| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Papa Jack" |
| Date: |
21 Oct 2003 06:16:52 PM |
| Object: |
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
On October 21, 2003, posted an article titled:
"Senate OKs Partial-Birth Abortion Ban." Go to:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100713,00.html
__________________________________________________________________________
Congress on Tuesday sent President Bush legislation to ban
partial-birth abortion — after years of emotional debate —
the most significant restriction since the landmark Supreme
Court decision legalizing abortion three decades ago.
"This is an enormous day. It's been a long seven-year fight
about the issue of partial-birth abortion," said Sen. Sam
Brownback R-Kan. He was a leader of the drive to end abor-
tions, generally carried out in the second or third trimes-
ter, in which a fetus is partially delivered before being
killed.
[...]
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist , R-Tenn. — a heart and
lung surgeon — told Fox News he's confident the ban will
withstand any court challenges. Calling the procedure
"egregious, outlandish and ghoulish," Frist argued it is
not something that is medically necessary — as some Demo-
crats have argued in the case of a woman's health — and
said he is excited that the bill will finally be signed,
rather than vetoed, by the president.
The 64-34 vote came three weeks after the House passed the
same measure by 281-142.
Bush had urged Congress to pass the ban, which Republicans
had pursued since the GOP captured the House in 1995, and
the president had said he would sign it into law.
But opponents said the first federal ban on abortion since
the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was unconsti-
tutional and, like similar state laws, would be struck down.
The president, said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. "will
become the first United States president to criminalize a
safe medical procedure." Doctors who violate the ban would
be subject to prison terms of up to two years.
The two sides differed widely on the frequency and definition
of partial birth abortion, which is not a formal medical term.
The bill defines partial birth abortion as delivery of a fetus
"until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire
fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case
of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past
the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of
performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the
partially delivered living fetus."
Several groups, including the National Abortion Federation and
the Center for Reproductive Rights, plan to challenge the mea-
sure in court as soon as it is signed into law. "We will take
this fight from the Capitol to the courtroom to safeguard the
lives and health of women," said Vicki Saporta, president of
the National Abortion Federation.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Gloria
Feldt said her group would seek an injunction preventing the
legislation from taking effect.
A key focus will be the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in 2000
that a similar Nebraska law was unconstitutional because the
definition of the practice was too vague — making it unclear
to doctors what procedures were illegal — and didn't have an
exception concerning risks to the health of the mother to go
along with an exception for when the life of the mother was
in danger.
Santorum argued that supporters had met those constitutional
questions by tightening the definition and offering extensive
findings that the procedure was never needed to protect the
health of the mother.
President Clinton twice vetoed partial birth bills on the
grounds that they did not include health exceptions....
[...]
__________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack commented:
Note the 2 to 1 margins of the votes in both the
House and the Senate.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg is quoted as saying
"...will become the first United States
president to criminalize a safe medical
procedure."
Since abortions have caused of the slaughter
of over 30,000,000 unborn human beings, I'm
not very impressed with the description of one
kind of abortion as a "SAFE MEDICAL PROCEDURE."
* First, it's not very safe for the unborn
children who are being killed.
* Second, it's a streach to call most abortion
"MEDICAL PROCEDURES." The great majority of
abortions are simply acts of homicide against
healthy fetuses. How can we consider an
unnecessary homicide a "medical procedure.
Tnanks for considering my point of view.
.
|
|
| User: "Dorothy" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
22 Oct 2003 10:23:17 PM |
|
|
"Papa Jack" <papajack@stic.net> wrote in message
news:6f9e1b49.0310211516.218ce0c3@posting.google.com...
On October 21, 2003, posted an article titled:
"Senate OKs Partial-Birth Abortion Ban." Go to:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100713,00.html
__________________________________________________________________________
Congress on Tuesday sent President Bush legislation to ban
partial-birth abortion - after years of emotional debate -
the most significant restriction since the landmark Supreme
Court decision legalizing abortion three decades ago.
"This is an enormous day. It's been a long seven-year fight
about the issue of partial-birth abortion," said Sen. Sam
Brownback R-Kan. He was a leader of the drive to end abor-
tions, generally carried out in the second or third trimes-
ter, in which a fetus is partially delivered before being
killed.
[...]
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist , R-Tenn. - a heart and
lung surgeon - told Fox News he's confident the ban will
withstand any court challenges. Calling the procedure
"egregious, outlandish and ghoulish," Frist argued it is
not something that is medically necessary - as some Demo-
crats have argued in the case of a woman's health - and
said he is excited that the bill will finally be signed,
rather than vetoed, by the president.
The 64-34 vote came three weeks after the House passed the
same measure by 281-142.
Bush had urged Congress to pass the ban, which Republicans
had pursued since the GOP captured the House in 1995, and
the president had said he would sign it into law.
But opponents said the first federal ban on abortion since
the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was unconsti-
tutional and, like similar state laws, would be struck down.
The president, said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. "will
become the first United States president to criminalize a
safe medical procedure." Doctors who violate the ban would
be subject to prison terms of up to two years.
The two sides differed widely on the frequency and definition
of partial birth abortion, which is not a formal medical term.
The bill defines partial birth abortion as delivery of a fetus
"until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire
fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case
of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past
the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of
performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the
partially delivered living fetus."
Several groups, including the National Abortion Federation and
the Center for Reproductive Rights, plan to challenge the mea-
sure in court as soon as it is signed into law. "We will take
this fight from the Capitol to the courtroom to safeguard the
lives and health of women," said Vicki Saporta, president of
the National Abortion Federation.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Gloria
Feldt said her group would seek an injunction preventing the
legislation from taking effect.
A key focus will be the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in 2000
that a similar Nebraska law was unconstitutional because the
definition of the practice was too vague - making it unclear
to doctors what procedures were illegal - and didn't have an
exception concerning risks to the health of the mother to go
along with an exception for when the life of the mother was
in danger.
Santorum argued that supporters had met those constitutional
questions by tightening the definition and offering extensive
findings that the procedure was never needed to protect the
health of the mother.
President Clinton twice vetoed partial birth bills on the
grounds that they did not include health exceptions....
[...]
__________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack commented:
Note the 2 to 1 margins of the votes in both the
House and the Senate.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg is quoted as saying
"...will become the first United States
president to criminalize a safe medical
procedure."
Since abortions have caused of the slaughter
of over 30,000,000 unborn human beings, I'm
not very impressed with the description of one
kind of abortion as a "SAFE MEDICAL PROCEDURE."
* First, it's not very safe for the unborn
children who are being killed.
* Second, it's a streach to call most abortion
"MEDICAL PROCEDURES." The great majority of
abortions are simply acts of homicide against
healthy fetuses. How can we consider an
unnecessary homicide a "medical procedure.
Tnanks for considering my point of view.
I wonder where they get all of the money to pursue these legal cases in
state after state and now in regard to partial birth abotion. Last I heard
they hadn't complied with the US Supreme Court's monetary demands in the
Schiedler case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marie A." |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 07:57:58 PM |
|
|
"Dorothy" <Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote in message news:<FQHlb.2972$Fm2.5712@attbi_s04>...
(snip)
I wonder where they get all of the money to pursue these legal cases in
state after state and now in regard to partial birth abotion. Last I heard
they hadn't complied with the US Supreme Court's monetary demands in the
Schiedler case.
I take it that's a rhetorical question? They get this money from the
same places that they get their money to hammer away at the second
amendment, marriage as a heterosexual institution, and anti-war
demonstrations among other leftist causes. It comes largely from
leftist foundations, not a few of them handing out "old" republican
money.
What we need to do is start hammering THEM in first and fourteenth
amendment areas with equally silly arguments. What in hell should we
care how specious or silly the arguments are? Do they worry about this
when they do their thing? Just keep running them through the courts,
just like they do, until THEY back off from their *****. I can
assure you the first amendment can be attacked just as easily as the
second by challenging every freakin' application of it in
controversial areas.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 11:51:54 AM |
|
|
(Papa Jack) wrote...
On October 21, 2003, posted an article titled:
"Senate OKs Partial-Birth Abortion Ban." Go to:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100713,00.html
[...]
You might want to read the statement from the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists regarding this legislation:
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-03-03.cfm
"In this case, the bill before the Senate fails to
respect the Stenberg test because bill supporters
flagrantly refuse to include an exception for the
health of a woman. Instead, legislators try to
circumvent the Court's requirements by issuing
their own opinion to the nation's physicians and
patients that such a procedure is never needed to
protect a woman's health -- notwithstanding
opposing opinions from the medical community.
"The medical misinformation currently circulating
in political discussions of abortion procedures
only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual
circumstances of each particular medical case, the
patient and physician -- not legislators -- are
the appropriate parties to determine the best
method of treatment.
This so-called "PBA ban" law will go down in flames in the courts
because it does not include an exception for the health of the woman,
as mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court.
And it will not prevent a single abortion. All this legislation
amounts to is chum for mouth-breathers like Papa Jack.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 02:17:26 PM |
|
|
"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6ed74dfa.0310230851.2833c04f@posting.google.com...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote...
On October 21, 2003, posted an article titled:
"Senate OKs Partial-Birth Abortion Ban." Go to:
You might want to read the statement from the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists regarding this legislation:
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-03-03.cfm
"In this case, the bill before the Senate fails to
respect the Stenberg test because bill supporters
flagrantly refuse to include an exception for the
health of a woman. Instead, legislators try to
circumvent the Court's requirements by issuing
their own opinion to the nation's physicians and
patients that such a procedure is never needed to
protect a woman's health -- notwithstanding
opposing opinions from the medical community.
This so-called "PBA ban" law will go down in flames in the courts
because it does not include an exception for the health of the woman,
as mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court.
And as supported by the vast majority of Americans in a recent poll -
Americans who did mostly support the ban, but only with a health exception.
And it will not prevent a single abortion. All this legislation
amounts to is chum for mouth-breathers like Papa Jack.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 10:28:16 PM |
|
|
Spartakus <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote:
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote...
On October 21, 2003, posted an article titled:
"Senate OKs Partial-Birth Abortion Ban." Go to:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100713,00.html
[...]
You might want to read the statement from the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists regarding this legislation:
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-03-03.cfm
"In this case, the bill before the Senate fails to
respect the Stenberg test because bill supporters
flagrantly refuse to include an exception for the
health of a woman. Instead, legislators try to
circumvent the Court's requirements by issuing
their own opinion to the nation's physicians and
patients that such a procedure is never needed to
protect a woman's health -- notwithstanding
opposing opinions from the medical community.
One wonders at a political party that thinks it can justify violating
the constitution and threatening women by simply insisting that their
propaganda is more important than the truth.
Next thing you know they'll be lying in order to justify invasion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
22 Oct 2003 04:48:49 PM |
|
|
And as Malapert has pointed out repeatedly, this "ban" will not
prevent a single abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
22 Oct 2003 04:53:08 PM |
|
|
"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6ed74dfa.0310221348.5086c46d@posting.google.com...
And as Malapert has pointed out repeatedly, this "ban" will not
prevent a single abortion.
No, it will just stop the brutal butchering of unborn children.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 08:31:56 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote...
"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote...
And as Malapert has pointed out repeatedly, this "ban" will not
prevent a single abortion.
No, it will just stop the brutal butchering of unborn children.
I repeat, it will not prevent a single abortion. It will simply force
doctors to use procedures that are more invasive and entail more risk
for the woman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 09:36:12 AM |
|
|
"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6ed74dfa.0310230531.53b52a16@posting.google.com...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote...
"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote...
And as Malapert has pointed out repeatedly, this "ban" will not
prevent a single abortion.
No, it will just stop the brutal butchering of unborn children.
I repeat, it will not prevent a single abortion. It will simply force
doctors to use procedures that are more invasive and entail more risk
for the woman.
So you do acknowledge that PBA's were a common practice. If not, then
doctors wouldn't have to be forced to find other methods
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 03:05:31 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:x7OdnV7wf6jUegqiRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6ed74dfa.0310230531.53b52a16@posting.google.com...
I repeat, it will not prevent a single abortion. It will simply force
doctors to use procedures that are more invasive and entail more risk
for the woman.
So you do acknowledge that PBA's were a common practice. If not, then
doctors wouldn't have to be forced to find other methods
By this logic, heart-lung transplants [1] are a common practice. If not,
then doctors wouldn't be forced to find other methods if the current one was
modified.
By this logic, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease [2] is a common illness. If not,
then meat producers wouldn't have been forced to find other methods of
feeding animals destined to be eaten, nor would health-care workers have
been forced to find other methods of handling infectious materials.
[1] 500 in the US and 2,000 worldwide as of 1995; estimated 2,300 per year
in the US now, according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
[2] One case per million people per year, according to the Creutzfeld-Jakob
Disease Foundation.
*SIGH* I know, I know... Robert's been introduced to logic and forgotten it
so many times, it's cutting him dead now. But still we try.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 03:17:47 PM |
|
|
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:fwWlb.10613$Tr4.29555@attbi_s03...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:x7OdnV7wf6jUegqiRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6ed74dfa.0310230531.53b52a16@posting.google.com...
I repeat, it will not prevent a single abortion. It will simply force
doctors to use procedures that are more invasive and entail more risk
for the woman.
So you do acknowledge that PBA's were a common practice. If not, then
doctors wouldn't have to be forced to find other methods
By this logic, heart-lung transplants [1] are a common practice. If not,
then doctors wouldn't be forced to find other methods if the current one
was
modified.
By this logic, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease [2] is a common illness. If not,
then meat producers wouldn't have been forced to find other methods of
feeding animals destined to be eaten, nor would health-care workers have
been forced to find other methods of handling infectious materials.
[1] 500 in the US and 2,000 worldwide as of 1995; estimated 2,300 per year
in the US now, according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
[2] One case per million people per year, according to the
Creutzfeld-Jakob
Disease Foundation.
*SIGH* I know, I know... Robert's been introduced to logic and forgotten
it
so many times, it's cutting him dead now. But still we try.
PBA's are going to be banned. I really don't care what kind of rhetoric you
are trying to paint the picture with.
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 04:41:10 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:TsadnYPwAu_HqgWiRVn-hA@comcast.com...
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:fwWlb.10613$Tr4.29555@attbi_s03...
*SIGH* I know, I know... Robert's been introduced to logic and
forgotten
it
so many times, it's cutting him dead now. But still we try.
PBA's are going to be banned.
Maybe, maybe not.
I really don't care what kind of rhetoric you
are trying to paint the picture with.
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at all.
Only to the handful of women who would have died without them. But that's
okay; they'd still be permitted in such cases.
If it was just a ban on "PBA", that would be one thing. The law is easily
circumvented by ensuring fetal demise. The problem is that the language is
so vague, you can't tell *what* it's trying to ban. It will undoubtedly be
used to try and ban other abortion methods as well. I know you think that's
a good thing, but principled abortion opponents understand why it's not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 08:00:20 PM |
|
|
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:WVXlb.12531$HS4.49158@attbi_s01...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:TsadnYPwAu_HqgWiRVn-hA@comcast.com...
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:fwWlb.10613$Tr4.29555@attbi_s03...
*SIGH* I know, I know... Robert's been introduced to logic and
forgotten
it
so many times, it's cutting him dead now. But still we try.
PBA's are going to be banned.
Maybe, maybe not.
I really don't care what kind of rhetoric you
are trying to paint the picture with.
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at all.
Only to the handful of women who would have died without them.
And just how many women would have died with out them?
But that's
okay; they'd still be permitted in such cases.
If it was just a ban on "PBA", that would be one thing. The law is easily
circumvented by ensuring fetal demise. The problem is that the language
is
so vague, you can't tell *what* it's trying to ban. It will undoubtedly
be
used to try and ban other abortion methods as well. I know you think
that's
a good thing, but principled abortion opponents understand why it's not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 08:44:12 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:546dnSmB2IoN5AWiRVn-iw@comcast.com...
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:WVXlb.12531$HS4.49158@attbi_s01...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:TsadnYPwAu_HqgWiRVn-hA@comcast.com...
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at all.
Only to the handful of women who would have died without them.
And just how many women would have died with out them?
A handful. How many would have to die before you consider them important
enough to worry about?
Not that it's important - the procedure isn't illegal when it's necessary.
(And then, of course, only until the ban gets overturned again, since it
still doesn't have the constitutionally-required health exception too.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 08:58:41 PM |
|
|
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:Mt%lb.14307$HS4.54041@attbi_s01...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:546dnSmB2IoN5AWiRVn-iw@comcast.com...
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:WVXlb.12531$HS4.49158@attbi_s01...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:TsadnYPwAu_HqgWiRVn-hA@comcast.com...
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at all.
Only to the handful of women who would have died without them.
And just how many women would have died with out them?
A handful. How many would have to die before you consider them important
enough to worry about?
I don't need scare tactics to convince me that we should keep PBA's
I know better. And I also know that a woman's life would come over the
unborn child's life regardless of a ban on PBA or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 09:31:51 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:-dKdncO9oqShGgWiRVn-gg@comcast.com...
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:Mt%lb.14307$HS4.54041@attbi_s01...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:546dnSmB2IoN5AWiRVn-iw@comcast.com...
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:WVXlb.12531$HS4.49158@attbi_s01...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:TsadnYPwAu_HqgWiRVn-hA@comcast.com...
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at
all.
Only to the handful of women who would have died without them.
And just how many women would have died with out them?
A handful. How many would have to die before you consider them
important
enough to worry about?
I don't need scare tactics to convince me that we should keep PBA's
I know better. And I also know that a woman's life would come over the
unborn child's life regardless of a ban on PBA or not.
Just like I said. But thanks for admitting that sometimes the procedure is
necessary.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
24 Oct 2003 08:22:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:58:41 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
[snip...
I know better. And I also know that a woman's life would come over the
unborn child's life regardless of a ban on PBA or not.
Osprey, did you really write that? Are you really, really sure? I
think those that are disposed to do so will be filing this post of
yours away to throw back in your face.
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hylander" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 11:15:18 PM |
|
|
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<WVXlb.12531$HS4.49158@attbi_s01>...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:TsadnYPwAu_HqgWiRVn-hA@comcast.com...
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:fwWlb.10613$Tr4.29555@attbi_s03...
*SIGH* I know, I know... Robert's been introduced to logic and
forgotten
it
so many times, it's cutting him dead now. But still we try.
PBA's are going to be banned.
Maybe, maybe not.
I really don't care what kind of rhetoric you
are trying to paint the picture with.
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at all.
Only to the handful of women who would have died without them. But that's
okay; they'd still be permitted in such cases.
In many of those cases, the women would die anyway...the pregnancy
termination and the technique for this act is just one extra surgical
procedure to be sold to her and her insurance company on her way out.
If it was just a ban on "PBA", that would be one thing. The law is easily
circumvented by ensuring fetal demise.
Where it is so-called "necessary", it is just a foot in the door
towards promoting infanticide...which is really where pro-aborts are
headed next. All children of the state must earn their right to
live....somewhat like in the movie "Soldier". Darwinism as state
policy...survival of the fittest. Perhaps to some, that sounds really
neat....all survivors.
There is actually no such thing as PBA, its PBM (partial birth murder)
The problem is that the language is
so vague, you can't tell *what* it's trying to ban. It will undoubtedly be
used to try and ban other abortion methods as well. I know you think that's
a good thing, but principled abortion opponents understand why it's not.
I suppose if the mother's life is ever in danger, they might attempt
to save the child. If the child doesn't live, then its a "failed
attempt" and not a PBA is it not?
Hylander
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
25 Oct 2003 08:25:30 AM |
|
|
In article <a6947dd8.0310232015.2db95062@posting.google.com>,
dontbothermeplease3333@hotmail.com says...
PBA's are going to be banned.
Maybe, maybe not.
I really don't care what kind of rhetoric you
are trying to paint the picture with.
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at all.
Only to the handful of women who would have died without them. But that's
okay; they'd still be permitted in such cases.
In many of those cases, the women would die anyway
Ummm... have you any evidence that women who have or may have a so-
called "PBA" procedures die at or around that time even if they have
them?
If so, please cite where you found such evidence, and what it is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 03:56:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:17:47 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:fwWlb.10613$Tr4.29555@attbi_s03...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:x7OdnV7wf6jUegqiRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6ed74dfa.0310230531.53b52a16@posting.google.com...
I repeat, it will not prevent a single abortion. It will simply force
doctors to use procedures that are more invasive and entail more risk
for the woman.
So you do acknowledge that PBA's were a common practice. If not, then
doctors wouldn't have to be forced to find other methods
By this logic, heart-lung transplants [1] are a common practice. If not,
then doctors wouldn't be forced to find other methods if the current one
was
modified.
By this logic, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease [2] is a common illness. If not,
then meat producers wouldn't have been forced to find other methods of
feeding animals destined to be eaten, nor would health-care workers have
been forced to find other methods of handling infectious materials.
[1] 500 in the US and 2,000 worldwide as of 1995; estimated 2,300 per year
in the US now, according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
[2] One case per million people per year, according to the
Creutzfeld-Jakob
Disease Foundation.
*SIGH* I know, I know... Robert's been introduced to logic and forgotten
it
so many times, it's cutting him dead now. But still we try.
PBA's are going to be banned. I really don't care what kind of rhetoric you
are trying to paint the picture with.
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at all.
Define 'necessary'. There are other ways to achieve the same end as
ID&E. They involve greater risk to the pregnant woman involved. Why
would you want to expose pregnant women to a greater risk?
---
Militant Agnostic:
I don't know and you don't either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 08:00:00 PM |
|
|
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:u0ggpvks01mrbd7ftvspqmghnave17vkqk@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:17:47 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:fwWlb.10613$Tr4.29555@attbi_s03...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:x7OdnV7wf6jUegqiRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6ed74dfa.0310230531.53b52a16@posting.google.com...
I repeat, it will not prevent a single abortion. It will simply
force
doctors to use procedures that are more invasive and entail more
risk
for the woman.
So you do acknowledge that PBA's were a common practice. If not,
then
doctors wouldn't have to be forced to find other methods
By this logic, heart-lung transplants [1] are a common practice. If
not,
then doctors wouldn't be forced to find other methods if the current
one
was
modified.
By this logic, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease [2] is a common illness. If
not,
then meat producers wouldn't have been forced to find other methods of
feeding animals destined to be eaten, nor would health-care workers
have
been forced to find other methods of handling infectious materials.
[1] 500 in the US and 2,000 worldwide as of 1995; estimated 2,300 per
year
in the US now, according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute.
[2] One case per million people per year, according to the
Creutzfeld-Jakob
Disease Foundation.
*SIGH* I know, I know... Robert's been introduced to logic and
forgotten
it
so many times, it's cutting him dead now. But still we try.
PBA's are going to be banned. I really don't care what kind of rhetoric
you
are trying to paint the picture with.
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at all.
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 08:19:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:00:00 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:u0ggpvks01mrbd7ftvspqmghnave17vkqk@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:17:47 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:fwWlb.10613$Tr4.29555@attbi_s03...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:x7OdnV7wf6jUegqiRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6ed74dfa.0310230531.53b52a16@posting.google.com...
I repeat, it will not prevent a single abortion. It will simply
force
doctors to use procedures that are more invasive and entail more
risk
for the woman.
So you do acknowledge that PBA's were a common practice. If not,
then
doctors wouldn't have to be forced to find other methods
By this logic, heart-lung transplants [1] are a common practice. If
not,
then doctors wouldn't be forced to find other methods if the current
one
was
modified.
By this logic, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease [2] is a common illness. If
not,
then meat producers wouldn't have been forced to find other methods of
feeding animals destined to be eaten, nor would health-care workers
have
been forced to find other methods of handling infectious materials.
[1] 500 in the US and 2,000 worldwide as of 1995; estimated 2,300 per
year
in the US now, according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute.
[2] One case per million people per year, according to the
Creutzfeld-Jakob
Disease Foundation.
*SIGH* I know, I know... Robert's been introduced to logic and
forgotten
it
so many times, it's cutting him dead now. But still we try.
PBA's are going to be banned. I really don't care what kind of rhetoric
you
are trying to paint the picture with.
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at all.
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
Define 'necessary'. There are other ways to achieve the same end as
ID&E. They involve greater risk to the pregnant woman involved. Why
would you want to expose pregnant women to a greater risk?
Are you going to avoid that question again? Are you capable of
defending your stated position with anything more than rhetoric and
evasion?
---
Militant Agnostic:
I don't know and you don't either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 08:57:43 PM |
|
|
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:4evgpvcf0pb5019g93vd8dhtj08l782rqm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:00:00 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:u0ggpvks01mrbd7ftvspqmghnave17vkqk@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:17:47 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:fwWlb.10613$Tr4.29555@attbi_s03...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:x7OdnV7wf6jUegqiRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6ed74dfa.0310230531.53b52a16@posting.google.com...
I repeat, it will not prevent a single abortion. It will simply
force
doctors to use procedures that are more invasive and entail more
risk
for the woman.
So you do acknowledge that PBA's were a common practice. If not,
then
doctors wouldn't have to be forced to find other methods
By this logic, heart-lung transplants [1] are a common practice. If
not,
then doctors wouldn't be forced to find other methods if the current
one
was
modified.
By this logic, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease [2] is a common illness.
If
not,
then meat producers wouldn't have been forced to find other methods
of
feeding animals destined to be eaten, nor would health-care workers
have
been forced to find other methods of handling infectious materials.
[1] 500 in the US and 2,000 worldwide as of 1995; estimated 2,300
per
year
in the US now, according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute.
[2] One case per million people per year, according to the
Creutzfeld-Jakob
Disease Foundation.
*SIGH* I know, I know... Robert's been introduced to logic and
forgotten
it
so many times, it's cutting him dead now. But still we try.
PBA's are going to be banned. I really don't care what kind of
rhetoric
you
are trying to paint the picture with.
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at all.
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
23 Oct 2003 09:52:57 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:57:43 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:4evgpvcf0pb5019g93vd8dhtj08l782rqm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:00:00 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:u0ggpvks01mrbd7ftvspqmghnave17vkqk@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:17:47 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:fwWlb.10613$Tr4.29555@attbi_s03...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:x7OdnV7wf6jUegqiRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6ed74dfa.0310230531.53b52a16@posting.google.com...
I repeat, it will not prevent a single abortion. It will simply
force
doctors to use procedures that are more invasive and entail more
risk
for the woman.
So you do acknowledge that PBA's were a common practice. If not,
then
doctors wouldn't have to be forced to find other methods
By this logic, heart-lung transplants [1] are a common practice. If
not,
then doctors wouldn't be forced to find other methods if the current
one
was
modified.
By this logic, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease [2] is a common illness.
If
not,
then meat producers wouldn't have been forced to find other methods
of
feeding animals destined to be eaten, nor would health-care workers
have
been forced to find other methods of handling infectious materials.
[1] 500 in the US and 2,000 worldwide as of 1995; estimated 2,300
per
year
in the US now, according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute.
[2] One case per million people per year, according to the
Creutzfeld-Jakob
Disease Foundation.
*SIGH* I know, I know... Robert's been introduced to logic and
forgotten
it
so many times, it's cutting him dead now. But still we try.
PBA's are going to be banned. I really don't care what kind of
rhetoric
you
are trying to paint the picture with.
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at all.
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
What Bobby avoids:
Define 'necessary'. Are you a doctor, that you can categorically say
that the procedure is never necessary?
There are other ways to achieve the same end as ID&E. They involve
greater risk to the pregnant woman involved. Why would you want to
expose pregnant women to a greater risk?
Note: no answer. Evasions from Bobby.
Are you going to avoid that question again (twice, now)? Are you
capable of defending your stated position with anything more than
rhetoric and evasion? (No indication of that so far).
Yes, he will avoid the question. He wants to see a procedure banned,
even though it's used in cases where the fetus won't survive anyway
and has the least potential to harm the pregnant woman.
You were right, Malapert. You can try, but he won't learn.
(Cue Bobby cutting out the above, avoiding the question, and
attempting to insult my intelligence).
---
Militant Agnostic:
I don't know and you don't either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
24 Oct 2003 08:02:06 AM |
|
|
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:3p4hpvg39sctrlvf21fe914q5b5loge8p6@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:57:43 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:4evgpvcf0pb5019g93vd8dhtj08l782rqm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 21:00:00 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:u0ggpvks01mrbd7ftvspqmghnave17vkqk@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:17:47 -0400, "Osprey"
<noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:fwWlb.10613$Tr4.29555@attbi_s03...
"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:x7OdnV7wf6jUegqiRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6ed74dfa.0310230531.53b52a16@posting.google.com...
I repeat, it will not prevent a single abortion. It will
simply
force
doctors to use procedures that are more invasive and entail
more
risk
for the woman.
So you do acknowledge that PBA's were a common practice. If
not,
then
doctors wouldn't have to be forced to find other methods
By this logic, heart-lung transplants [1] are a common practice.
If
not,
then doctors wouldn't be forced to find other methods if the
current
one
was
modified.
By this logic, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease [2] is a common illness.
If
not,
then meat producers wouldn't have been forced to find other
methods
of
feeding animals destined to be eaten, nor would health-care
workers
have
been forced to find other methods of handling infectious
materials.
[1] 500 in the US and 2,000 worldwide as of 1995; estimated 2,300
per
year
in the US now, according to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute.
[2] One case per million people per year, according to the
Creutzfeld-Jakob
Disease Foundation.
*SIGH* I know, I know... Robert's been introduced to logic and
forgotten
it
so many times, it's cutting him dead now. But still we try.
PBA's are going to be banned. I really don't care what kind of
rhetoric
you
are trying to paint the picture with.
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at all.
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
What Bobby avoids:
Define 'necessary'.
Have you heard of a dictionary?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
24 Oct 2003 12:50:06 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:02:06 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
[snip]
PBA's are going to be banned. I really don't care what kind of
rhetoric
you
are trying to paint the picture with.
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at all.
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
What Bobby avoids:
Define 'necessary'.
Have you heard of a dictionary?
Yes, Bobby, I have. But you've already shown that you can't be trusted
to use a dictionary or to stick with the definitions as given, so you
have to define what *you* mean.
(repost)
What Bobby avoids:
Define 'necessary'. Are you a doctor, that you can categorically say
that the procedure is never necessary?
There are other ways to achieve the same end as ID&E. They involve
greater risk to the pregnant woman involved. Why would you want to
expose pregnant women to a greater risk?
Note: no answer. Evasions from Bobby.
Are you going to avoid that question again (twice, now)? Are you
capable of defending your stated position with anything more than
rhetoric and evasion? (No indication of that so far).
Yes, he will avoid the question. He wants to see a procedure banned,
even though it's used in cases where the fetus won't survive anyway
and has the least potential to harm the pregnant woman.
(Cue Bobby cutting out the above, avoiding the question, and
attempting to insult my intelligence).
See? I was right on all three.
---
Militant Agnostic:
I don't know and you don't either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
24 Oct 2003 01:56:33 PM |
|
|
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:4fpipv0d0u281587oq8tbknbobmfeknrsb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:02:06 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
[snip]
PBA's are going to be banned. I really don't care what kind of
rhetoric
you
are trying to paint the picture with.
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at
all.
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
What Bobby avoids:
Define 'necessary'.
Have you heard of a dictionary?
Adam,
What you don't get is the hints I send you. And I send them pretty clear.
I don't care what you say
I don't care about your questions
I don't care what your opinions are
I don't care what you think about me
You follow my every post around, looking to criticize any little thing you
can. It is a obsession with you.
Personally I think it is a sickness, much like what stalkers have.
I know this, and I know what your motives are. Which is why I don't care
about your questions, your opinions, your statements, your lies, your made
up accusations, and so forth.
I look at you as a very sick, mentally ill, person. You are not very bright,
you certainly don't take a hint, and I don't think you are capable of ever
realizing that you are not always right.
Which is why I snip a lot of your comments. I purposely dismiss many of
your questions just because I want to see how you are going to jump. And
you do jump. I have purposely baited you before, many times, with comments
meant to get a reaction out of you. I have even told you Adam, that you are
obsessed with my every post, and you still don't get the hint.
Now, go on with your rhetorical statements now Adam...:o)
You are one person who will never earn my respect
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
24 Oct 2003 02:09:47 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:56:33 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:4fpipv0d0u281587oq8tbknbobmfeknrsb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:02:06 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
[snip]
PBA's are going to be banned. I really don't care what kind of
rhetoric
you
are trying to paint the picture with.
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary at
all.
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
What Bobby avoids:
Define 'necessary'.
Have you heard of a dictionary?
[snipping Bobby's self serving excuses]
So, can we take this as confirmation that you will never justify
banning a procedure that poses less risk to pregnant women than the
alternatives?
You have confirmed that you don't give a ******* about women, Bobby.
You'd rather put them at increased risk to get your way. We can now
add 'misogynist' to 'bigot' to our stable of terms for you. Your need
to exert control on everything is only confirmed by your feeble
attempts to portray your lack of ability to answer questions or back
up your statements as 'baiting'.
That is why you're nothing more than an amusing sideshow, Bobby. Your
little meltdowns are funny, nothing more.
The reason I post after you, Bobby, is that it gives you an
opportunity to expose what a damaged human being you are. If you would
just *once* show the honesty and integrity required to back up what
you say, you might be able to begin countering your well-earned
reputation as an idiot and a troll - but I won't bet on you doing
that. I won't claim any moral high ground, either, but I back up what
I say and I provide sources for my claims. You do not (you steal them,
however).
You say you consider me 'mentally ill'? I know that's just your excuse
to avoid justifying what you say, Bobby. Banning ID&E puts women that
are already in a life-threatening situation at even more risk, and
*you* think that's acceptable.
(Not that Bobby will even read this, of course. He's shown that he
won't. Or maybe can't).
---
Militant Agnostic:
I don't know and you don't either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
24 Oct 2003 03:09:19 PM |
|
|
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:citipvornvfu9g6lfcv3q7asa09k0m0i8r@4ax.com...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:56:33 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:4fpipv0d0u281587oq8tbknbobmfeknrsb@4ax.com...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:02:06 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
[snip]
PBA's are going to be banned. I really don't care what kind
of
rhetoric
you
are trying to paint the picture with.
They are brutal, and terrible procedures, and not necessary
at
all.
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
Define 'necessary'.
Get a dictionary
What Bobby avoids:
Define 'necessary'.
Have you heard of a dictionary?
[snipping Bobby's self serving excuses]
So, can we take this as confirmation that you will never justify
banning a procedure that poses less risk to pregnant women than the
alternatives?
You can take what ever you like Adam, shove it straight up your ***** or what
ever floats your boat.
With you, you get no respect on any issues. If you were someone that I
thought had some intelligence, some decency, self respect and respect for
others, I would gladly discuss any issue with you. But you are not, so you
get nothing..:o)
You have confirmed that you don't give a ******* about women, Bobby.
what ever floats your boat Adam. If you wish to believe lies, that is on
you.
You'd rather put them at increased risk to get your way. We can now
add 'misogynist' to 'bigot' to our stable of terms for you. Your need
to exert control on everything is only confirmed by your feeble
attempts to portray your lack of ability to answer questions or back
up your statements as 'baiting'.
That is why you're nothing more than an amusing sideshow, Bobby. Your
little meltdowns are funny, nothing more.
LOL
The reason I post after you, Bobby, is that
You are a obsessed, hatefilled, sad, person
it gives you an
opportunity to expose what a damaged human being you are. If you would
just *once* show the honesty and integrity required to back up what
you say, you might be able to begin countering your well-earned
reputation as an idiot and a troll - but I won't bet on you doing
that. I won't claim any moral high ground, either, but I back up what
I say and I provide sources for my claims. You do not (you steal them,
however).
You say you consider me 'mentally ill'? I know that's just your excuse
to avoid justifying what you say, Bobby. Banning ID&E puts women that
are already in a life-threatening situation at even more risk, and
*you* think that's acceptable.
I totally support banning PBA, that is my stand on the issue. Period.
If a woman's life is at risk, that is another issue and I support her having
her life saved.
I have stated that many times through out the past 2 years I have posted in
a NG. It is the ONLY reason I see justification for abortion.
However, you chose to ignore that and make up your false accusations and
lies. Which is why I don't care for you or anyone of your ilk.
So do what you please Adam, say what you will. You have your little club of
followers. They think just like you, you all should get along
perfectly..:o)
(Not that Bobby will even read this, of course. He's shown that he
won't. Or maybe can't).
---
Militant Agnostic:
I don't know and you don't either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Enacted |
24 Oct 2003 03:12:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 16:09:19 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
[snip]
You say you consider me 'mentally ill'? I know that's just your excuse
to avoid justifying what you say, Bobby. Banning ID&E puts women that
are already in a life-threatening situation at even more risk, and
*you* think that's acceptable.
I totally support banning PBA, that is my stand on the issue. Period.
If a woman's life is at risk, that is another issue and I support her having
her life saved.
So, you support abortion in life-threatening situations, but you want
to see a total ban on the procedure that poses the *least* risk to a
woman's health in *the same situation*.
How very considerate of you, Bobby. Wouldn't want to minimize the risk
too much, after all. </sarcasm>
[snip]
---
Militant Agnostic:
I don't know and you don't either.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
