protection??

[seekerz]

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.

What do you mean it’s time I joined? Joined what - a political party? It can’t be the campaign against abortion you mean because I’ve been a part of that all my life. You think I’m being naive? It’s naive to think that abortion is legal because of a bunch of judges who made a decision: it’s legal because too many people want/wanted it to be. You can make something legal, but you can’t force people to do it if they don’t want to.

You think a particular party or group of people have the moral high ground? Maybe, maybe not. I do know none have cornered the market on faith because if we had, this “mountain” (abortion) would long ago have been cast into the sea.

 

[DarkNight]

“GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CARHART ET AL
… Other considerations also support the Courts conclusion, including the fact that safe alternatives to the prohibited procedure, such as D&E, are available. In addition, if intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows adoctor to perform the procedure, given that the Acs prohibition only applies to the delivery of a living fetus,”

scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/05-380_All.pdf (Page 6)

Just a note - this is a very specific ruling.
In the very rare case of medical necessity to save the life of the mother, it explicitly defines as legal, killing the fetus while still in the womb then delivering the dead fetus.

My prayers go out to women who are faced with the dilemma of having to make this choice.

I knew a woman who desperately wanted her second child. Unfortunately all of the many doctors she went to agreed that both she and the baby would die. She had to decide between her young family and the unborn child that would eventually kill her and itself. She was deeply saddened and troubled, she did all that she could to save them all. She waited until the last possible moment before aborting her baby, hoping for another solution.

For her and women like her, who do not take abortion lightly, who understand they are killing their much loved & desired child - for these women, I can not choose to make abortions illegal.

I am not “pro-choice”. I am “pro-life”, in particular the life of one woman and her young family.

Go with Love, Go with God

 

[estesbob]

You think a particular party or group of people have the moral high ground? Maybe, maybe not. I do know none have cornered the market on faith because if we had, this “mountain” (abortion) would long ago have been cast into the sea.

Absolutely. This bill was passed by a Republican Congress, signed by a Republican President and upheld by Republicam appointees to the Supreme Court. The old it doesnt matter what party you vote for rationale putnforth by those who support the Party of death was destroyed by this" decision.

 

[estesbob]

“GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CARHART ET AL
… Other considerations also support the Courts conclusion, including the fact that safe alternatives to the prohibited procedure, such as D&E, are available. In addition, if intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows adoctor to perform the procedure, given that the Acs prohibition only applies to the delivery of a living fetus,”

scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/05-380_All.pdf (Page 6)

Just a note - this is a very specific ruling.
In the very rare case of medical necessity to save the life of the mother, it explicitly defines as legal, killing the fetus while still in the womb then delivering the dead fetus.

My prayers go out to women who are faced with the dilemma of having to make this choice.

I knew a woman who desperately wanted her second child. Unfortunately all of the many doctors she went to agreed that both she and the baby would die. She had to decide between her young family and the unborn child that would eventually kill her and itself. She was deeply saddened and troubled, she did all that she could to save them all. She waited until the last possible moment before aborting her baby, hoping for another solution.

For her and women like her, who do not take abortion lightly, who understand they are killing their much loved & desired child - for these women, I can not choose to make abortions illegal.

I am not “pro-choice”. I am “pro-life”, in particular the life of one woman and her young family.

Go with Love, Go with God

It always amazes me that people who support killing our children always just happen to know a woman who wanted to have her child but just HAD to have an abortion(after much agonizing of course) And given her circumstances pro-life e areunfeeling , callous people and those who support killing our children are in reality pro-life!! Given the circumstances described are virtually non-existent either they all know the same woman or we are getting spinned.

 

[seekerz]

It always amazes me that people who support killing our children always just happen to know a woman who wanted to have her child but just HAD to have an abortion(after much agonizing of course) And given her circumstances pro-life e areunfeeling , callous people and those who support killing our children are in reality pro-life!! Given the circumstances described are virtually non-existent either they all know the same woman or we are getting spinned.

I’d want to know the actual diagnosis to be convinced this was a real case. Sometimes babies do have deformities that prevent them
being delivered normally but how do we know what this particular woman’s story was unless we get details?

 

[DarkNight]

My previous post was specifically in response to the original question which asked “Does this law protect the women whose lives are in danger and wish to abort?”

In the situation I referred to, both mother and unborn baby were going to die, leaving her husband & young daughter without a mother and without a newborn infant.

I assumed you would be able to understand the horror she & her family were faced with.
But maybe you can’t.

Go with Love, Go with God

 

[seekerz]

Oh I know too well the kind of difficult decisions that sometimes come up, it’s just that we hear “life of the woman” bandied about so much. We’re intelligent people; tell us specifically what those conditions are that place the woman at risk of death.

If a woman is delivered at 22wks because of a risk to her life and that of the baby, that’s not considered “abortion” (even though the baby dies from not being developed enough); it’s an early delivery caused by a medical condition. That is, unless a baby that can be delivered by normal means is deliberately killed. If a woman has a pregnancy in her tubes, it’s accepted that the pregnancy has no chance of going forward normally and that not halting it will endanger her life; doing a procedure to remove the pregnancy is also not considered abortion.

So again I ask, tell us specifically what the condition/s are. Too much vague language is clouding abortion issues. For example, there are cases where some consider extremely severe depression to be a risk to the mother’s life and justification for ending the pregnancy. Are we to just accept someone’s word that continuing the pregnancy could mean an end to the mother’s life?

 

[hasikelee]

My previous post was specifically in response to the original question which asked “Does this law protect the women whose lives are in danger and wish to abort?”

In the situation I referred to, both mother and unborn baby were going to die, leaving her husband & young daughter without a mother and without a newborn infant.

I assumed you would be able to understand the horror she & her family were faced with.
But maybe you can’t.

Go with Love, Go with God

That seems a bit haughty of a response, don’t ya think?

What ever in the world could a woman possibly have that would call for inducing delivery and then deliberately killing her child?

 

[BlestOne]

Jedda,
Let me share another post I made some time back:

When I had my first child I had toxemia so bad they had to deliver my son early…I made them wait until we both (but especially him) had the greatest chance of survival. My doctor was a bit ticked at me but my child was a gift from God and I was going to make sure he was given the best chance of survival. My second pregnancy was twins… about 5 months along I lost one of them. At about 7 months they discovered why I was so critically ill, it was because of that loss. I spent most of the time in the hospital and the rest of the time in bed. In the end, I was induced over 3 weeks early because they determined I wasn’t going to survive another 48 hours…well…here I am! A testament to faith in our Lord’s mercy for sure! My son was premature and did have health issues but is a bouncing 6 foot 200 lb young man at 16 yrs old!!! I recovered too… heeeheee!

The actual chances of having a life threatening pregnancy that would require medical intervention in excess of premature delivery…i.e. a therapeutic abortion are actually less than 1 in a million. This is so not an issue! Ask any mom who wants her baby…she would die for that child. Don’t think in terms of what you would do if you have never been there…because you really don’t know until you are in the situation…Ask a mom that has been there, we will tell you… the baby comes first.

 

[Em_in_FL]

My previous post was specifically in response to the original question which asked “Does this law protect the women whose lives are in danger and wish to abort?”

In the situation I referred to, both mother and unborn baby were going to die, leaving her husband & young daughter without a mother and without a newborn infant.

I assumed you would be able to understand the horror she & her family were faced with.
But maybe you can’t.

Go with Love, Go with God

Hmmm… well I know of a similar situation where the doctor YELLED at the mother for not having an abortion…
“YOU WILL DIE IF YOU TRY TO DELIVER THIS BABY”…
The father said his “last goodbyes” as the mother went into labor…

Interestingly enough my MIL and husband are both alive and well today!

 

[TAS2000]

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.

This is the same logic people always use to excuse politicians from passing moral laws. True, you can’t pass a law and keep EVERY instance of something from ever happening. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. If murder wasn’t illlegal, there’d be a lot more of them. If drugs weren’t illegal, there’d be a lot more of them. If stealing wasn’t illegal, there’d be a lot more of that too. If there is one thing humanity has proven over and over again it’s that not everyone will voluntarily choose the high road. So it’s our job as a society to make that low road look as undesirable as we can. And passing laws, fully KNOWING that there will still be those that choose to disobey isn’t just idealistic fantasy. Its our responsibily.

 

[seekerz]

This is the same logic people always use to excuse politicians from passing moral laws. True, you can’t pass a law and keep EVERY instance of something from ever happening. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. If murder wasn’t illlegal, there’d be a lot more of them. If drugs weren’t illegal, there’d be a lot more of them. If stealing wasn’t illegal, there’d be a lot more of that too. If there is one thing humanity has proven over and over again it’s that not everyone will voluntarily choose the high road. So it’s our job as a society to make that low road look as undesirable as we can. And passing laws, fully KNOWING that there will still be those that choose to disobey isn’t just idealistic fantasy. Its our responsibily.

The operative term in my post is “focus”. Sure the laws should be changed, but that in my opinion, should not be the focus. Besides, the more people who are brought to God, the more people we’ll have demanding abortion be outlawed.

Not only that, I think people under-estimate how easy it would be with our present technology and with our abortion-oriented professionals to find loopholes in any law. There are such things as abortions that happen naturally, you know. Now who are the people to tell us when one is natural and when it was induced? Trust me, you don’t need abortion clinics to have abortions being done all over the place. For that matter, you don’t even really need a doctor to start the process. I think we need to have a realistic expectation of what kind of reduction in numbers that outlawing abortion could produce in the absence of real change of heart in the major portion of our society.

The material difference between abortion and the examples you give (stealing, drugs etc) is that this is behavior that is unacceptable to the major portion of our society. Haven’t you seen what happens when formerly unacceptable behavior becomes the norm? Laws change to reflect that (e.g. laws in some places that prohibited homosexual acts). It’s society for the most part that decides what should be legal and what shouldn’t be. Laws just change with the tide of society (not right, but reality).

 

[psteichen]

…I think people under-estimate how easy it would be with our present technology and with our abortion-oriented professionals to find loopholes in any law. There are such things as abortions that happen naturally, you know. Now who are the people to tell us when one is natural and when it was induced? Trust me, you don’t need abortion clinics to have abortions being done all over the place. For that matter, you don’t even really need a doctor to start the process. I think we need to have a realistic expectation of what kind of reduction in numbers that outlawing abortion could produce in the absence of real change of heart in the major portion of our society.

seekerz: First of all, abortions don’t happen naturally. This is called MISCARRIAGE. Some in the medical field like to refer to them as spontaneous abortions (my guess is to minimise the stigma associated with real abortions), but in every day language you will not find a woman lamenting her spontaneous abortion. And of course this adds nothing to the conversation on murdering unborn children which is what we are talking about here.

Second, I strongly disagree that we should stop focusing on changing the laws in favor of concentrating on culture. Prior to Row v. Wade there was not a strong abortion culture. Very few abortions occurred. Since Row we have seen an explosion in the numbers and are now averaging over 4 million each year.

Changing the laws is the best way to stop this disaster and influence the culture. You seem to underestimate the power of the legal system. If abortion were punishable by jail time and loss of license, do you really think there would be any legitimate doctors left in the field? Heck no. Sure you’d have a few medical school dropouts and hard core death fanatics that would buck the system, but for the most part the abortion industry would be shut down.

It won’t stop them all you say? Of course not. Murder of 5 year olds has always been illegal, yet it happens. But it will stop most. Instead of 4 million we may have 10 thousand. This is still terrible, but by changing the laws you could have just saved 3,990,000 lives each year!

We also have to change the culture, but this will be much easier to do when women find that it is again far easier to choose life. It will be far more difficult for the looser boyfriend to convince her to terminate. Or the embarrassed parents, or the morally bankrupt “friend” or doctor. Perhaps then the woman will truly be free to choose life for herself and her baby instead of being railroaded into termination and a life of regret or defensive flippancy and anger.

 

[TAS2000]

Sure the laws should be changed, but that in my opinion, should not be the focus. Besides, the more people who are brought to God, the more people we’ll have demanding abortion be outlawed.

I agree with you here except for the “focus” part.

I think people under-estimate how easy it would be with our present technology and with our abortion-oriented professionals to find loopholes in any law. There are such things as abortions that happen naturally, you know. Now who are the people to tell us when one is natural and when it was induced? Trust me, you don’t need abortion clinics to have abortions being done all over the place. For that matter, you don’t even really need a doctor to start the process

I think you need to clarify this part. What technology are you talking about? If abortion-causing drugs (i.e. the abortion pill) were illegal, and doctors were prohibited from performing abortions, what are you thinking of? I would like some examples of how “easy” you think this would be. I read a story in the paper of a guy who hit his girlfriend in the stomach many times to try to induce an abortion. I suppose you could also try to drink yourself into an abortion, but in both cases you’d hurt yourself to the point of having to seek medical attention anyway, so it would still come out what you’d tried to do and you’d be in trouble. NOT saying that I want that to happen, but if those are your choices, I’m thinking a crisis pregnancy center has to look pretty good in comparison. Remember one of the goals in my model was to make abortion look as bad as possible so no one would even want to think of choosing it.

Yes, there will always be back alley places, but those will hopefully be shut down once discovered and there is a big difference between that and something fully known of and in broad daylight for all to use.

The material difference between abortion and the examples you give (stealing, drugs etc) is that this is behavior that is unacceptable to the major portion of our society.

Recent surveys indicate that 41% of people think abortion is wrong in some circumstances; 29% feel abortion is morally wrong in nearly all circumstances; so 70% of people seem to feel that abortion isn’t acceptable. A June 2000 Los Angeles Times poll found that 57% of Americans agree that “abortion is murder.” That doesn’t sound like a major portion of society thinks it is acceptable. That sounds like a very vocal minority is pushing their will on people not bold enough to stand up to them.
I’d love to see a survey that asks how many people think abortion should be allowed for other people, but would never have one themselves. I’d bet that number would be through the roof and prove that the REAL majority don’t believe in abortion but don’t want to look heartless because of the sob stories that always get waved around.

Haven’t you seen what happens when formerly unacceptable behavior becomes the norm? Laws change to reflect that (e.g. laws in some places that prohibited homosexual acts). It’s society for the most part that decides what should be legal and what shouldn’t be. Laws just change with the tide of society (not right, but reality)

Yes, I have seen broken homes skyrocket beyond all recognition so that marriage is widely considered “for now” and not “for life” like it used to be. But this didn’t happened until AFTER the law was changed. Are you a parent? Would you have us believe that we should allow temper tantrums as acceptable social behavior because that is what the majority of children do? Just because something is common doesn’t make it good. And frankly that sounds too much like the old “if everyone was going to jump off a bridge, would you do it too” argument we parents use on our kids.

So it doesn’t follow that people change first, then the laws do as you would have us believe. I believe the laws should reflect the ideal and society should strive to conform to that.

 

[seekerz]

Yes, I have seen broken homes skyrocket beyond all recognition so that marriage is widely considered “for now” and not “for life” like it used to be. But this didn’t happened until AFTER the law was changed. Are you a parent? Would you have us believe that we should allow temper tantrums as acceptable social behavior because that is what the majority of children do? Just because something is common doesn’t make it good. And frankly that sounds too much like the old “if everyone was going to jump off a bridge, would you do it too” argument we parents use on our kids.

So it doesn’t follow that people change first, then the laws do as you would have us believe. I believe the laws should reflect the ideal and society should strive to conform to that.

I really think it’s impossible to talk to people on either side of the abortion debate who already have their minds made up, because neither you nor the poster before you seem to understand what I’m saying (possibly because you’re not open to other points of view - and I don’t say this to be uncharitable).

Let’s clarify the last part first: I’m not saying that I think our laws should not be based on ideals, but the fact is there are often not.
Even when they are based on ideals their interpretation is very often dependent on the personal beliefs or attitudes of judges. Less and less often do we have an objective standard. I’m not saying that this is good, just that this fact makes it more difficult to produce social change using laws…and yes, I am a mother - one who prays everyday that my child grows with the values imparted by our faith.

People personally disliking or disagreeing with abortion (or thinking it’s murder) is not the only factor here. There is a significant segment of the so-called pro-choice crowd who personally dislike/disagree with abortion (as you pointed out yourself), but who would strenuously object to taking away someone else’s “right” to have one i.e. even if they think it’s not acceptable for themselves personally, they think it’s acceptable that others should have that option.

As for the practicality of outlawing abortion, maybe I should be more explicit. There isn’t really any medical procedure that is used only to produce an abortion; most are used for genuine problems too; even the drugs used often are also used for other illnesses too. So there’s no way one could make illegal all the methods available for causing abortion. So we’d have to find a way to ensure that these procedures or drugs were only being used for purposes other than causing abortion - that’s where it gets tricky.

If, for example, Roe v. Wade was overturned and a former abortionist wanted to circumvent it, it could be done without much difficulty by making it seem like a miscarriage; who’s going to prove the baby didn’t die inside it’s mother and he’s just removing the parts? A law-maker? The very person doing the ultrasound (who want’s it to be dead)? Abortion clinics could all be closed down but these procedures have legitimate uses in any medical facility. (Out of deference to psteichen above, I have used the term miscarriage, but as the scientific terms as far as I know were never manipulated; abortion has always been spontaneous or induced).

Also consider that it’s practically impossible to prove that someone was prescribed a medication simply to produce an abortion rather than for a genuine illness. Add that to the fact that just about any drug known to man is available on the internet (and probably on the black market too), and you’ll get an idea of the magnitude of the task of enforcing a ban.

I’m not saying any of this to imply that it’s a waste of time to overturn Roe v. Wade, but it’s not going to be the earth-changing event that many people seem to think. The real work has to be done on hearts and minds of peole. Die-hards will find ways around the law for as long as women continue to choose death. If those same women’s hearts are converted…well that’s another story.

 

[adrift]

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…

This is one of the myths abortionist put forth. The truth was that abortions were often safer in those days because what they were doing was against the law. They were performed by doctors what had to be extra careful as not to get caught. Do you really think that women don’t die from abortion now?
Try this linkhttp://www.afterabortion.info/news/deaths_smj.html

 

[adrift]

My previous post was specifically in response to the original question which asked “Does this law protect the women whose lives are in danger and wish to abort?”

In the situation I referred to, both mother and unborn baby were going to die, leaving her husband & young daughter without a mother and without a newborn infant.

I assumed you would be able to understand the horror she & her family were faced with.
But maybe you can’t.

Go with Love, Go with God

An answer from Judy Brown
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=399638&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2004&Author=&Keyword=necessary+abortion&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

Dear Rich,

The Catholic physicians and those of other faiths who work with American Life League signed the following statement which we have used repeatedly in Courts and with members of Congress:

I agree that there is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child’s life need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either.

There is never a reason in law or in practice to advocate a “life of the mother” exception for abortion. We base this statement on testimony of many pro-life physicians over the years, including John F. Hillabrand, M.D., Herbert Ratner, M.D., and Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D.

Further, we adhere to the following teaching of Pope Pius XII:

Every human being, even the infant in the mother’s womb, has the right to life immediately from God, not from the parent or any human society or authority. Therefore, there is no man, no human authority, no science, no medical, eugenic, social, economic or moral “indication” that can show or give valid juridical title for direct deliberate disposition concerning an innocent human life—which is to say, a disposition that aims at its destruction either as an end in itself or as the means of attaining another end that is perhaps in no way illicit itself. Thus, for example, to save the life of the mother is a most noble end, but the direct killing of the child as a means to this end is not licit. Allocution to Italian midwives Pope Pius XII October 29, 1951

Judie Brown

Back to Question List

 

[tamccrackine]

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

How far into the pregnancy are you talking to determine “woman whose life is in danger” due to a pregnancy? I’ve known many pre-eclampsia mama’s (which really, honestly, can kill the woman) where they give the baby magnesium (or something else that starts with an M) to speed up the development of the lungs so they can deliver the baby.

So many partial birth abortions that I’ve read about never discussed the life of the mother. It was all about the quality of life for the mother because the baby had a deformity that would soon after birth, kill the child. So instead of allowing the baby to continue developing as God intended, delivering the baby as God intended, and loving the child for as long as God intended that child to live on earth… she aborts to save her the “pain and suffering” of having to deal with “that situation.”

I just have a really hard time understanding how any woman could choose to kill her own child because HER life was in danger. Why not delivery the child early and take the chances? NICU is so well deveoloped now that a 24 week gestational baby can live now!

And for the person that said so many women died from back alley, coat hanger abortions… that’s a myth purported by the pro-abortion side. It’s a proven fact that antibiotics have prevented much more than what you’re thinking. However, feel free to read Operation Rescue’s articles on Tiller the Killer to see how many women, NOW, die from partial birth and/or late term abortions.

It’s all just a shame that there are pro-life people out there that support partial birth abortion and/or late term abortion “for the sake of the mother’s life.”

 

[magician]

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.

And I would like to know why you think a law banning abortion would stop abortion? Do you think lives will be saved? Do you think that women who seek abortion will bring their children to term because of the “law”?
You’re on the wrong side of the equation. If the hearts and minds of women are not changed to reject abortion, then there is no law that will prevent them from having abortions.
It’s like head hunting in New Guinea; the law may prohibit head hunting, but you will always find a shrunken head hanging around someone’s neck if you look hard enough (maybe not too hard either).
The notion that a law will change abortion statistics is a fantasy.
A complete waste of time on the part of the pro-life community. Of the one million abortions performed last year, the pro-life community changed not one mind or heart. That says everything you need to know about how the community at large regards abortion.

 

[magician]

"It’s all just a shame that there are pro-life people out there that support partial birth abortion and/or late term abortion “for the sake of the mother’s life.” "

---

I have asked the question before, and I will ask it again: why do you think that banning partial birth abortion saves lives? Why do you think that this decision is a triumph? If you know that the fetus will be killed by another method in any event, why do you even think about this decision as a benefit???
By endorsing this decision you also endorse the alternative method which is utilized in EVERY case, which is disarticulation (dismemberment) and removal of the parts. The end result is the same - death of the fetus. Does it make you feel better that it occurs in utero as opposed to extra utero?
Shame on those who support this decision. It’s a travesty that so few understand what they are endorsing.