Partial-birth deceit

[bones_IV]

Hmmm…I always thought that deciet came from the pro-abortion side? Guess not. Talk about deception!
Here’s the problem of the law:

It states:

Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. **This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother **whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment.

Well now, guess the pro-life side is deceptive like the pro-abortion side is I guess huh? The term pro-life is a worthless term.

washtimes.com/op-ed/20061110-090558-6975r.htm

 

[Corki]

Where is the deceit? The whole reason this bill is in front of the Supreme Court is that it includes that language regarding life of the mother instead of the overused “health” of the mother. “Health” has been so widely interpreted to include physical or mental changes of any kind, including that the mother might find giving birth emotionally stressful or that there is a (very small) risk of infection from stitches. This is in spite of the fact that the very abortive procedure may impose more health risks than the birth.

This is why Doe v. Bolten is at least as important if not more so than Roe v. Wade.

 

[KathleenElsie]

It is a start. I wish we could “leap” over the “baby” steps. This is not perfect, far from it. But,ask yourself, how many Dr’s will be willing to go to jail for one day much less up to two years to preform an un-necessary procedure.

This will also provide the “excuse” for some Dr’s to follow their moral “leanings” without the problem of law suits from the person denied the procedure. I said leanings because not everyone has firm moral beliefs about the subject.

 

[bones_IV]

It is a start. I wish we could “leap” over the “baby” steps.

And I would ask yourself “is God incremental or is he merciful and loving?” It seems that you are allowing the devil to get a hold of you when you say, “I wish we could ‘leap’ over the ‘baby’ steps.” Please have faith.

 

[KathleenElsie]

As long as we have a system of political majority makes the rules (known as a representative democracy) we need to do everything we can do to make things better. But, until (I pray for this all the time) everyone that “claims” to be pro-life vote that way we should be grateful for even the little victories we are handed.

 

[bones_IV]

But, until (I pray for this all the time) everyone that “claims” to be pro-life vote that way we should be grateful for even the little victories we are handed.

I don’t think you understand. You don’t legislate abortion.

 

[KathleenElsie]

You can’t legislate morality. But you can teach it. An educated society is the goal. We can make things illegal and thus cut down on the amount of evil. But in normal circumstances it is only those that respect the law that will follow it. In civil or church law it is the same. Those that believe in the law or those that fear the punishment will obey.

 

[magician]

I think there’s a huge misunderstanding about the “partial birth abortion ban”. Banning partial birth abortion doesn’t prevent the abortion; it merely defines the method of fetal demise. If partial birth abortion is banned, then the fetus will be killed in the womb rather than partially outside the womb. The end result is the same - death to the fetus.

In the recent Supreme Court transcripts of both cases presented by the Solicitor General, it is clear that the case is only about method of fetal demise - not about abortion itself. Here is an excerpt from Gonzales vs Carhart case:

…JUSTICE GINSBURG: General Clement, that’s not what this case is about, because I think you have recognized, quite appropriately, that we’re not talking about whether any fetus will be preserved by this legislation. The only question that you are raising is whether Congress can ban a certain method of performing an abortion. So anything about infanticide, babies, all that, is just beside the point because what this bans is a method of abortion. **It doesn’t preserve any fetus because you just do it inside the womb instead of outside. **GENERAL CLEMENT: Justice Ginsberg, that’s right, …

The full transcript of both cases heard this month can be found at
supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html