Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 20, 2017, 01:26:38 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: TexasGurl, True Federalist, Torie)
| | |-+  how could anyone with a conscience vote for partial birth abortion?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: how could anyone with a conscience vote for partial birth abortion?  (Read 808 times)
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2613
United States


View Profile
« on: April 27, 2012, 02:31:46 pm »
Ignore

It may come as a surprise being the leftist I am but while I have always supported the basic right to choose, I don't get why so many people (at least half the democrat caucus) voted against the ban. Even moderates like Chet Edwards or Cal Dooley voted against it. While I agree in a basic right to choose, how could anyone not agree that the procedure is infanticide not to mention dangerous? A lot of democrats pushed for a "health" exception, but that's really a loophole to perform it whenever possible.
Logged

-1.38, -1.38
Speaker & Lt. Governor R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26329
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.87, S: -7.22

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2012, 03:08:50 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, I consider myself politically pro-choice (morally pro-life) but I think the idea of partial-birth abortion is disgusting and should be illegal as much as I believe the death penalty should be illegal.
Logged



Torie
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34804
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2012, 03:57:18 pm »

First you need to define what partial birth abortion is, exactly. However, I would ban any third trimester abortion, that is not "authorized" by a court order, obtainable only by a finding of the court that absent it, the physical (not mental) health of the mother would be endangered (a term that would need to be carefully defined), or it is a medical emergency, and there is no time for a court order.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4668
Mexico


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2012, 04:07:59 pm »
Ignore

First you need to define what partial birth abortion is, exactly. However, I would ban any third trimester abortion, that is not "authorized" by a court order, obtainable only by a finding of the court that absent it, the physical (not mental) health of the mother would be endangered (a term that would need to be carefully defined), or it is a medical emergency, and there is no time for a court order.


I agree with everything said here and I find the term "partial-birth abortion" to be moronic. Anyone who is a part of non-hysterical political discourse shouldn't use it and be more specific as to what procedures they are for and against without resorting to a blanket term that could potentially describe a wide range of abortions.
Logged



"In this historic hour, we solemnly pledge ourselves to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No Executive Order gives you the power to destroy ideas that are eternal and indestructible."
-Otto Wels Enabling Act speech, paraphrased
Ebowed
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18295


Political Matrix
E: -8.32, S: -9.30


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2012, 05:04:58 pm »
Ignore

The issue is a smokescreen.  Generally the alternative to dilation and extraction (aka partial birth abortion) is dilation and evacuation, which can present the possibility of leaving parts of the fetus in the uterus, an infection risk.  No doubt late term abortions are grisly, but targeting partial birth abortion over other procedures does nothing to prevent them.
Logged

Donald Trump wants America to be his personal safe space.

Listen to Atlas Free Radio and follow us!  Thank you for your support!
AMA IL TUO PRESIDENTE!
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 43658
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2012, 05:20:56 pm »
Ignore

Oh, come on ! People still don't get that one could have different views of what's right and what's wrong ? Having a different conscience doesn't mean having no conscience.
Logged

Our numbers are dwindling. Our words are confused.
Some of them have been twisted by the enemy
until they can no longer be recognized.

Now what is wrong, or false, in what we have said?
Just some parts, or everything?
On whom can we still rely? Are we survivors, cast
away by the current? Will we be left behind,
no longer understanding anyone and being understood by no one?
Must we rely on luck?

This is what you ask. Expect
no answer but your own.


Bertolt Brecht
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15845


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2012, 06:27:44 pm »
Ignore

Intact dilation and extraction is used almost exclusively in cases where it's come to light that the fetus would have some sort of horrifying condition that would make it inviable and, in many cases, dangerous to the woman to deliver.  It is not an elective procedure and casting it in that light is grossly irresponsible.
Logged



The Handsome Monkey King Son Wukong weighs in on politics.
morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6880
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2012, 06:50:04 pm »
Ignore

Define "partial-birth abortion".

However, my feeling is that if the baby survived or if it is felt it may survive, then I feel it should be illegal unless the mother's life/health was at risk.
Logged

Snowstalker's Last Stand
Snowstalker
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19382
Greece


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2012, 08:47:15 pm »
Ignore

Given how few abortions are late-term, I doubt this issue deserves as much attention as it gets.
Logged

Indy Texas
independentTX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7372


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2012, 08:59:44 pm »
Ignore

First you need to define what partial birth abortion is, exactly. However, I would ban any third trimester abortion, that is not "authorized" by a court order, obtainable only by a finding of the court that absent it, the physical (not mental) health of the mother would be endangered (a term that would need to be carefully defined), or it is a medical emergency, and there is no time for a court order.


So basically, you think lawyers and judges are better equipped to assess whether a medical procedure needs to be done than, oh I don't know, the doctor and the patient?
Logged

Member of the proud Silent Majority of voters who did not vote for Donald Trump.
Bacon! 🔥
Bacon King
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17813
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 28, 2012, 01:57:58 am »
Ignore

It may come as a surprise being the leftist I am but while I have always supported the basic right to choose, I don't get why so many people (at least half the democrat caucus) voted against the ban. Even moderates like Chet Edwards or Cal Dooley voted against it. While I agree in a basic right to choose, how could anyone not agree that the procedure is infanticide not to mention dangerous? A lot of democrats pushed for a "health" exception, but that's really a loophole to perform it whenever possible.

What Ebowed said. In 2000 they were only 0.17% of all abortions, and the alternative option for abortions at that stage of pregnancy are more dangerous to the mother (and arguably, more gruesome anyway). It's a meaningless wedge issue for people on both sides of the issue. Plus, given Supreme Court precedent at the time, it was quite possibly unconstitutional anyway. Also, I don't think you can call really it infanticide if the abortion occurs pre-viability.

First you need to define what partial birth abortion is, exactly.

18 USC § 1531:
(b) As used in this section—
(1) the term “partial-birth abortion” means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion—
(A) 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, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus

Quote
However, I would ban any third trimester abortion

Before being banned, "partial birth abortions" were generally in the mid-to-late second trimester (20-26 weeks).
Logged

Thanks for all the fish!
Avelaval
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1291


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2012, 03:12:27 pm »
Ignore

how could anyone not agree that the procedure is infanticide ...?.

Infanticide is killing an infant.  A 20-week fetus is not an infant regardless of physical location (womb or partly-in-vagina).
Logged

Signatures suck.
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39603


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2012, 03:56:09 pm »
Ignore

Partial birth abortion isn't a medical term. It's just a term invented by the anti abortion people. Republicans like to talk about state's rights but that ban banned it in every state, whether they wanted it or not. More proof that state's rights is only used to help conservatives. They don't give a crap about it where it would help non-conservatives.
Logged

Torie
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34804
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 28, 2012, 05:03:51 pm »

First you need to define what partial birth abortion is, exactly. However, I would ban any third trimester abortion, that is not "authorized" by a court order, obtainable only by a finding of the court that absent it, the physical (not mental) health of the mother would be endangered (a term that would need to be carefully defined), or it is a medical emergency, and there is no time for a court order.


So basically, you think lawyers and judges are better equipped to assess whether a medical procedure needs to be done than, oh I don't know, the doctor and the patient?

The judge would examine the medical opinion(s) of course.  If the opinion(s) met the legal criteria for a late term abortion, the judge would authorize it.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35222
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.45, S: -1.57

P P P

View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 28, 2012, 05:06:11 pm »
Ignore

They could do so if they genuinely believed that at the stage the fetus/child/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is aborted it isn't a life.
Logged
Torie
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34804
Samoa


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 28, 2012, 05:06:14 pm »

It may come as a surprise being the leftist I am but while I have always supported the basic right to choose, I don't get why so many people (at least half the democrat caucus) voted against the ban. Even moderates like Chet Edwards or Cal Dooley voted against it. While I agree in a basic right to choose, how could anyone not agree that the procedure is infanticide not to mention dangerous? A lot of democrats pushed for a "health" exception, but that's really a loophole to perform it whenever possible.

What Ebowed said. In 2000 they were only 0.17% of all abortions, and the alternative option for abortions at that stage of pregnancy are more dangerous to the mother (and arguably, more gruesome anyway). It's a meaningless wedge issue for people on both sides of the issue. Plus, given Supreme Court precedent at the time, it was quite possibly unconstitutional anyway. Also, I don't think you can call really it infanticide if the abortion occurs pre-viability.

First you need to define what partial birth abortion is, exactly.

18 USC § 1531:
(b) As used in this section—
(1) the term “partial-birth abortion” means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion—
(A) 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, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus

Quote
However, I would ban any third trimester abortion

Before being banned, "partial birth abortions" were generally in the mid-to-late second trimester (20-26 weeks).

Yes, the precise method of killing the late term fetus that it is otherwise legal to kill is much ado about nothing. If a late term abortion is to be legal in the given instance, than the safest way medically to kill the fetus and remove it from the womb is of course appropriate.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12631
Ireland, Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 28, 2012, 05:32:22 pm »
Ignore

Quote
how could anyone with a conscience vote...

I preferred this thread when I thought it had this title.
Logged



Quote
Keith R Laws ‏@Keith_Laws  Feb 4
As I have noted before 'paradigm shift' is an anagram of 'grasp dim faith'
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines