Right to Life Wins....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070418/D8OJ2NI80.html
Let er' rip Nellie, RW, PMCalk, Waterboy and other pro-abortion folks:
No. Common sense won the day. There will be no undoing of RvW.
IP, Tell that to Ginsburg
Just prohibits one method of abortion not the right to have one at all. Roe V. Wade won't be over-turned.
After reading your article's description of the partial-birth method: crushing skulls or cutting into the skull to complete the abortion, if I were a doctor I couldn't imagine using my medical skills to do that. Yech.
Conan. I agree that all of Roe will not be overturned. I see the day, however, that the issue will be thrown back to the states---WHERE IT BELONGS...
Most all of the nonsense that gets codified by the feds should be state issues. Jefferson would be pissed.
I don't care. I never liked partial-birth abortion anyway.
How many of those are done each year? A few dozen?
The CDC reports a minimum of 20,000 per year.
IP: Agreed.
RW: You never "liked" partial birth abortion? I take it that means you "like" other forms of abortion. Thanks for speaking up...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Most all of the nonsense that gets codified by the feds should be state issues. Jefferson would be pissed.
Ironically, border security which most definitely should be handled by the Feds, gets pawned off on cities and states. Go figure.
Keeping my fingers crossed though. Half expect the Feds to get on the ball. Other half says no one will touch it until after the 2008 elections.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Most all of the nonsense that gets codified by the feds should be state issues. Jefferson would be pissed.
Ironically, border security which most definitely should be handled by the Feds, gets pawned off on cities and states. Go figure.
Keeping my fingers crossed though. Half expect the Feds to get on the ball. Other half says no one will touch it until after the 2008 elections.
No one's going to touch it as long as there's the potential to piss off 20mm potential future voters and existing naturalised Hispanics.
I'm curious how the Dems will tip-toe around amnesty with their huge union base and keep both the Hispanics and unions happy.
If we'd have ever gotten manditory term limits in Washington, we might get some of these issues resolved instead of legislators worried more about maintaining a job than actually making worthwhile legislation.
quote:
No one's going to touch it as long as there's the potential to piss off 20mm potential future voters and existing naturalised Hispanics.
I'm curious how the Dems will tip-toe around amnesty with their huge union base and keep both the Hispanics and unions happy.
The unions will organize them then both the dem's and the illegals will be happy and the Unions WIN
Yeah...and the country loses.
Thank you Supreme Court!
Millions of babies have been killed by abortion, I don't comprehend how anyone could support abortions.
Do you think it is tragic that 33 people died at Virginia Tech? I hope so. So why don't you have a problem with MILLIONS of babies being killed?
It is hypocritical PERIOD
CUBS: It is absolutely hypocritical, unless you subscribe to the notion that the VA. Tech killer should be absolved of fault since he had the "choice" to kill those people.
IP is correct.
The Supreme Court has never said a woman has the right to kill the fetus when and how she sees fit. This is a logical extension of their prior rulings and in no way moves towards reversing Roe. It does, however, make a move towards encouraging states to challenge it (which will fail) or place further restrictions on the procedure.
-----------
Cubs: No, I am not sorry that 33 people died at VT. I'm only sorry that 32 of them died, the 33rd can rot in hell.
If you really care about my thoughts on the issue, go read the pages and pages of posts IP and I have logged on the issue. To sum it up, not all life is granted equal rights. The determination of WHEN to apply those rights is what is important. The students at VT were without a doubt within the class of persons afforded rights both by our country and by the UN Commission on Human Rights. A non-viable fetus does not have that protection by either the US nor the UN.
If you cannot point out a few of the differences between a 20 year old person and a 9 week old fetus, you seriously need to do some research on that topic.
The dems are going to take a beating over this issue. They HAVE to tow the line for their constituency, and the candidates already are.
Unfortunately towing the line in this instance encompasses partially delivering all but the head of a child, stabbing it in the back of the head with scissors and sucking its brains out and thinking that this is somehow okay in a civil society.
Yeah for the barbarians!
CF:
I don't think I've made my position completely clear on abortion...so far...
I understand that any didnt mean to imply your stance on the issue. Simply agreeing with your statement that this decision does not undermine Roe (and, as an interjection, that Jefferson would be pissed at the current imperial federal government).
Yep. No giant leaps for pro-life here, just one disgusting arm of the beast.
IP: You are probably the only person who does not view this as a victory for pro-life. Take a look at the opinion and, if you can, compare it Casey. The conversation is different. Jeez, when you have Hillary, Barack, Edwards, Boxer all whining about the end of women's rights, what does that mean?
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/cartoons.aspx
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Most all of the nonsense that gets codified by the feds should be state issues. Jefferson would be pissed.
Funny how you are for state's rights when it suits you, but you think a federal marriage admendment is required instead of allowing the states to decide what constitutes marriage like they always have done.
Guido, I've never seen someone take more material out of Rove's playbook than you. Not everything is a wedge you can use to try and polarize the country, or this forum in your case. I hope someday this country shuns people who look to sow division and we start civil dialogue again.
quote:
Funny how you are for state's rights when it suits you, but you think a federal marriage admendment is required instead of allowing the states to decide what constitutes marriage like they always have done.
I don't recall me supporting that amendment, but if you say so.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Funny how you are for state's rights when it suits you, but you think a federal marriage admendment is required instead of allowing the states to decide what constitutes marriage like they always have done.
I don't recall me supporting that amendment, but if you say so.
Okay, I'm glad to know you are truly a republican and support state's rights. I should have been more specific and said the majority in your party supports that admendment. I'll try and not slander you.. [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Thank you Supreme Court!
Millions of babies have been killed by abortion, I don't comprehend how anyone could support abortions.
Do you think it is tragic that 33 people died at Virginia Tech? I hope so. So why don't you have a problem with MILLIONS of babies being killed?
It is hypocritical PERIOD
Hypocritical is using a current tragedy to try and support your viewpoint but whine about others using the same tragedy to push their viewpoint (gun control). Wallow in the mud there Cubs.
Here's a weird irony, if your mother would have had an abortion, you wouldn't be Okiebybirth. I'm glad my mother didn't, however my ex-wife might disagree. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Here's a weird irony, if your mother would have had an abortion, you wouldn't be Okiebybirth. I'm glad my mother didn't, however my ex-wife might disagree. [;)]
The irony is lost on me. My mother wanted a family, so here I am. If she had used contraception, then I wouldn't have been here either and it wouldn't have been a issue either way.
Just making a pun. Ironic to see a username like "okiebybirth" under an abortion thread. No commentary nor offense intended.
OKIE: As with IP, I also cannot recall stating my support of a federal marriage amendment although it's noteworthy that democrat Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act).
Rove's playbook: What are you talking about? I have been anti-abortion since I can remember. I think Roe was a stupid decision--both legally and morally. I also think partial birth abortion is the height of barbarism, with everyday abortion for purpose of birth control being a close second.
Teddy: Funny how non-veteran folks want to debate the code of conduct for soldiers at war or how to handle prisoners of war. Pretty wussy if you ask me...Funny how people who have never had a family member murdered or raped would generally be against murder or rape...Pretty uneducated opinions if you ask me...
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Just making a pun. Ironic to see a username like "okiebybirth" under an abortion thread. No commentary nor offense intended.
None taken Conan.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Rove's playbook: What are you talking about?
Look at every topic you start on this forum. I'm beginning to think you are reading "How to imitate Rove for Dummies". Shock and Awe is over.
DM: Yeah, that South Korea thread rings of Rove, just like the "Oklahoma Tax Burden" and Mother's Love thread.
If you want to know the issues that most concern me, they are pro-life and pro-veteran/war on terror. If protecting the unborn and supporting our troops is Rovian, well, so be it.
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Rove's playbook: What are you talking about?
Look at every topic you start on this forum. I'm beginning to think you are reading "How to imitate Rove for Dummies". Shock and Awe is over.
You mean M.C. Rove?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln5RD9BhcCo&mode=related&search=
I can't hear his name anymore without thinking of that. [8)]
The statute apparently bans a particularly gruesome procedure. The "sky-is-falling" response by abortion supporters is therefore particularly inapt.
For those curious enough to read it, the opinion describes the banned procedure in detail, noting that the statute applies when the fetus is actually vaginally delivered to a certain position, and where the head lodges in the cervix, whereupon the doctor pierces or crushes the fetal skull after the partial delivery.
According to the opinion:
quote:
"The procedure extracts the fetus in a way conducive to pulling out its entire body, instead of ripping it apart."
One abortion-doctor stated that:
quote:
"The right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and 'hooks' the shoulders of the fetus with the index and and ring fingers (palm down). While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger. The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient."
So, basically the statute prohibits infanticide. I think the federal government has a sincere and legitimate interest in preventing infanticide.
But some hope still remains for those against this decision. The Act excludes most D&E procedures in which the doctor removes the fetus in pieces.