Originally posted by AuntyM:
Often, a legislator objects strenuosly to part of a bill enough to influence his vote. In the case of "partial abortion" too many Physicians were apalled by that bill, and for good reason.--AuntyM
The reason they objected is because the abortion profiteers stood to lose a steady stream of income.
------------------------------------------------------------
[QUOTE] 3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
If the fetus can't survive at term, but the mother's life is in danger if she carry's to term, then she should receive proper medical intervention and neither you, nor Bush should be allowed to prevent such intervention.--AuntyM
------------------------------------------------------------
Did you even read the bill AuntyM?
-----------------------------------------------------------
The bill (S.1692) that John Kerry and John Edwards voted against cleary stated that the BAN on Partial Birth Abortion would not apply if, "the partial birth abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by physical disorder, illness, or injury."
------------------------------------------------------------
With regards to the statement, The most common justifiications at the time are: "The fetus is dead."
If the baby dies naturally in the womb in the ninth month of pregnancy then it wouldn't be a Partial Birth Abortion--It would be an induced miscarriage.
The bill to ban Partial Birth Abortion (S.1692) cleary states that it applies to the," overt act which kills the fetus" while that feus is intact and living.
------------------------------------------------------------
I think reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of the PRO LIFE/PRO CHOICE positions in the EARLY stages of pregnancy.
However, standing on the side of Kerry and Edwards and saying that women should have the right to kill a fully formed and healthy baby that is capable of living outside of the mother when health of the mother isn't even in question seems to be anything but reasonable to me.
Why is it when someone takes a power tool and drills into the the brain of a one day old baby and sucks it inside out with a shop-vac-- It's called murder .
But when a doctor does the same thing to a living baby inside of a healthy women one day before the baby is born--It's called choice?
BTW-- the bill doesn't penalize women who are victims of this senseless and horific act--But rather seeks to hold the butchers who perform the grusome act acountable.
Previous Topic
Index
