are being evasive.
You are trolling. Here are the answers again:
"Partial Birth Abortion" (D&X): The Answers Dave Keeps Dodging
Partial Birth Abortion: The questions you keep dodging.
Even you would agree that once the baby is coming out,
that it's a baby. Thus, there are five questions posed...
1) What in the following words is not true?
"Baby", for starters...
2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?
For starters, because it's still in the body of the woman.
Next, if the woman is requiring a D&X, it's because there is a fetal
abnormality that would kill it and maim her.
Otherwise, a C-section is used.
3) Since all but the babies head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can it be self defense?
Repetitive.
4) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can a partial birth abortion
be for medical reasons that would threaten a woman's
life if she tried to deliver? How is it self defense?
I can explain it to you if you really want to know. Let's see if you do
first.
5) And why does the Bill call it a baby and equate "fetus"
and "baby" to the same person, if it is not murder?
Blatant emotionalism.
They take the baby out, all but it's head and then
claim it isn't born and ram a sharp object into its
skull and drain the brain out and then claim not
to be murdering a baby.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965)
"the person performing the abortion deliberately and
intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until,
in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire
fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in
the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal
trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,
and then kills the baby."
To all: Check the links in my sig! :)
Anyway, back to the point. :)
Partial Birth Abortion: The questions you keep dodging.
Even you would agree that once the baby is coming out,
that it's a baby. Thus, there are five questions posed...
1) What in the following words is not true?
2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?
3) Since all but the babies head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can it be self defense?
4) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can a partial birth abortion
be for medical reasons that would threaten a woman's
life if she tried to deliver? How is it self defense?
5) And why does the Bill call it a baby and equate "fetus"
and "baby" to the same person, if it is not murder?
They take the baby out, all but it's head and then
claim it isn't born and ram a sharp object into its
skull and drain the brain out and then claim not
to be murdering a baby.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965)
"the person performing the abortion deliberately and
intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until,
in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire
fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in
the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal
trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,
and then kills the baby."
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Craig threatens me with a law suit:
http://Craig-threatens-PastorDave.notlong.com
I prove that Craig does indeed like young girls
and that it is not libel:
http://PastorDave-proves-his-case.notlong.com
Craig knowing he has been bagged, wooses out
of suing me:
http://Craig-wooses-out.notlong.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
29 Sep 2005 05:38:46 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 01:40:07 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:28:17 -0400, Louise <> spake thusly:
We know you don't like the questions...
The question has been answered factually by us so many times that
seeing the question pop up again is irritating.
"Partial Birth Abortion" (D&X): The Answers Dave Keeps Dodging
Partial Birth Abortion: The questions you keep dodging.
Even you would agree that once the baby is coming out,
that it's a baby. Thus, there are five questions posed...
1) What in the following words is not true?
"Baby", for starters...
Wrong. That ignores my later question and proof.
What proof? You haven't offered any.
What proof? You haven't offered any?
2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?
For starters, because it's still in the body of the woman.
Next, if the woman is requiring a D&X, it's because there is a
fetal abnormality that would kill it and maim her.
Otherwise, a C-section is used.
Partial birth abortion is under discussion here
and you already knew that.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/
Yes, and I just told you why it would be done. If you want specifics
and are willing to read them, ask. I'll be happy to answer you.
Furthermore, I don't read propaganda sites. Come up with a reputable
link and I'll read it.
Why it would be done has nothing to do with it.
Yes, it does.
"2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?"
So I gave you the short version of why it is self defense, although the
murder part is a legal question and has a real simple answer- if it's
not illegal under the murder statutes, it's not murder.
Are you incapable of remembering what you asked?
Your statements are your assumptions. The
problem is that you claim it is not a baby. It is
It ain't. How does your age date, Dave? From your birthday or from your
conceptionday? Viabilityday?
and you are afraid to answer the questions
directly.
I'll keep reposting the answers until it sinks into your head that
you've been answered then.
3) Since all but the babies head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can it be self defense?
Repetitive.
Not answered.
Answered above. The question is repetitive, as in you already asked it.
You are being evasive.
You are trolling. Here are the answers again:
"Partial Birth Abortion" (D&X): The Answers Dave Keeps Dodging
Partial Birth Abortion: The questions you keep dodging.
Even you would agree that once the baby is coming out,
that it's a baby. Thus, there are five questions posed...
1) What in the following words is not true?
"Baby", for starters...
2) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case of
pulling the baby's out head first, the head is out and the
baby is still wholly intact, why do you still claim it's not
murder? How is it self defense?
For starters, because it's still in the body of the woman.
Next, if the woman is requiring a D&X, it's because there is a fetal
abnormality that would kill it and maim her.
Otherwise, a C-section is used.
3) Since all but the babies head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can it be self defense?
Repetitive.
4) Since all but the baby's head is out, or, in the case
of pulling the babies head out first, the head is out and
the baby is wholly intact, how can a partial birth abortion
be for medical reasons that would threaten a woman's
life if she tried to deliver? How is it self defense?
I can explain it to you if you really want to know. Let's see if you do
first.
5) And why does the Bill call it a baby and equate "fetus"
and "baby" to the same person, if it is not murder?
Blatant emotionalism.
They take the baby out, all but it's head and then
claim it isn't born and ram a sharp object into its
skull and drain the brain out and then claim not
to be murdering a baby.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 4965)
"the person performing the abortion deliberately and
intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until,
in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire
fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in
the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal
trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother,
and then kills the baby."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 09:09:46 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On 28 Sep 2005 08:33:30 -0700, "Louise"
<louisemallard@journalist.com> spake thusly:
Partial Birth Abortion to me, is the same thing. It may be a necessary
evil if a woman's life is truly in danger and it is the only way to save
her.
It can be a danger to limb as well as life, and I think that's a point
that needs addressing too. If there is a fetal deformity and the woman is
unable to have a C-section (which has multitudes of risks of it's own),
which would be the only reason to utilize the procedure, there is also the
possibility of permament damage to the uterus or surrounding organs.
It's just my opinion.
You raise another very interesting point and a valid one, one that will most
likely be debated for a very long time.
The argument would be, Just because a fetus has a deformity does that mean
we should deprive the fetus of life?
You're such an airhead.
We know you don't like the questions that logically follow,
We know that you don't like the truth. That's why you ignore it and
post spam instead.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
29 Sep 2005 05:23:00 AM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127921163_30273@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
osprey wrote:
"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127919801_30239@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
osprey wrote:
"Jude Alexander" <Jude@thebayou.LA> wrote in message
news:s%x_e.11578$eB3.6644@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
<Louise> wrote in message
news:q58lj1t3445nlj7rfpil86kdhdf1gnlq9b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:45:34 GMT, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:42:26 -0400, Louise <> spake thusly:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:41:27 GMT, <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dhd2ge$irq$1@bolt.sonic.net...
<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
I
believe that partial birth abortions are tantamount to murder.
That's because you're stupid. You believe is evil fairy tales
as an
excuse to hate people.
******I am neither stupid nor hate people. At some point,
deliberately
killing a living human organism is murder.
Your very existence "deliberately kills another living human
organism"
because you want to live.
Feel better?
Partial Birth Abortion:
Doesn't exist.
Partial birth abortion is a common term for the Intact Dilation and
Extraction (D&X) abortion procedure. President Bush signed a ban on
this procedure into law in November, 2003. You can read the act in its
entirety by clicking on:
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/partialbirth/a/partialbirthact.htm
Current Status
The House voted overwhelmingly to ban the procedure with a vote of
281-142 (63 Democrats joined most Republicans in favor). The Senate
voted 64 to 34 to ban the abortions. President Bush signed the bill
into a law on November 4th. Kate Michelman, head of NARAL has declared
that they will challenge the law, and trials are going on across the
nation. Many judges have struck down the ban.
History
1995 Federal Bill Banning Partial Birth Abortion: This bill, if
passed, would have illegalized partial birth abortion and set a
sentence of a fine and/or 2 years in prison for people who broke this
law. The exceptions for performing;a partial birth abortion would have
been in cases where the abortion was necessary to save the life of the
woman who was having the procedure.
The House of Representatives passed the bill, followed by Congress.
President Clinton vetoed the bill in 1996.
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997: This bill was very similar
to the 1995 bill, and was also passed by the House and Congress.
President Clinton vetoed this bell as well.
State Laws: Currently 23 states have passed laws to ban partial birth
abortion. These include AL, AK, AZ, AR, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, LA, MI,
MS, MN, NE, NJ, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, and VA.
http://womensissues.about.com/od/partialbirthabortion/i/ispartialbirth
.htm
What's your opinion on the procedure?
I think the procedure is barbaric and STRICT restrictions should be put
in place, it shouldn't be allowed, unless it is absolutely necessary to
save a woman's life and there is absolutely no other alternatives
available.
I still have a major problem with the idea of oversight. Who would be
making the decision that the woman is in danger if not the attending
doctor,
I believe the doctor is the only one who can make that decision.
who, how and when would be issuing the approval what would be
considered "sufficient" danger to the woman? I don't like the idea of
either politicians or political appointees making decisions on something
they are not (in general, unless doctors themselves) qualified to make or
issue decisions on, or a committee monday-morning quarterbacking after
the fact. The idea of having to obtain advance approval could in and of
itself be life-threatening as well.
I see your point and you are right. Politicians or political appointees
are nto qualified to make those decisions. So it's important that in any
type of legislation, that it be written that only a medical professional
be able to determine if it is needed to save a woman's life.
Not a bad idea.
It would pretty much negate the force of the law, tho.
I still think that the procedure is barbaric though and I don't see how
anyone with a concious could just look away from such an awful procedure
that is, without a doubt, killing a innocent human being.
And the other question I have is just how often is such a procedure
necessary?
Like my opinion on war, I do not endorse war nor do I condone it because
war is nothing but "death"; however, I also recognize that it is
sometimes a necessary evil.
Partial Birth Abortion to me, is the same thing. It may be a necessary
evil if a woman's life is truly in danger and it is the only way to save
her.
It can be a danger to limb as well as life, and I think that's a point
that needs addressing too. If there is a fetal deformity and the woman is
unable to have a C-section (which has multitudes of risks of it's own),
which would be the only reason to utilize the procedure, there is also the
possibility of permament damage to the uterus or surrounding organs.
It's just my opinion.
You raise another very interesting point and a valid one, one that will most
likely be debated for a very long time.
The argument would be, Just because a fetus has a deformity does that mean
we should deprive the fetus of life?
I don't see why anyone would want to keep a fetus alive so that it can
die a miserable but "natural" death, or put the woman through carrying a
nonviable fetus to term.
Stranger views have been voiced though. :)
It's a good argument on your part. Again, I think that decision should rest
on the medical doctor and the woman, I also think in this issue with
deformity that the father's opinion is important too.
I think it's important, but I don't think it should be a deciding
factor. Chances are, if she's chosen to involve him in the process at
all, his opinion is going to carry some weight with her anyhow.
In cases of disagreement, however, the decision should ultimately rest
with the woman and her doctor.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 10:17:25 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:00:45 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
What's your opinion on the procedure?
I think the procedure is barbaric and STRICT restrictions should be put in
place, it shouldn't be allowed, unless it is absolutely necessary to save a
woman's life and there is absolutely no other alternatives available.
I still have a major problem with the idea of oversight. Who would be
making the decision that the woman is in danger if not the attending
doctor, who, how and when would be issuing the approval what would be
considered "sufficient" danger to the woman? I don't like the idea of
either politicians or political appointees making decisions on something
they are not (in general, unless doctors themselves) qualified to make
or issue decisions on, or a committee monday-morning quarterbacking
after the fact. The idea of having to obtain advance approval could in
and of itself be life-threatening as well.
And yet, you loved it when politicians wanted it legal.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Craig threatens me with a law suit:
http://Craig-threatens-PastorDave.notlong.com
I prove that Craig does indeed like young girls
and that it is not libel:
http://PastorDave-proves-his-case.notlong.com
Craig knowing he has been bagged, wooses out
of suing me:
http://Craig-wooses-out.notlong.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 10:24:25 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:00:45 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
What's your opinion on the procedure?
I think the procedure is barbaric and STRICT restrictions should be put in
place, it shouldn't be allowed, unless it is absolutely necessary to save a
woman's life and there is absolutely no other alternatives available.
I still have a major problem with the idea of oversight. Who would be
making the decision that the woman is in danger if not the attending
doctor, who, how and when would be issuing the approval what would be
considered "sufficient" danger to the woman? I don't like the idea of
either politicians or political appointees making decisions on something
they are not (in general, unless doctors themselves) qualified to make
or issue decisions on, or a committee monday-morning quarterbacking
after the fact. The idea of having to obtain advance approval could in
and of itself be life-threatening as well.
And yet, you loved it when politicians wanted it legal.
You get less coherent as the day goes on. What are you talking about now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 05:16:26 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- <ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> writes:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:00:45 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
What's your opinion on the procedure?
I think the procedure is barbaric and STRICT restrictions should be put in
place, it shouldn't be allowed, unless it is absolutely necessary to save
a woman's life and there is absolutely no other alternatives available.
I still have a major problem with the idea of oversight. Who would be
making the decision that the woman is in danger if not the attending
doctor, who, how and when would be issuing the approval what would be
considered "sufficient" danger to the woman? I don't like the idea of
either politicians or political appointees making decisions on something
they are not (in general, unless doctors themselves) qualified to make or
issue decisions on, or a committee monday-morning quarterbacking after the
fact. The idea of having to obtain advance approval could in and of itself
be life-threatening as well.
And yet, you loved it when politicians wanted it legal.
You get less coherent as the day goes on. What are you talking about now?
He's got chemicals...lots and lots of chemicals. ;-)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Friday, October 7 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 08:36:47 PM |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2005 17:16:26 -0500, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@io.com> spake thusly:
And yet, you loved it when politicians wanted it legal.
You get less coherent as the day goes on. What are you talking about now?
He's got chemicals...lots and lots of chemicals. ;-)
What I need is more chemicals, to wade through this garbage
can full of lies you proabortionists post.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Craig threatens me with a law suit:
http://Craig-threatens-PastorDave.notlong.com
I prove that Craig does indeed like young girls
and that it is not libel:
http://PastorDave-proves-his-case.notlong.com
Craig knowing he has been bagged, wooses out
of suing me:
http://Craig-wooses-out.notlong.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Louise " |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
29 Sep 2005 07:40:02 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 01:36:47 GMT, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On 28 Sep 2005 17:16:26 -0500, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@io.com> spake thusly:
And yet, you loved it when politicians wanted it legal.
You get less coherent as the day goes on. What are you talking about now?
He's got chemicals...lots and lots of chemicals. ;-)
What I need is more chemicals, to wade through this garbage
No, you need the chemicals to cease from posting yours.
<clip>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 12:02:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:24:25 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:00:45 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
What's your opinion on the procedure?
I think the procedure is barbaric and STRICT restrictions should be put in
place, it shouldn't be allowed, unless it is absolutely necessary to save a
woman's life and there is absolutely no other alternatives available.
I still have a major problem with the idea of oversight. Who would be
making the decision that the woman is in danger if not the attending
doctor, who, how and when would be issuing the approval what would be
considered "sufficient" danger to the woman? I don't like the idea of
either politicians or political appointees making decisions on something
they are not (in general, unless doctors themselves) qualified to make
or issue decisions on, or a committee monday-morning quarterbacking
after the fact. The idea of having to obtain advance approval could in
and of itself be life-threatening as well.
And yet, you loved it when politicians wanted it legal.
You get less coherent as the day goes on. What are you talking about now?
We both know you know. But if you want people to see you as
being THAT DUMB, then that's up to you.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
1st Century Church of Christ
Craig threatens me with a law suit:
http://Craig-threatens-PastorDave.notlong.com
I prove that Craig does indeed like young girls
and that it is not libel:
http://PastorDave-proves-his-case.notlong.com
Craig knowing he has been bagged, wooses out
of suing me:
http://Craig-wooses-out.notlong.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
29 Sep 2005 03:35:05 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:24:25 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:00:45 -0700, --sexkitten--
<ladyhawk_twoFILTER@hotmail.com> spake thusly:
What's your opinion on the procedure?
I think the procedure is barbaric and STRICT restrictions should be put in
place, it shouldn't be allowed, unless it is absolutely necessary to save a
woman's life and there is absolutely no other alternatives available.
I still have a major problem with the idea of oversight. Who would be
making the decision that the woman is in danger if not the attending
doctor, who, how and when would be issuing the approval what would be
considered "sufficient" danger to the woman? I don't like the idea of
either politicians or political appointees making decisions on something
they are not (in general, unless doctors themselves) qualified to make
or issue decisions on, or a committee monday-morning quarterbacking
after the fact. The idea of having to obtain advance approval could in
and of itself be life-threatening as well.
And yet, you loved it when politicians wanted it legal.
You get less coherent as the day goes on. What are you talking about now?
We both know you know. But if you want people to see you as
being THAT DUMB, then that's up to you.
Did you mean abortion? Try to post statements that connect somehow to
the conversation at hand.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Louise" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 10:31:51 AM |
|
|
Jude Alexander wrote:
<Louise> wrote in message
news:q58lj1t3445nlj7rfpil86kdhdf1gnlq9b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:45:34 GMT, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:42:26 -0400, Louise <> spake thusly:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:41:27 GMT, <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dhd2ge$irq$1@bolt.sonic.net...
<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
I
believe that partial birth abortions are tantamount to murder.
That's because you're stupid. You believe is evil fairy tales
as an
excuse to hate people.
******I am neither stupid nor hate people. At some point,
deliberately
killing a living human organism is murder.
Your very existence "deliberately kills another living human
organism"
because you want to live.
Feel better?
Partial Birth Abortion:
Doesn't exist.
Partial birth abortion is...
....a myth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jude Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: ABORTIONISTS ON THE RUN! |
28 Sep 2005 10:34:25 AM |
|
|
"Louise" <louisemallard@journalist.com> wrote in message
news:1127921510.977532.77100@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Jude Alexander wrote:
<Louise> wrote in message
news:q58lj1t3445nlj7rfpil86kdhdf1gnlq9b@4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:45:34 GMT, Pastor Dave
<1news-group-mail1@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:42:26 -0400, Louise <> spake thusly:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:41:27 GMT, <HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dhd2ge$irq$1@bolt.sonic.net...
<HLS@nospam.nix> wrote:
I
believe that partial birth abortions are tantamount to
murder.
That's because you're stupid. You believe is evil fairy
tales
as an
excuse to hate people.
******I am neither stupid nor hate people. At some point,
deliberately
killing a living human organism is murder.
Your very existence "deliberately kills another living human
organism"
because | | |
