Steve Ertelt:
The House of Representatives today approved a that bans abortions from after 20-weeks of pregnancy up to the day of birth.
The vote for the bill broke down on mostly partisan lines with Republicans supporting the ban on late-term abortions and Democrats opposing it. The House approved the bill on a 228-196 vote with 7 Democrats voting for the bill and 6 Republicans voting against it. (See end for how members voted).
The bill, if it receives a vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate, is not expected to pass and pro-abortion President Barack Obama has issued a veto threat. But pro-life groups hope to use the measure as an election tool in 2014 in an attempt to wrest the Senate from abortion advocates.
Leading pro-life organizations issued statements praising the House for the vote.
“I would hope that stopping atrocities against little babies is something we can agree to put an end to,” Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota said during the debate. “We’re talking about babies who, if they were born and simply given a chance, they could survive outside the womb.”
Congresswoman Wagner of Missouri added: “As science and technology continue to advance, we are changing hearts and mind. It is not only the pain of the child we must consider, but also the pain of the mother. Everyone talks about the right to choose, but no one discusses the implications of that choice. I am for life at all stages. I am for the life of the baby, and I am also for the life of the mother. I will continue to work for a day when abortion is not only illegal, but absolutely unthinkable.”
Rep. Chris Smith, the head of the pro-life caucus in the House, spoke eloquently from the House floor.
“The brutality of severing the spines of defenseless babies—euphemistically called “snipping” by Gosnell—has finally peeled away the benign façade of the billion dollar abortion industry” he said.
Yes. You will carry an anencephalic fetus discovered after 20 weeks to full term and delivery. Because the idiots in the House of Representatives say you must.
There’s no exception for that in HR 1797. In fact, the text specifically mentions and blows off the condition in SEC. 2 (7), to wit:
I suppose that statement might constitute substantial evidence that elected officials born with their entire cerebral cortex intact may still lack the ability to think.
By the way, there’s reason to believe that mothers forced to carry catastrophically abnormal fetuses to the point of delivery, followed by either a quick or lingering death, might be expected to actually experience profound psychological pain. That, too, is specifically addressed and blown off in the wording of the bill. (Refer to Sec. 3.(b)2.(B).)
Democratic strategists have got to really appreciate this:
It’ll be used as a tool, alright.
Where on earth does the GOP find these people?
doesn’t surprise me obama has threatened to veto the bill.
“Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, “then this would be an anti-abortion statute.” Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238 Aug 1, 2008
More interesting information can be found at the following link.
http://www.ontheissues.org/social/barack_obama_abortion.htm
@ Greg:
You are absolutely right. Requiring the public to spend millions to “save” desperately deformed and marginally viable fetuses is obscene. Medical science developed the ability to artificially prolong life precisely because there is an incredible amount of money to be made in the adventure.
The argument that these lives are sacred seems cynical in the face of how easily we squander lives otherwise – through war, executions and simple neglect. The fight against abortion panders to the maternal instincts of the very constituency it seeks to strip the freedom of choice from. Ironic.
@George Wells:
And what percentage of abortions performed in the U.S. are of “desperately deformed and marginally viable fetuses”, George? Do you even know? Have you a solid number?
Will you still support abortion upon demand when that “gay” gene is discovered (as queers demand is only a matter of time) and women start aborting their children because they don’t want a “gay” kid and consider a “gay” child “deformed?”
You lefties have problems with waterboarding someone like KSM, who would love nothing more than to remove your gay head from your gay neck, but no problem with removing a baby from the safety of its mother’s womb, bit by bit, first an arm, then a leg, then crushing the skull to remove the head or even using modern medical technology to force that child to be born all the way up to its neck and then slashing the back of its neck to cause death. How humane of you.
@retire05, #4:
Maybe you should take some time to review graphic photographs of the dead children that resulted from the last military invasion you supported.
@Greg: I’m assuming you are referring to Iraq. Are you insinuating that those of us who went there were running around killing children for the helluva it or if you weren’t referring to Iraq, that those who went wherever you were referring to were killing children for the helluva it that place?
@Greg:
Perhaps you should take some time to review graphic photographs of the dead children that resulted from the inhumane abortionists. Amazing that the lap dog media will show, eagerly, dead children in the Middle East but refuse to show the handy work of Dr. Gosnell because that would be “disturbing” to their readership.
Men, like you, are hypocrites. You support abortion for one reason and one reason only; your get-out-of-
child support-jail-free card.@retire05 #4:
“And what percentage of abortions performed in the U.S. are of “desperately deformed and marginally viable fetuses”, George? Do you even know? Have you a solid number?”
What possible relevance rests in the percentages? And before you go off screaming at that, check my response to your next line:
“Will you still support abortion upon demand when that “gay” gene is discovered (as queers demand is only a matter of time) and women start aborting their children because they don’t want a “gay” kid and consider a “gay” child “deformed?””
No. Neither is the point. And laughably, you have argued blue-in-the-face that no gay gene exists, so what hypocrisy are you employing here to argue that one WILL be found?????
The right to choose is the mother’s alone. You who champion limited government are so desperate at every turn to squeeze that tiny little government bureaucracy into everyone’s bedrooms and the life choices they make. Shame on you! If the law of the land says you can abort for any reason, that’s the law, gay gene or whatever. So to your most stupid question, my answer is “YES”.
And to any and all other bizarre scenarios you may concoct, I support the right of the mother to abort based on discovery of genetic flaws (we ALL have them) as well as GENDER (you want one girl only – FINE – keep trying) as well as financial (I can’t afford a kid right now) and any other imaginable reason. The mother’s reason IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, or the government’s.
@retire05 #7:
“Men, like you, are hypocrites. You support abortion for one reason and one reason only; your get-out-of-child support-jail-free card.”
And why is it that I support abortion?
@another vet, #6:
What I was referring to was retire05’s typically hateful, histrionic evasion of the central point.
I weary of small-minded prigs who hysterically rant one moment about their Constitutional rights and their privacy, and then assert the next that it’s the proper business of government to force women to give birth to catastrophically deformed fetuses or to the children of their rapists.
Such people don’t seem to be capable of grasping the fact that one of the costs of freedom is the possibility that other people will not always behave as you believe they should.
@George Wells:
News flash, Mr. Sodomite; the “right to choose” as you want to call unmitigated murder, was made PRIOR to conception in 99% of the cases, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the statistics arm of Planned Parenthood.
You see, rape and incest account for less than one percent of all abortions in the U.S. So obviously women freely decided to have unprotected sex, which resulted in a pregnancy, without any bureaucracy in their bedrooms to stop them.
I don’t want in anyone’s bedroom, nor do I want to have to pay for what they do there. It is not my responsibility to pay taxes to cover a woman’s abortion or your (that is “your” as in a general “your”) AIDS drugs. You want the freedom to act like a fool, fine, but don’t expect others to pay for your foolishness.
And what about the father’s choice? Doesn’t he have a right to want to keep the product of a mutually agreed to act of sex? If she wanted total control over her own body, she shouldn’t have allowed some man to use it.
Again, as you are a constantly dishonest person, you twist what I said. I NEVER said a “gay” gene exists, quite the opposite. It is YOUR bunch, queers, that argues one DOES exist and will eventually be found.
Now, go away. You are a boring, stupid man who supports infanticide and wants nothing more than for the United States to turn into Rome II.
@Greg: I really don’t care much about social issues and think the federal government/politicians shouldn’t be dictating morals since they have none themselves, but if a woman is pregnant by a rapist and wants an abortion, don’t you think she should do it ASAP and not wait 20 weeks? When does the clock stop- 10 weeks, 20 weeks, 36 weeks, 3 months after birth? Here is a brief overview of what happens at each stage:
http://www.livestrong.com/article/92683-embryo-fetus-development-stages/
@Greg:
But you obviously never tire of letting your mouth overload your ass, i.e. Indiana vote registration rules.
And tell me, what nation ever remained viable when it allowed its citizens to kill off the next generation?
Give me a percentage of those abortions that are performed in the U.S. that was due to “catastrophically deformed fetuses or to the children of their rapists”. Or is your mouth writing a check you ass can’t cash, again?
Apparently there are enough so that your bat-shit-crazy legislators feel compelled to specifically address and rule out any exceptions to their bat-shit-crazy legislation that might be based upon them.
@Greg:
Give me a percentage of those abortions that are performed in the U.S. that was due to “catastrophically deformed fetuses or to the children of their rapists”.
So to put it in plain English; you don’t have a freaking clue what the percentage is and, once again, you are only blathering left wing talking points.
Are you a masochist who want to continually make yourself look like an idiot because there must be a reason you do.
@retire05#11:
Predictably hateful.
“I don’t want in anyone’s bedroom, nor do I want to have to pay for what they do there. It is not my responsibility to pay taxes to cover a woman’s abortion or your (that is “your” as in a general “your”) AIDS drugs.”
Who said anything about YOU paying for abortions or AIDS drugs? The battle over abortion rights is about “murder,” not who pays for it. And obviously your association of abortion rights with… AIDS drugs… is nonsensical. You’re not making a rational argument; you’re just being UGLY for the sake of it.
“You want the freedom to act like a fool, fine, but don’t expect others to pay for your foolishness.”
Whatever is this? More money talk? Or is this just some additional irrelevant BS?
“I NEVER said a “gay” gene exists, quite the opposite.”
“Will you still support abortion upon demand when that “gay” gene is discovered?”
If you would stop fighting both sides of YOUR gay gene battle (remember I didn’t bring up the subject, you did) then maybe you could make a coherent argument against abortion, which you chose not to do. Why?
You bothered to point out that less than one percent of abortions are the result of rape – does that mean you support abortions for that reason? Stop spitting venom long enough to articulate a moral position, if that is what you think you have.
@retire05 #13:
“And tell me, what nation ever remained viable when it allowed its citizens to kill off the next generation?”
And how many of those unwanted children do you think WON’T be a burden to society as they grow up to clog prisons and perpetuate the cycle of poverty? You have a number for that?
@retire05, #15:
Please allow me to put it in plain English: I don’t give a rat’s ass what the percentage is, because that discussion is nothing more than a diversion from the main point:
It’s every woman’s fundamental right to have sovereign control over her own body—including its reproductive function—without interference from an intrusive government, from narrow-minded self-appointed spokesmen for God, or from any other organized group of meddlesome busy-bodies who think they know best how someone else should make the most difficult and personal moral decisions in their life.
The only reason the matter of rapists and fetal abnormalities is brought up is because doing so clearly demonstrates just how freaking insane and potentially repressive the control freaks actually are: They specifically want to forbid abortion as an option under the most compelling circumstances that any woman might ever consider having one. They stop short of forcing you to their will only if doing so will maim or kill you, and some wouldn’t stop even there.
That fact alone speaks volumes. It reveals them for what they are. It demonstrates why they must never, ever be given free rein, in this matter or in any other matter of serious public consequence.
@Greg:
Wow. Your position ignores the definitive individuality of the fetus, basically saying the fetus is not entitled to the right to life until it exits the birth canal. Your position denies the continuum of human existence that is present from the moment a distinct individual as defined by the wholly separate set of chromosomes that arises at the moment of conception. Am I a control freak for wanting to protect innocent human life? As a neonatologist I regularly strive to save babies born as early as 23 weeks gestation. Declaring that the only determining factor in whether a fetus has the right to life is the whim of the mother’s convenience seems to me to be much more that of being a control freak.
@George Wells:
So the solution is to kill the innocent in order to prevent the possibility of future suffering? So why not just kill people who lose limbs or become afflicted with diseases for which we have no cure, if staving off potential suffering is the goal?
@Pete, #19:
As hard as it might sound, and as much as we might disagree with any particular woman’s decision, I believe that we’re compelled to accept the general principle that so long as a woman is competent to make decisions, the continued existence of an unborn child is contingent on her willingness that its existence continue. Her rights to control the destiny of her own body preexist and supersede those of a fetus that has not yet become independent from her body. She is not the property of the child’s father, or of her family, or of her church, or of the state, and they may not seize control of her uterus.
Since opinions about this vary, I don’t consider it unreasonable for a point to be set at some time before birth when her ability to exercise those rights cease to be automatic. Twenty-five weeks seems reasonable to me, owing to the fact that that’s when organized brainwave activity initially appears in the fetus. Human beings who exhibit the same level of brain activity that a fetus does before the 25-week mark are routinely declared legally dead and disconnected from life support systems. Their rights no longer enter in, because they’re no longer considered living persons.
I believe that a woman and her doctor should be allowed to justify an abortion on legitimate medical grounds even beyond that point. If a qualified doctor agrees that the procedure is medically in order, that should suffice. I would have no problem with a rule that such a qualified doctor would have to be someone other than the abortion service provider.
@Greg:
The state should not have power over a woman’s decisions with regard to her body, but the woman should have uktimate power over the body of the fetus?
You say 25 weeks is the hallmark of brainwave activity, but I regularly treat 23 week infants who exhibit pain responses. In addition, the comparison of an adult diagnosed with irreparable brain damage causing permanent vegetative state having life support withdrawn is completely different from the act of tearing the growing fetus apart via suction curretage, or chemical burning via hypertonic saline injection.
Furthermore, the only medical conditions that a mother would possibly have that would endanger her life should she remain pregnant would be pre-eclampsia, which does not occur until late in pregnancy when the fetus is already viable, sepsis arising from the uterus (in which case the fetus is most likely beyond saving anyway), or the exceedingly rare instance of maternal cancer during the child bearing years, in which case the treatment for cancer via chemo or radiation would be detrimental to the fetus. The latter case is so rare that in 18 years of medical practice I have never seen such a case while taking care of roughly 2500-3000 deliveries a year.
The VAST majority of abortions are performed in this country for the convenience of the mother, not because of a threat to her life or due to fetal malformations.
@Pete #20:
“So the solution is to kill the innocent in order to prevent the possibility of future suffering? So why not just kill people who lose limbs or become afflicted with diseases for which we have no cure, if staving off potential suffering is the goal?”
Silly oversimplification.
Your charming medical profession has done a splendid job of making virtually any condition survivable, and you have teamed up with the legal profession to insure that we must all avail ourselves of your heroic services. No small wonder that Americans pay multiples of what other countries pay and receive considerably less.
The argument that “life is sacred” is ignored by society at virtually every turn EXCEPT regarding the abortion issue. Strange… and this totally bogus focus on the potential to “experience pain” is baffling. When did we all become constitutionally protected from pain?
Dead frogs respond to pain when jabbed with a pin. So what?
The tug-of-war over 15 weeks or 18 weeks or 20 weeks or 25 weeks is morally irrelevant. Either abortion is murder or it is not. From a purely pragmatic perspective, the gene pool doesn’t need aborted fetuses. The human infestation on this planet is already doing too well without them. The healthcare that we pay so dearly for is already overly burdened with obscenely expensive procedures designed to do little more than fatten insurance company and hospital shareholders while reducing the public to poverty, and we don’t need to be paying for extraordinary or heroic measures to keep either deformed or unwanted fetuses alive. And our insanely ineffective criminal justice system doesn’t need the additional useless human baggage that obtains from requiring parenthood from those indisposed to doing the job right.
Through the heavy fog of moralism we must somehow wrest back control of our social destiny. In the largest possible context, life is exceedingly cheap. The notion that it is otherwise is sweet but without rational basis. We do ourselves and our planet a terrible disservice when we fail to effectively manage our reproduction under the pretext that more is always better, or that somehow all of this excess life is making God happy…
@George Wells:
In typical leftist fashion you resort to hamhanded dismissiveness when confronted with the unflattering logical extension of your position – “silly oversimplification” indeed – when you do not wish to see what is obvious.
I can assure you there is absolutely no “team up” between lawyers and physicians, and your statement is hilarious. I can think of no group held in more contempt by physicians than lawyers, who are responsible for a huge portion of the rise in medical care costs due to the ambulance chasers using the US health care system as a medical lottery. The US is the only country in the world that allows the abomination of contingency fee lawsuits. So don’t try peddling that garbage here.
The American health care system, in spite of your leftwing UN and WHO propaganda, is the best in the world, followed closely by the Israelis. Here are a few facts you can go check on yourself, if you can ever lift your mind out of the confused malthusian/socialist propaganda soup in which you swim:
1. Every infant born in the US with a heartbeat, regardless of gestational age, is counted as a life birth. When these nonviable infants die they still count as infant mortality. In virtually every other nation on earth, nonviable infants are not counted as liveborn. Furthermore, in many countries an infant is falsely classified as stillborn if it does not survive to 30 days of age. Hence the misleading idea that infant mortality is worse in the US than in the vaunted socialist health care systems elsewhere.
2. The average 5 year cancer survival rate in the US is significantly higher than every other nation on the planet. Check for yourself. And this is not by a little bit either….
3. US hospitals have large numbers of foreign medical graduates training here as opposed to their home countries. There is no such counter situation with US medical graduates running off to other countries to train in medicine. We must be doing something right.
4. The city of Buffalo, NY has more MRI machines than the entire province of Quebec. The city of Seattle, WA has more NICU beds than the entire province of British Columbia. When I worked in the Seattle area I regularly accepted babies from Canada because they ddi not have sufficient numbers of NICU beds to care for their population.
You admit that the medical system does a “splendid job” yet the venomous manner in which you say that reveals more about your character and apparent loathing of your fellow man than any potential derogation of my efforts as a physician.
You clumsily engage in straw man tactics with your “constitutionally protected from pain” statement. Do you recall that YOU initiated the discussion by attempting to justify abortion under the pretext that under 25 weeks a fetus doesn’t feel pain? Then in typical leftist fashion when I point out that I care for 23 weekers and they most certainly do exhibit pain responses you now jump to the conclusion than pain response is irrelevent – showing you are not really interested in truth or reality, but only in feeling justified in your chosen belief. Frankly, your equating pain response of a human in the fetal stage of development with that of a dead frog is exactly the type of dehumanizing sentiment I would expect from concentration camp commanders, antebellum slave owners and abortionists.
I do agree with you that the only relevent question is whether or not abortion is murder. I absolutely believe that it is. Based on your entries here, it is clear that you do not care if it is murder, but only that abortion should be allowed unfettered by any quaint, old fashioned Judeo-Christian moral constraints.
What I find interesting (and sad) is how the left is so strident in wanting to stop the killing of warfare and the execution of heinous criminals, yet for the truly innocent the left demands continuation of bloody sacrifice on the altar of personal gratification. What is ironic is the leftist will engage in the most histrionic expressions of moral outrage all while demanding those of us on the right cease using morality as a basis for opposing progressive dystopianism.
@Greg:
Like all dishonest pro-death supporters, you want to deal with pregnancy as an action with no cause. Unfortunately for your argument, even the Guttmacher Institute has shown that in 99% of all cases of abortion, the woman willing participated in unprotected sex prior to conception. So you see, Greggie, those women had already exercised their right of choice BEFORE they conceived. Pregnancy can be equated to the hangover from drinking too much, a choice made before the hangover happens. If a woman doesn’t want to become pregnant, she has many options; the pill, condoms, other birth control methods and abstinence.
You see, Greggie, with rights should come responsibilities. Now, I know you lefties don’t think anyone should be responsible for their actions, but they should be. If you have the right to have unprotected sex that results in a pregnancy, then you have a responsibility to take care of that child. If you don’t want the child, put it up for adoption and give some deserving parents the opportunity to raise that child as their own.
You’re a hypocrite, Greggie. You throw out strawmen that you cannot prop up with facts. Just like every other statist, you don’t have a clue. But hey, I enjoy reading you make a fool of yourself.
@Pete #24:
Thank you for a lovely reply to my last. I really did enjoy reading it. Full of good information, and also a liberal dose of error, I’m afraid. For example, you said:
“Do you recall that YOU initiated the discussion by attempting to justify abortion under the pretext that under 25 weeks a fetus doesn’t feel pain?”
No, actually I didn’t say that – someone else may have, but it wasn’t me.
(That was pretty sloppy for a doctor…)
Then, you said:
“What I find interesting (and sad) is how the left is so strident in wanting to stop the killing of warfare and the execution of heinous criminals, yet for the truly innocent the left demands continuation of bloody sacrifice on the altar of personal gratification.”
which is at once both a delightfully florid construction and a gross mischaracterization of where I was coming from. I am not at all the “strident left” you hope me to be – I fully support executing criminals, and I think warfare is a natural adaptation to overpopulation, a thinning of the herd in the best tradition of “survival-of-the-fittest.” As I said before, I find nothing sacred about life. It’s incredibly cheap and we waste it wantonly. I was simply trying to point out the obvious paradox inherent in a warring, criminal-executing nation that struggles over aborting fetuses, the “life” of which is not at all a settled issue.
Often enough, the argument over killing in general turns on the question of whether or not life is “sacred.” Personally, I don’t think it is, and my position on the various life-and-death issues is consistent with my belief that it is not. But my personal views on the subject are irrelevant to the much more important question of where our country stands on these issues. And there is the problem. If (and it’s a big “IF”) you really believe that life IS sacred (meaning that the giving and taking of life belongs to GOD alone) then you are rather limited in where you can get away with taking it. The scriptures are confusing on the topic – the Old Testament has folks being stoned to death for minor infractions, while the Ten Commandments includes that bit about not murdering, and Jesus suggests that we turn the other cheek. In the balance, I’d go with: murder is OK if it is a matter or “you” versus “him”. That covers most war, and it also covers law enforcement against armed perpetrators. But once an alleged criminal has been subdued and is no longer a mortal threat to others, no matter what his crime might have been, executing him is not necessary in the “you” versus “him,” to-the-death context. You execute him only as a matter of convenience. (Well, it also makes you feel better…)
It’s that matter of convenience that takes you back to the question of abortion. If killing criminals as a matter of convenience is OK, then how is aborting fetuses as a matter of convenience NOT OK? The only distinction I ever see being made here is that the criminal is (assumedly) guilty, while the fetus is (necessarily?) innocent. At this point I find it very important to remind myself of where I stand on that “is-life-sacred” question. Because if GOD is going to have HIS Judgment Day where HE makes all of those “for-all-eternity” decisions, why am I presuming to intrude there? Either life is sacred, or it’s not. My personal positions on life-and-death issues are mutually consistent with my position on the sacredness of life; yours are not.
And now, let me thank you again for pointing out that our medical facilities here in the USA are in many ways quite good. If you are a president or fabulously wealthy, you will get the best care that can be given or that money can buy. Sadly, most of us are neither presidents nor rich. Most of us are paying more than the other “mosts” in other countries, yet we’re not doing at all well in the longevity department. I will agree that our lousy lifestyles, our gluttony, etc., accounts for much of that problem. But I will also give you only a half-pardon on the Dr.-lawyer conspiracy. Individually, you all lament the legal profession’s “influence” on medical costs, but collectively you haven’t done spit about it. Every one of you practices “defensive medicine.” Until you become part of the solution, you’re just part of the problem.
Finally, “the most histrionic expressions of moral outrage”? Where? I have no moral outrage. I’m just pointing out what appear to me to be a few inconsistencies in our national policies regarding “murder” (as you like to put it.) Don’t take it so personal.
@retire05, #25:
Was I not sufficiently clear on that point in #18? Please read the post again. I don’t believe that the circumstances that gave rise to a pregnancy have any bearing on a woman’s right to choose whether or not to continue it. The only reason that the matter of rape or incest even comes up is because some of the extremists on your side of the argument insist that even in those cases, abortion should not be allowed.
Basically, what we’ve got here is a situation where you would would apparently like to use abortion restrictions as a means to punish people whose sexual behavior you disapprove of. There are even people who are so intrusive that they would like to restrict access to birth control. It would increase the opportunities for punishment, I suppose.
On that count, I suggest that you tend to your own business. How other adults choose to conduct themselves in private is nobody’s business but their own.
What I am is generally consistent, even when I occasionally don’t like some of the consequences my positions lead to. You’re the one who hysterically yaps about intrusive government and the loss of individual freedoms, and then wants the state to force itself into the most intimate aspects of people’s private lives.
@Greg:
Oh, that’s rich, Greggie. You support the party that regulates how much water my toilet can hold, wants to install “smart” meters in my home so they can shut off my power if they think I am using too much, wants to dictate what I eat, what I drive and basically control every aspect of my life. The only “freedom” the left supports is the freedom to kill your unborn child and the freedom to be queer.
That’s why you’re a hypocrite.
@retire05 #28:
At least by your own account the “left” and the “right” agree on one thing: “The freedom to be queer.”
It is a good start.
And thanks so much for reaching far off-topic in your attempt to throw gay rights under your bus to Armageddon. Hope you enjoy the trip!
@Greg: Greg, #10 somehow, as usual, you’re missing the point.
First, who is advocating that any mother has to carry a catastrophically deformed fetuses ? But why would anyone that finds out that they have a catastrophically deformed fetuses before 20 weeks elect to carry it past the 20 weeks period. If they are gonna want to abort it, won’t they do it as soon as they find out it is catastrophically deformed fetuses . But, why is this being voted on in the US Congress. This is an issue for the states, not Federal.
@Redteam:
The overreaching jackasses who write and pass anti-choice legislation that specifically excludes catastrophically deformed fetuses as an exception to their prohibition, apparently, since that would be the result if their bill were ever to become law. (Refer to HR 1797.)
Maybe they don’t find out until after the 20th week. Possibly because they’re poor, and couldn’t afford afford early medical attention. Possibly because the same abysmally stupid jackasses already defunded the local women’s reproductive healthcare clinic.
That is a very good article, if Planned Parenthood had been around many years ago, there would not be a Hillary Clinton. Very interesting.
@Greg See my quote just above about Planned Parenthood. :
@Greg: Greggie, here is a link to that House bill you referred to:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:2:./temp/~c113pFOYJr::
I challenge you to quote from that House Bill any sections, subsections or any words at all that include the words “catastrophically deformed fetuses “
@Redteam:
The phrase “catastrophically deformed fetuses” is my own. The bill specifically refers to “children born missing the bulk of the cerebral cortex,” which is an accurate, non-technical description of the anencephalic condition. If you doubt that this condition would present itself as a catastrophically deformed fetus, you can always do a Google image search, using the term “anencephalic.” I don’t recommend that the casually curious do so.
Here’s a working link to HR 1797. The section where the anencephalic condition is effectively precluded from exclusion is SEC. 2 (7). It’s part of their “Findings and Declarations.” I quoted (7) verbatim in my initial post.
Within the context of my own moral understanding, I believe it completely wrong not to terminate a biological process that will inevitably end in this terrible result as soon as it becomes apparent what is happening. The people who have written this bill deeply offend my own moral sensibilities, which they quite obviously intend to legally render totally irrelevant in favor of their own. They intend to impose their values on those who not only don’t share them, but find them morally repugnant, and force upon those people unnecessary consequences that are totally abominable.
No one is trying to force women who don’t see things as I do to terminate their pregnancies. They’re free to continue a course that I and many others find inhumane and morally offensive, aren’t they? It’s their own choice. I don’t dispute that.
@Greg:
Yet several times you have quoted it or referred to it as being in the bill. Just how dishonest are you trying to be? There is absolutely nothing in that bill that prohibits abortion of deformed babies. Nothing. If you think there is, display your dishonesty again and attempt to quote the phase that prohibits abortion of deformed babies. It ain’t in there.
The effect that I find immoral and totally unacceptable is in the bill. Fixating on how I worded my response is ridiculous. I never claimed the wording I used was in the bill in the first place.
What matters is what these idiots have attempted to do. I know EXACTLY what they have attempted to do, and EXACTLY what they hope to prohibit.
@Greg:
Let’s be clear, Greggie, you are now saying it does NOT specifically exclude? Is that what you are now admitting, that you ‘made that up’?
@Greg:
Oh, it is? Would you give us the exact quote?
Are you actually saying that we shouldn’t pay attention to what you actually said? What are we supposed to be doing, reading your mind? So you just made it up on the fly, wrote it all down, and then say we aren’t supposed to pay attention to what you actually said. There’s a word for that, care to know what it is?
@Greg: #35
Greg!!!! you continue to surprise yourself. That section you quote has nothing to do with abortions, it has to do with performing surgery on fetuses, whether to use anesthesia or not.
That bill does not prohibit any abortion prior to week 20 and it still allows for abortions after 20 weeks for the life or health of the mother or if the baby is the result of rape or incest. What is all the commotion about? Normal life saving methods are required for any baby aborted after the age of 20 weeks. In other words, if it’s born alive, they can’t just kill it. But be advised you can’t destroy the egg of a bald eagle or a sea turtle at any age, they are obviously much more precious than humans.
Anyone who’s sufficiently interested can read the bill for themselves and decide what it allows and what it would prohibit. I’ve had no difficulty figuring that out.
@Greg: I’m not sure you understand which end is up. You sure don’t grasp what that bill is about.