Partial Birth Abortion Ban looks to pass House, Veto

[Xerxes]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar13.html

The first real change in US abortion laws in quite some time...

[zootm]

Critics of the bill say it is unconstitutional because it lacks a health exception and is vaguely worded, meaning it might forbid other abortion methods as well.
A court challenge is likely.
But backers of the bill liken the technique to "infanticide," and say it is never needed to protect a woman's health.
(emphasis mine)

then why are they afraid to write an exception into it? i'm worried about the vague wording too - all it takes is one biased jury to set a precedent (if that's how US law works, which i think it is...)

[Some1]

lame-ass politicians and the religious fanatics to which they pander...

[John M]

k, this is bascially where they pop the baby partially out feet first, leave the head in, and then suck the baby's brains out through a tube. seems a little on the inhumane side to me.

but then again, wtf do i know. i'm a 'religious fanatic'.

[anubis2003]

I'm not a "religious fanatic", but I don't think that is right. Don't really care that much over the issue though.

[liquidmotion]

It's the woman's own goddamn choise. if we let the government make these bullshit decisions for us it will lead to complete disintegration of the entire system.

of course, most people don't care about the fucking patriot act, either.

[Some1]

k, this is bascially where they pop the baby partially out feet first, leave the head in, and then suck the baby's brains out through a tube. seems a little on the inhumane side to me.

At first I was going to write your description off as "fanatical ravings," but after wading through all sorts of "pro-life" BS propaganda on the issue until I finally found an unbiased site that mentioned the procedure, that description actually IS relatively accurate...

I'm all for women's choice, but after 5 or 6 months have passed, I think the window for making the choice has pretty much closed...though as people who oppose the bill have mentioned, the procedure shouldn't be banned outright, there should be provisions that allow it for health reasons and under other extreme circumstances...it just shouldn't be treated as a viable option for elective abortions under normal circumstances.

[zootm]

Originally posted by Some1
there should be provisions that allow it for health reasons and under other extreme circumstances

the point exactly. and exactly why this bill should not be allowed to pass.

[anubis2003]

I agree with you some1.

[liquidmotion]

i don't think it's up to anyone to say "you have this long to make a decision". the woman should be able to choose.

she's the one who will have to "live with" it anyway.

[Orgone_Man]

hey.. in the end, you can't really force your will on somebody else, or then that would be something evil in and of itself, just try and persuade people.
If people are going to commit abortions, they will.

[Orgone_Man]

Originally posted by liquidmotion
i don't think it's up to anyone to say "you have this long to make a decision". the woman should be able to choose.

she's the one who will have to "live with" it anyway.

I think the main critique of this argument is "what about the child's choice?". And then it all comes down to wether or not you think an embryo is a "human" or not....

Nobody will ever completely answer this question.

[liquidmotion]

could the "child" make a decision?

i think no, since you can't even form memories until you are like 3? give or take.

as the "child" isn't technically even living by itself, is it really alive? same could be said for someone on a life support machine.

i say we leave it up to the mother.

[Orgone_Man]

Originally posted by liquidmotion
could the "child" make a decision?

well... wouldn't it be wrong to take the choice away from the child before it could choose?

as the "child" isn't technically even living by itself, is it really alive? same could be said for someone on a life support machine.

i say we leave it up to the mother.

I agree that it should be the mother's choice, but I also am part of the crowd that believes that abortion is wrong unless in the most extreme cases. The thing is, you can't just give some of the mothers the right to abort and not others. I'm torn when it comes to this debate.

[Some1]

I think the main critique of this argument is "what about the child's choice?"

It's not so much about the child's choice as it is the child's "right to life." But as you point out, it really does all come down to if (or more appropriately, "when") the fetus counts as a human being. I have no problem with women aborting pregnencies while the fetus is still just an undifferentiated ball of cells, or even after differntiation has begun but is still far from being complete...the problem with the late-term abortions that the bill covers is that by the 5th or 6th month, differentiation is largely complete, and the fetus has a brain, and nerves, and possibly even some rudimentary ability to perceive the world, and this is about where I personally draw the line between "fetus" and "human being"...and once it's a human being, the baby has as much right to its life as the mother has to her own.

[liquidmotion]

there is a BIG difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion.

i am very much pro-choice, but not so much pro-abortion.