protection??

[Jedda]

Does this law protect the women whose lives are in danger and wish to abort?

 

[BlestOne]

Jedda… I am not sure you understand… partial birth is killing the child when it is half out, before it takes it’s first breath… There is no health of the mother issue here. If she made it through pregnancy and got to this point in labor and delivery… there is absolutely no reason to kill a baby for her health.

 

[Jedda]

My question made sense to me after I read your answer.
I understand now, if its got to come out ,why not a early c-section or induce …then the baby would just have to take its chances early. I dont agree with taking the baby out in pieces unless it is not a formed actual baby.

I agree it is wrong!

 

[KathleenElsie]

My question made sense to me after I read your answer.
I understand now, if its got to come out ,why not a early c-section or induce …then the baby would just have to take its chances early. I don’t agree with taking the baby out in pieces unless it is not a formed actual baby.

I agree it is wrong!

I must ask this. WHAT IS NOT FORMED ACTUAL BABY? Any child conceived with a father and mother is an actual baby. Why would any one say it was OK to to take a baby out in pieces under any situation.

 

[puzzleannie]

Does this law protect the women whose lives are in danger and wish to abort?

in congressional testimony opponents tried to find doctors who would present evidence that dismembering a live full-term infant during the actual birth process saves the mother’s life. They were unable to find such evidence, so this is not an issue. It is a very perverted interpretation of the constitution to suggest that somewhere in that document is enshrined the right to inflict infanticide on one’s own child.

 

[hasikelee]

My question made sense to me after I read your answer.
I understand now, if its got to come out ,why not a early c-section or induce …then the baby would just have to take its chances early. I dont agree with taking the baby out in pieces unless it is not a formed actual baby.

I agree it is wrong!

What do you mean by this? This act of infanticide involves delivering the baby breech (feet first). Then the abortionist stabs the baby’s skull and sucks the brains out.

The dead baby is then fully delivered and the body is disposed of.

There are no pieces?? Other than the tissue from the skull?

 

[Jedda]

I must ask this. WHAT IS NOT FORMED ACTUAL BABY? Any child conceived with a father and mother is an actual baby. Why would any one say it was OK to to take a baby out in pieces under any situation.

When the mothers life is at risk and its the only way to save her, or and a fetus that is not a actual baby…ie. no brain, or having such deformities it cannot live or is not actually living in the uterus and is the only way to get it out. (which I would think would be rare)

 

[Jedda]

in congressional testimony opponents tried to find doctors who would present evidence that dismembering a live full-term infant during the actual birth process saves the mother’s life. They were unable to find such evidence, so this is not an issue. It is a very perverted interpretation of the constitution to suggest that somewhere in that document is enshrined the right to inflict infanticide on one’s own child.

Maybe, but it does not mean such situations will not turn up or have not happened.

 

[puzzleannie]

What do you mean by this? This act of infanticide involves delivering the baby breech (feet first). Then the abortionist stabs the baby’s skull and sucks the brains out.

The dead baby is then fully delivered and the body is disposed of.

There are no pieces?? Other than the tissue from the skull?

not always, depending on stage of development and presentation, at times the body must be dismembered. refer to the congressional testimony when this law was being debated, which was linked here at the time, for details.

 

[puzzleannie]

Maybe, but it does not mean such situations will not turn up or have not happened.

in the hypothetical example, the exingency would be explained only by gross malpractice on the part of the doctor, and the procedure would then be done to cover up his negligence. There is no such situation where a vaginal delivery interrupted by the infanticide procedure would be preferable to any other alternative such as cesarian deliver, or allowing the live birth to continue.

 

[seekerz]

Trust me Jedda, there may be conditions that threaten the life of a woman if her pregnancy were to continue but they don’t necessarily call for a particular method of delivering the baby. If I’m not much mistaken, the court has outlawed a particulary barbaric method.

As for cases in which babies are not real babies? There aren’t any.
Are you a real person if you lose all limbs in an accident or develop a terminal illness? How about if you have an abnormal personality or deviant psychology?

At the earliest stages of development a baby is a real baby because it has a soul created by God. That’s all that makes a person a real person: the fact that God spoke him or her into being.

If you’re talking about physical form, most pregnancies, by the time they’re detected consist of a baby with just about all the organs that an adult has, only they’re at a very early stage of development. The stage of blobs of tissue that abortion supporters like to talk about, is long gone by the time most women realize they’re pregnant.

 

[magician]

Jedda… I am not sure you understand… partial birth is killing the child when it is half out, before it takes it’s first breath… There is no health of the mother issue here. If she made it through pregnancy and got to this point in labor and delivery… there is absolutely no reason to kill a baby for her health.

But the woman in question has chosen abortion or she wouldn’t be there in the first place. There is no life saved here. If the doctor is not allowed to perform the partial birth abortion, he/she will perform an in utero abortion. No life is “saved” here - neither the mother nor the fetus. The fate of the fetus was decided and assured when the woman chose abortion.

 

[magician]

I would also point out that the partial birth procedure is a matter of convenience for the doctor and possibly easier on the patient. There are no left over parts of the fetus to deal with in utero which could cause infection and possibly death.

I don’t know what it is about this decision that no one seems to understand. No life is saved, no fetus gets a reprieve from death - why is everyone so enthusiastic about this decision?? It’s the difference between the electric chair and lethal injection. One is more humane but the outcome is the same - death.

 

[Jedda]

If a women wants an abortion no one will stop her, not even the law! She will then go to back door doctors…Remember those days? dark rooms and dirty coat hangers…
This law will change nothing and will be over turned once women have died from dirty so called doctors.
Very simple, if you dont want an abortion, dont get one…

 

[magician]

The pro-life community and action groups have made a HUGE mistake by focusing on the law. Father Pavone and his organization panders to Congressmen, Senators, anyone in government who will listen to him. But the minds and hearts of the one million women who had abortions last year were not even approached, much less changed. They have been a monumental failure in this effort.

 

[seekerz]

If a women wants an abortion no one will stop her, not even the law! She will then go to back door doctors…Remember those days? dark rooms and dirty coat hangers…
This law will change nothing and will be over turned once women have died from dirty so called doctors.
Very simple, if you dont want an abortion, dont get one…

There are various methods of abortion. The passage of this law does not mean that women in any situation are left with a backstreet abortion as an only choice.

If dirty coat hangers are what she chooses, well I’d say her fate is still preferable to that of the baby, who loses no matter what.

 

[seekerz]

The pro-life community and action groups have made a HUGE mistake by focusing on the law. Father Pavone and his organization panders to Congressmen, Senators, anyone in government who will listen to him. But the minds and hearts of the one million women who had abortions last year were not even approached, much less changed. They have been a monumental failure in this effort.

There are still places in the world where abortion is illegal and the women and doctors there who don’t choose life find ways around the law. Changing laws may change the total number of abortions or the methods used, but it doesn’t keep people from seeking them. If we agree that even one life lost to abortion is too many then the battle plans need revision.

Just as you can’t legislate commonsense or common decency, you can’t legislate abortion out of existence. Change has to come from the heart and the only one who can change hearts is God, so any effective campaign has to focus on evangelization.

More than anything, I think what has hurt the campaign against abortion is the tendency to politicize the issue. Abortion is not about politics or parties; it’s about tiny, defenceless human beings created in the image and likeness of God. It’s about women respecting themselves (and being respected).

Some interesting reading here.

 

[estesbob]

If a women wants an abortion no one will stop her, not even the law! She will then go to back door doctors…Remember those days? dark rooms and dirty coat hangers…
This law will change nothing and will be over turned once women have died from dirty so called doctors.
Very simple, if you dont want an abortion, dont get one…

The more things change the more things stay the same. In 1836 , during the great debate over petitions to outlaw slavery in DC a South Carolina Representative pounded his deks while shouting :“If you dont like slavery dont to buy one”. You and he would have gotten along fine.

 

[estesbob]

The pro-life community and action groups have made a HUGE mistake by focusing on the law. Father Pavone and his organization panders to Congressmen, Senators, anyone in government who will listen to him. But the minds and hearts of the one million women who had abortions last year were not even approached, much less changed. They have been a monumental failure in this effort.

It took the abolitionists 80 some years after the founding of this country to eliminate slavery. We have only been fighing Roe for some 35 years. We will prevail. of course it would never end if we follow the nonsnese you are promotimg,… The tired old “heart and minds” argument, usualy put forth by those who vote for pro- abortion canidates and rationalize it by claiming it will always be with us. A self fullfilling prophecy if ever thee was one… Well my friend it it will end but no thankst to the likes of you who stand on the sidlines and ridicule those trying to make a diference. Of course after we bring it to end you will proudly proclaim you were with us all the time.

 

[estesbob]

More than anything, I think what has hurt the campaign against abortion is the tendency to politicize the issue. Abortion is not about politics or parties; it’s about tiny, defenceless human beings created in the image and likeness of God. It’s about women respecting themselves (and being respected).

Some interesting reading here.

Dont be naive. Of cours its about politics. The only reason that abortion is legal in this country is due to a calcualted politcal deciosn made by a majortiy of Nine men. Today one party fights tooth and nail every effort to limit this horror. The other party works to bring it to an end. As long as people of good will vote for those who support abortion abortion will be legal in this country. God has already intervened-its time you joined those of us who know this.