Michigan Votes Forum

 imagine...

treating an unborn child like an individual, as opposed to a lump of cells.

say it isn't so...

Why stop there? Why not define a man's semen as an individual, or a woman's menstral fluid as an individual? Why not regonize in our statutes the fact that the Sun revolves around the earth, and the earth is really flat?

jmangan:

Why stop there? Why not define a man's semen as an individual, or a woman's menstral fluid as an individual?

<because neither could ever become an individual. at which point do you recognise a FETUS as A BABY? does one say, OH, YOU'RE HAVING A FETUS? no, one says OH, YOUR HAVING A BABY. a baby WHAT? a baby human being, an INDIVIDUAL.>

 Why not regonize in our statutes the fact that the Sun revolves around the earth,

<because we know for a fact that it doesn't.>

and the earth is really flat?

<because we know for a fact that it isn't.>

now, how about YOU telling us what the medical necessity for a partial birth abortion is? a proceedure that doesns't just purge a shapeless mass of cells from a woman's body, but takes a VIABLE HUMAN BEING and kills it ruthlessly for no good purpose other than the woman no longer wants to be pregnant.

now, until and unless you can tell us what the medical necessity for the proceedure is, and have doctors tell us that there is no other cure for this condition, we will continue to think that it is WRONG.

so far, no one has come up with that medical necessity. let's see if you can.

if you CANNOT, then there is no reason to perform this proceedure.

 

Why do we treat baby murdering liberals as "individuals".

If you take an innocent life you are a killer. There ain't no grey area there libby. I'm surprised that you lefties don't want to wait till a child is a year old before they're considered an individual. Then all the libtard, MTV so called mommies could just off the kid anytime in the first twelve months. You people disgust me.

Lock and Load

 what? no medical necessity for partial birth abortions?

no PRESSING MEDICAL NEED that CANNOT BE CURED ANY OTHER WAY???

no DREAD DISEASE OR CONDITION that THREATENS THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER that can only be cured by allowing the mother to carry a child to FULL TERM and THEN ABORT IT IN THE BIRTH CANAL?????

none of the doctors i've spoken with about this can come up with any either. nor can several professors at medical colleges. google has nothing.

so, WHY do you INSIST on performing what would under any other circumstance be MURDER????

 how can you justify supporting the RIGHT TO LIFE and THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN ABORTION, ESPECIALLY A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION?

I don't have to come up with a "medical necessity " for the procedure, although there is one, and quite a good one for this rare procedure. You'll have to do your own research. I'm sure your capable. As for me, I leave that decision up to the woman having the baby, and her doctor, just as the Supreme Court has ruled she should have the right to.

And as sure as the earth is round and revolves around the sun, we know for a fact they have.

 the research i have done concludes that there IS NO medical necessity for this proceedure, it's even admitted by several of the surgeon generals of the united states.

what do you know that they don't?

please list the dread disease or condition that can only be cured by this horrible proceedure.

while you are at it, please list the TESTS for this disease or condition, and tell me why a woman who KNOWS she has this condition, and knows that there IS NO CURE EXCEPT TO ABORT HER BABY IN A MOST HEINOUS WAY will EVER INTENTIONALLY GET PREGNANT. one would think that this condition is SO UNCOMMON that such a proceedure would be mercifully rare,but obviously there are THOUSANDS of people who have this dread disease, and get pregnant anyway.

so, if there IS a medical necessity, which i doubt seriously, then why do women who DO NOT SUFFER FROM THE CONDITION WHICH WOULD MAKE THIS PROCEEDURE NECESSARY CHOOSE TO GET IT DONE ANYWAY?

this makes no sense, unless intentionally killing babies is the goal.

so, please, enlighten us, so that we may work to end the need for such a proceedure, like we ended the need for iron lungs and crutces from polio.

we can have telethons, so that viable infants will not be partially birthed, only to be slaughtered in the birth canal. 

 by the way... no, you don't HAVE to give an answer, but it's rude not to.

Apparently I overestimated your ability to do research. My apologies. First , let's address the term itself, "partial birth abortion".

The term was first coined by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in 1995 to describe a recently introduced medical procedure to remove fetuses from the womb. Alternately known as "dilation and extraction," or D&X, and "intact D&E," it involves removing the fetus intact by dilating a pregnant woman's cervix, then pulling the entire body out through the birth canal.

Now let's address how rare this procedure is.

According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year.

And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal "viability." Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.

And now a reason for doing it.

Take, for example, cases in which the fetus develops hydrocephalus (commonly known as water on the brain). Often undetectable until well into the second three months of pregnancy, the condition causes enlargement of the skull up to two-and-a-half times its normal size. It not only results in severe brain damage to the fetus, it can also create severe health risks to the mother if she tries to deliver it vaginally.

Hope I have helped you understand why this is a decision the mother and doctor should be free to make without government interference.

 thousands of hydroencephalitic babies have been delivered, some even delivered vaginally. this is NOT a risk to the life of the mother, and is not even a severe risk to the life of a child. many hydroencephalitc children have lived long lives.

now, you mentioned that there was a MEDICAL NECESSITY for partial birth abortion, i don't see that it is necessary to abort a hydroencephalitic child.

so, tell me, what part of of your so called medical necessity would not be CURED by delivering the child by ceasarian section?

only the part about the child, hydroencephalitic as it is, living through the proceedure.

you aren't telling me that you think that aborting all hydroencephalites is a VIABLE OPTION, now do you?

next you'll be saying that babies born retarded need to be aborted. babies born without limbs need to be aborted,

a mother not wishing to bear the pain and suffering of an 'ABNORMAL CHILD' DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A MEDICAL NECESSITY.

it IS  a nice try, though, but you have admitted to a propensity for genecide. just because a child MIGHT DIE from a condition does not mean that it is necessary to kill him.

unless you believe as you do.

 by the way, i just did a google search on hydroencephaly, and found that one child who, by all accounts shouldn't be living, did quite well and went on to earn a degree in mathematics from cambridge.  all that with "just a stump of brain cells on top of his spinal column".

now, please tell us why you think that "water babies" need to be aborted?

Your example is anecdotal, and cannot be used as a general rule.

If you would look back at your comments, you would see as I do, and I hope others do, that you are wanting to impose your believes on everyone else. I respect your opinion, and I'm quite sure by your comments that if you were facing this horrible decision, you would choose to give birth, no matter what the consequenses.

My opinion is that the decision whether to have or not have an abortion is a private and extremely difficult decision, which should only be made by the woman, in consultation with her doctor. I would not presume that I would know what is best for her, and the government has no right, according to the constituion's privacy provisions, to make this decision for her. The Supreme Court has thus ruled, and it has been the law of the land since, reinforced many times.

You have every right, according to the same constitution, to espouse the believes you hold to anyone who will listen. What you do not have a right to do is to put those believes into law.

Just to clear up your implying that I think "water babies", (your term) should be aborted, I do not. Again, this is a decision for the woman  to make. It is after all, her body, not mine, not yours, and certainly not the governments. Each situation is unique.

Why is it that whenever a conservative wishes to express their opinions, someone of the liberal persuasion becomes immediately defensive and charges the conservative orator with "imposing their own beliefs on other people"?? Is that not what YOU are trying to do by promoting partial birth abortion as a medically viable procedure? 

What's interesting is that you said that ONLY about 2,200 of the babies aborted in 2000 were considered to be partial-birth abortions, a small percentage of the 1.3 million...as if those 2,200 individuals that were brutally murdered were nothing but a small drop in the pond. Well, I mean the six million Jews killed by the were only about 0.002 percent of the world population so why get all hot and bothered about the Holocaust...it was a smaller percentage than the abortion number you so generously provided.

Most abortion supporters hide themselves behind the "I don't have a right to choose for the woman" rhetoric...but what's interesting is that used to be the opinion before women's lib about society's opinion on domestic violence. "I don't have the right to tell a man what he can or can't do in his own home." Sound familiar?? Or, the opinion on slaveholders and their behavior towards their slaves... "That's their property...I can't tell them what to do with their property." Tricky how a definition can change your whole perspective. The baby in the mother's womb is considered her property, not worthy of personhood, just as slaves and all African-Americans for that matter were considered property and not worthy of personhood as well. Interesting...

And don't use the excuse, "What about all the rape and incest victims? Should they have to bear that burden?" I'll make a concession...write a bill that outlaws abortions for all women but those that are rape and incest victims...let's see how many abortions there are then.

Why is a person who wants to give the government the power to force a woman to have a baby considered by you to be a conservative? Wouldn't that be the ideology of a big government liberal? Or is the definition of a conservative one who favors small government when it comes to paying taxes, and big, intrusive government when it comes to our most intimate personal decisions.

To compare the Holocaust to abortion is a false dichotomy, not even close.

It may have been the opinion of some fanatical religious sect that domestic violence was  ok, but not society in general. Slavery was defended for economic reasons. You state the obvious reason abortion and domestic violence and slavery are not comparable in your own words, "the baby in the mother's womb". The baby, until birth, is a part of the mother's body. A spouse or a slave is not.

I have no intention on using the "excuse" concerning women victims of rape or incest. But I do have a question for you. If you outlaw abortion, will you also support capitol punishment for the women who break this law?

Why would you say that comparing abortion to the Holocaust is a false dichotomy? Don't make silly statements like that, without offering at least a modicum of intelligence to back up your statement. The killing of Jews was a practice legalized...actually APPLAUDED by the Nazi government, a similar practice with respect to our government and abortion. The Jews killed in the Holocaust weren't considered to be human and therefore they were extinguishable. The same with the babies these women abort...since they are called a "fetus" rather than a human that enables us to compartmentalize the horror of the action and legitimize it to our own mind.

Abortion is defended for economic reasons...unwed mothers that can't afford to take care of their children. Better they abort them so we don't have to pass out welfare or deal with more children in the foster care system, right? Better we exterminate the future welfare mothers and lifelong inmates than have them drain on our society. Both women and slaves, by virtue of definition during their respective time periods, were considered the PROPERTY of their husband or owner. We currently define the baby in the woman's womb as her property...that's the problem with definition they aren't consistent over time. You are defining a woman's body as HER property, meaning she maintains ownership over it just like any other piece of physical property. You dismiss my arguments without reasonable justification, proving the shallowness of your intellect.

As far as your last argument goes, I absolutely would charge a woman with murder if she aborted her baby once abortion became illegal. If an assailant kills a woman that is pregnant and the assault kills the baby, the assailant is charged with double murder, not murder and theft. How is it okay to consider the baby a BABY when it is wrongfully taken from someone that wants it but not when the woman willingly and selfishly choses to dispose of it like a piece of trash? Does wanting it determine its value? How can a baby be a human part of the time but not all the time? Once you start down that slippery slope, you'll have a difficult time trying to come back up.

On a side note, I assume based on your promotion of abortion that you are a supporter of Planned Parenthood. Are you aware that the founder, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist that created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." She purposely located Planned Parenthood clinics in predominately minority neighborhoods, which targeted minority families and would inevitably lead to a population decline of those same minorities.

Still think that abortion is a peachy idea? Get a clue.

 but you were asked to provide a medical necessity, not a 'woman's choice'.

you were the one who thought it was okey dokey to abort hydroencephalitic infants.

by the  way, look it up in google. it's there.

 by the way.. abortions are legal for rape and incest victims.

there must have been THOUSANDS of rapes and THOUSANDS of cases of incest,but you never see thousands of rapists jailed for it, do you?

of course not. i wonder why that is?

 and one more thing... it used to be legal to kill slaves in this country.

they weren't people, they were just seven tenths of a person, just a worthless lump of cells.

insignificant. disposable. how dare you want freedom and equality for one worthless lump of cells and not another?

I would say comparing the Holocaust and abortion is a false dichotomy because it is. You seem to ignore the fact that all your comparisons are about how living, breathing humans treat each other. A fetus becomes a human when it is born, not when it is conceived. Just as semen and eggs are a part of our bodies, so is a fetus a part of a womans body. I'm sure this logic doesn't meet your requirements for a "modicum of intelligence".  You seem to have a different idea about intelligence than I do.

I don't know who is defending abortion for economic reasons, certainly not me. Birth control is much smarter economically than abortion.

Although you may consider my intellect shallow for thinking that a woman has privacy rights over her own body, I'll stick to that opinion despite your insult.

And as for my question about charging a woman with murder for having an abortion, your response exposes the truth behind your position. It is not life that you value, or you would value the mothers as much as the unborn fetus. Rather it is the imposition of your will on women that is at the heart of your argument.

On your side note, has any one ever explained to you the danger in assuming?

I do not think that abortion is peachy. I think it is tragic, and private, same as the Supreme Court does.

You may want to check out the number of rapist imprisoned in our country.

You can look it up on Google, right?

Careful now, your racism is showing.

Calm down there now big boy. You might get so excited you shoot yourself in the foot. That could be fatal, considering where your foot is, metaphorically speaking.

Did you watch the inauguration today? Great wasn't it? The most liberal Senator in the Senate just got sworn in as President.

 lots of rapists... not one single case of incest.... amazing ain't it.

also, there aren't that many rapists, so the rest were not to save the life of the mother. so much for that "acception".

your racism is showing by thinking that hydroencephalitics are expendable. all i did was "extend' your logic, and you call it racism. i also showed where YOUR prejudices are,

now, as for the death penalty, murderers DESERVE to die. it's not about an absolute ban on killing, it's about NOT KILLING THE INNOCENT.

other than being conceived by a person who doesn't want them, that "lump of cells" did nothing to deserve to die.

the heinous murder took an innocent life. if you can't see the difference, then you can be talked into anything.

as for pushing my beliefs on you, not so. i'm just refusing to let YOU push YOUR beliefs on me.

YOU believe in killing innocents. i believe in killing those that kill innocents. those that would do the most harm to society.

what harm does a fetus do? why do they deserve to die?

 you mean the liberal senator who SUPPORTS tax cuts instead of tax increases?

the one who supports bailouts and de-regulation?

the one who is talking more like a republican than a democrat?

THAT liberal senator???

no, i didn't watch the inauguration, but i am watching what he does, not just what he says.

 by the way, why DON'T you want a fetus defined as an individual?

you say because it is NOT an individual.

certainly not, if you abort it first.

but if you let it alone, it soon enough will be.

i may grow up to be a pain in the butt, but that's not a reason to kill it. if it were, many people on this site would be put to death.

it may grow up to be a burden on society, but that's not a reason to kill it either. we have two major cities in michigan chock full of burdens on society, but they're still breathing.

it may grow up to be a heinous killer, which is the only way you would actively work to spare it's life.

 by the way.

there were more abortions in flint last year than there were rape convictions in the entire continental united states, all the islands, posessions and commonwealths. not only that, there weren't enough rape convictions in all of europe to cover the amount of abortions in flint alone. once you count detroit, there aren't enough rape convictions on the planet to cover all of those.

what about the rest?

what was the medical necessity for those?

of course, there isn't any.  you still haven't come up with the medical necessity for partial birth abortion. the most heinous form of abortion.

the problem most people have with abortion is this, a woman finds out she is pregnant, MOST will decide to terminate it within a few days while it IS still a lump of cells. most people don't have a problem with that...

what most people have a problem with is when that same woman waits eight months, two weeks and a few days to have her abortion. obviously it is NOT a risk to the mother's life, because it stayed viable, and she stayed pregnant for eight months, two weeks and a few days.

at that point, the child inside her is perfectly able to exist on the outside, it is VIABLE. it's a BABY. in fact, you can take it out MONTHS SOONER and it will still be viable. many PREEMIES live to old age.

so, if you are saying that the BABY in a woman's body is not human till it emerges from the birth canal, that STILL makes partial birth abortions heinous, in fact, by your definition, MURDER. because as SOON as it comes out, ANY PART OF IT COMES OUT, then killing it is murder.

so,even by your logic, it's the wrong thing to do.

You seem to have all the answers, for everyone else. Your judgement on people's motives and personal situations is based entirely on your criteria. You would allow no deviation from your preconceived idea of right and wrong. It must be very satisfying to know that you are right, beyond any doubt, and disregarding any evidence to the contrary. You can make definitive statements without having to provide verifiable statistics, and assume the motives of anyone who does not agree with you are something other than honest. 

It must be very nice living in your world of moral certitude, knowing you are without doubt. 

I have enjoyed our communications, but they seem to have reached an impasse. I hope you have taken something constructive from our exchange, as I have. I hope you realize that people who believe a woman has a right to privacy don't support abortion, but support a woman's right to make reproductive decisions.

 the only empasse we have reached is that you, like others from the left, have not answered the question.

all you must do is provide the name of the disease or disorder that makes partial birth abortions medically necessary, and you will have proven me wrong once and for all.

all you have done is exposed the fact that you think children born with the disease hydroencephaly are expendable and should be killed in the womb.

a woman has every right to privacy that any other citizen has. and murder is not a reproductive decision. by the way, when accused of murder, your privacy rights go right out the window.

you still have a chance to answer the question.

 and yet you still haven't answered that other question.

why don't you want fetuses considered individuals? what difference does it make?

the ONLY difference it makes is that it makes abortionists into murderers.

to consider a fetus an individual is to assume that it has the same rights as every other individual. to consider a fetus as 'A LUMP OF CELLS' until it is born is to assume that it has no rights. it's an ALL OR NOTHING thing.

now, notice that we (the supporters) did not once bring up our particular religious views, nor did we shout, nor did we call you names. all we did was ask you to answer some simple questions.

the supreme court decision banning partial birth abortions HAS NOT stopped the proceedure altogether. there are still those who attempt to 'bypass' the system. even with the "rape/incest" and "medical necessity" provisions built in. i'll believe you when you say that all the exceptions have been for rape and incest when the numbers come a little closer to matching up. right now, one city's abortions sweep away the national figures, and two cities abortions sweep away the world's figures.

i'd say that law enforcement on this matter was running a little behind on the rape and incest cases, wouldn't you?

crazycajun:

the supreme court decision banning partial birth abortions HAS NOT stopped the proceedure altogether. there are still those who attempt to 'bypass' the system. even with the "rape/incest" and "medical necessity" provisions built in. i'll believe you when you say that all the exceptions have been for rape and incest when the numbers come a little closer to matching up. right now, one city's abortions sweep away the national figures, and two cities abortions sweep away the world's figures.

i'd say that law enforcement on this matter was running a little behind on the rape and incest cases, wouldn't you?

No, I wouldn't. You would say that, and did so without providing any verifiable statistics.

crazycajun:

the supreme court decision banning partial birth abortions HAS NOT stopped the proceedure altogether. there are still those who attempt to 'bypass' the system. even with the "rape/incest" and "medical necessity" provisions built in.

You do not have the facts straight.

The 2007 US Supreme Court decision on so-called "partial birth abortion," did uphold a federal law enacted in 2003 banning the procedure without providing an exception to protect a woman's health.  The medical term used to label the described partial birth abortion procedure is Dilation and Extraction. 

What both the 2007 SCOTUS decision and 2003 federal law did not do was ban another procedure known as Dilation and Extraction, which is potentially more dangerous to women.  The assessment of danger is according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, specialists and experts in pregnancy and birthing, and women's reproductive health.  The only difference between the D&X and D&E procedures is that the latter takes place entirely within the womb and entails dismemberment of the dead fetus and evacuation of the dismembered parts.

As the SCOTUS majority opinion properly noted the so-called partial birth abortion ban would not prevent a single abortion or save the life of a single fetus, simply because of the existence of an alternative procedure.  

In addition to harmful physical effects that D&E may produce, there is the potentially harmful emotional effect of not having an intact body for the mother to grieve over.  That means the law is not just medically and unsound (in the opinion of medical experts) but is morally defective and cruel as well.     

Hi, jmangan,

I just wanted to add a comment to what you have been saying about abortion.  I do disagree with you but thank you from keeping things fairly civil. 

You have stated several times that the unborn child is 'part of the mother' until birth.  This is medically incorrect.  From the moment of conception, the new life has to be protected from the mother's body, or it will be expelled and rejected.  Hence, the safety cage of the uterus and the in-between agent of the placenta, whose sole purpose is to act as the agent between the mother's body and that of the new child.  The placenta takes the oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood and sends them to the child so it can breathe (through the blood, not yet the lungs) and grow. 

It is impossible for the foreign body of the child to be accepted by the mother's body as part of her own.  It is completely separate, with its own blood type and gender.  Ask yourself how a male baby can be 'part' of a female body? Or a baby with O- blood to be accepted as part of a body with 0+ blood (or other blood type).  In fact, 0- mothers have to have the rhogam injection after the child is born if it has a different blood type.  This is absolutely necessary or her future children may die in the womb due to antibodies produced by her that would attack these future pregnancies unless they too happen to be of the 0- blood type (this runs in my family and I had to have these injections after my own children were born).

So it is NOT true in any sense that unborn children are part of their mothers' bodies.  Teeth are, hair is, kidneys are, because they belong there and work to support the whole.  Babies are NOT...  They live there briefly but are meant from the beginning to be wholly separate entities; hence the fact that the body expells them after a certain period. 

Please be open enough to reconsider your beliefs, which, as far as I can see, are based on unsupportable arguments.  It's no shame to be wrong; it's only a shame to hold on to wrong beliefs just because they allow you to do what you want. 

Bye.

Hi veritasamo,

I appreciate your comment about keeping civil. That is very important in a discussion on such a delicate subject.

I agree with everything you say about a baby being a foreign body in the mother's body. But that is how nature intended it to be, and that is why we have evolved to allow that to be possible. I think you would agree with that.

The fact remains that the baby is inside the woman's body, and anything done to or for the baby must take into account the rights of the woman to have control over her body. This is a basic right. That is why I support a woman's right to choose, giving her the responsibility to do the right thing for herself and her unborn child.

I do not consider this argument unsupportable, although you may. I think it is supported by common sense and our constitution. I respect your opinion. I also know there is no shame in being wrong, and will readily admit an error I have made. This is not a question of right or wrong for me, it is a question of right and wrong for a woman to decide, and my only role is to support her right to make that determination absent the intrusion of government, as our constitution allows.

I am certainly not holding on to these beliefs so I can do as I want. I hold onto these beliefs because I do not have the right to decide such a personal matter for someone else, and neither should the government, nor any one else.

veritasamo:

Hi, jmangan,

I just wanted to add a comment to what you have been saying about abortion.  I do disagree with you but thank you from keeping things fairly civil. 

You have stated several times that the unborn child is 'part of the mother' until birth.  This is medically incorrect.  From the moment of conception, the new life has to be protected from the mother's body, or it will be expelled and rejected.  Hence, the safety cage of the uterus and the in-between agent of the placenta, whose sole purpose is to act as the agent between the mother's body and that of the new child.  The placenta takes the oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood and sends them to the child so it can breathe (through the blood, not yet the lungs) and grow.

First, thank you for being civil and informative.  This is exemplary of the kind of exchange that could make this forum really first rate.

I will note, and do not want to be offensive in doing so, that your description of an unborn quite perfectly describes a parasite.  It cannot live on its own, but attaches to another organism for sustenance.

Whether I approve of abortion or not is immaterial to discussion of my position on the issue.  

What I do believe in is that a fully formed, viable, living human being -- a woman -- should have full legal control over what happens with and within her own body, to the extent that control can be exercised by human beings.  A woman should not be beaten or raped, nor should she be legally required or otherwise coerced into carrying any fetus to term, etc.  This is a true pro-choice position that stands neutral on the question of abortion, and I believe in a free, society that treasures individual rights, including the right to one's own conscience it is the only logical and therefore ethical position to hold.

It is my opinion that this legislative bill, which, incidentally is sponsored by only one Senator, is an attempt to redefine traditional and long standing concepts regarding the "personhood" of a fetus or embryo.  There is far from universal agreement as to when a fetus (you can even call it a baby) in the mother's womb assumes the character of an person.  The effect of giving a fetus or embryo the status of a fully formed, viable, living human being is to criminalize by government edict and force whatever harm comes to that fetus by human hand.  It effectively would outlaw abortion by a a backdoor approach.

In intensely and intimately personal areas like this -- literally what goes on in one's own body -- where views are diverse, it is my belief that government acts wrongly to intervene in and attempt to settle by fiat the argument over matters like abortion.  That is why I believe this bill and any others like it should be rejected by the legislature.

 you have stated that their should be a necessity for the PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION, yet you have provided none. you have also brought forward an EVEN MORE HEINOUS method of killing an innocent. i must stop and wonder why a mother who makes the concious DECISION to abort a baby late term without medical necessity would even grieve at all?

so far, you have not proven that there is a medical necessity for EITHER such proceedure. neither will save the mother's life, in fact, one will endanger the mother's life.

now let's talk about procreation decisions. those should be made at the time of procreation, not nine months later.

mothers can be on the pill, use condoms, or take one of several "oopsie" pills for when other methods of birth control fail.

there is also the option of EARLY TERM abortions for those who KNOW that they are in a life threatening situation.

but no, these women invariably choose LATE TERM ABORTION, why? does it help to save the mother's life to continually expose her to the very thing that threatens her life for an extra three quarters of a year?

please explain the medical necessity for these proceedures and tell us exactly the condition that they cure, other than pregnancy.

you have been asked this several times, and have yet to answer. your credibility is wearing thin.

 there is one problem with your theory, sane.

that is that there are TWO persons involved with every pregnancy. the person of the mother, and the person of the child.

it makes no sense that a woman, freely in charge of her body would make the choice AGAINST procreation NINE MONTHS AFTER PROCREATION HAS TAKEN PLACE.

there are many methods of making anti-procreational decisions, the primary one is taking full responsibility for your decisions and deciding to say no to the people you don't want to procreate with. another would be to stop using the unborn baby as a "pot of glue for a relationship". a child will not hold a couple together, no matter how long you wait to abort it.

now, please tell me how waiting nine months to exercise procreational responsibility is being responsible at all?

crazycajun:

you have been asked this several times, and have yet to answer. your credibility is wearing thin.

I really don't think you are in a position to judge someone else's credibility.

 i don't think that there IS a medical necessity.

that makes killing a viable baby in the womb MURDER.

YOU support that as a PROCREATIONAL DECISION.

what person has the right to kill another person for no justifiable reason?