IDIOT STATEMENT: If you dont want to make it illegal, you support and condone it!

"The Partial Birth abortion law passed by the Republicans in Congress last year prohibits the procedure even in the event its required for the life of the mother."

Well, obviously I agree that it should be banned in most cases, but never at the expense of the womans life. If her life is in danger, the decision is hers.

That is the only reason it was opposed by the Democrats and the only reason President Cliton did not sign the legislation 10 years ago. The Republicans refused to add such an exemption. They were playing politics with it because they wanted to make it look like the Democrats supported Partial Birth Abortion.
 
"That is the only reason it was opposed by the Democrats and the only reason President Cliton did not sign the legislation 10 years ago. The Republicans refused to add such an exemption. They were playing politics with it because they wanted to make it look like the Democrats supported Partial Birth Abortion."

A perfect example of why I cannot stand most politicians. Both parties consistently pull this crap and it is truly sickening.
 
"That is the only reason it was opposed by the Democrats and the only reason President Cliton did not sign the legislation 10 years ago. The Republicans refused to add such an exemption. They were playing politics with it because they wanted to make it look like the Democrats supported Partial Birth Abortion."

A perfect example of why I cannot stand most politicians. Both parties consistently pull this crap and it is truly sickening.


This is factually inaccurate and intellectually dishonest...
From the Partial-Birth Act of 2003:

There exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-birth abortion is not required to contain a " health" exception, because the facts indicate that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed by extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses and passed a ban on partial-birth abortion in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, be banned.

------------------------------

Now, you pinhead revisionists can lie about it all you like, those are the facts regarding partial birth abortion, and how it came about in Congress.
 
Great when a bunch of polititians decide what medical procedures are necessary and which ones are never necessary.

Provide for the exemption and if its never necesary then the exemption will never be needed.
 
"Provide for the exemption and if its never necesary then the exemption will never be needed."

Agreed. Politicians should not be making this call. The doctors should.
 
"Provide for the exemption and if its never necesary then the exemption will never be needed."

Agreed. Politicians should not be making this call. The doctors should.


I knew there was a reason I liked you, you are a reasonable person.
 
Great when a bunch of polititians decide what medical procedures are necessary and which ones are never necessary.

Provide for the exemption and if its never necesary then the exemption will never be needed.

Jarhead, I hate to break it to you, but politicians always decide on bills and acts, that is why we elect them. Who else is going to pass the act?

For the record, these politicians held a thing called 'hearings' ...perhaps you missed that part? Anyways... in these things called 'hearings', they heard from medical experts (aka: Doctors) who were specialists in this particular field. It was those doctors who revealed that partial birth was never necessary to preserve a woman's health, and in fact, submitted evidence to the contrary, it is actually more of a risk to a woman's health to have the procedure. Since logic dictates, if something is never needed, then it is not necessary to include the provision for it.

Let me explain what it was about... the abortion lobby! Those who want to see abortion go untouched and unchanged in any way! THEY are the ones who lobbied for this inclusion, and it was nothing more than a political move. Notice how quickly Superfreak reacted when he was told about this? It's easy for someone to react emotionally to this on its face, because you're thinking.... what's the big deal? Why not have that provision? The thing is... if you granted such a provision, you would have "doctors" out there, who would proclaim a woman's health "at risk" and do the procedure, it would just be a matter of semantics, and the doctor could easily find a way to rationalize his decision. So, in the end, you wouldn't really stop the practice, you would only create an obstacle that could easily be circumvented.
 
Dixie... yes, the politicians make the laws, but they should NOT be making medical decisions when writing the laws. They are NOT qualified. For you or them to say "x" NEVER happens is scary, because what IF a situation were to arise that it was necessary? Then the doctor would have to let the woman die? That is idiotic. It is a medical decision. Ban all partial birth abortions with the exception of if the mothers life is in danger.

If it never happens as you suggest, then you lose nothing. IF, however, you are wrong and the situation were to arise, then the doctors have the ability to save the woman over the child should she choose to do so.... which is her right.
 
Dixie... yes, the politicians make the laws, but they should NOT be making medical decisions when writing the laws. They are NOT qualified. For you or them to say "x" NEVER happens is scary, because what IF a situation were to arise that it was necessary?

Super, did you miss the part about the hearings? Congressmen DIDN'T decide! They heard testimony from MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS who DO know, and ARE qualified! Those MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS were the people who determined it was never necessary, not Congress!

The doctors who testified did not say that it is sometimes necessary, or that it could be necessary in some cases, they specifically and categorically stated that it was NEVER necessary, not only was it NEVER necessary, but that the subsequent risk to the woman's health was substantially increased by performing the procedure in EVERY case.

Now, if you are sincere, and we are to listen to the medical professionals on this, and they are telling us that it's never necessary and in fact, more of a risk, shouldn't we be listening to them? Who is Congress to be determining the doctors don't know what they are talking about? Essentially, I am using your own argument against you here to make a point. If DOCTORS should decide, then live with what they decide! If they said it wasn't ever necessary, then accept that!
 
If it never happens as you suggest, then you lose nothing.

No no... I didn't suggest this, the DOCTORS testifying before Congress stated this as a fact! The inclusion of a 'health' clause is an 'out' for those who want to ignore the law! You would suddenly have "doctors" determining that... well, yes, in this case, it would be a 'risk' because I say so, and I am the doctor, I get to decide, it's in the legislation... so let's do it anyway! No one is going to challenge the doctor, and partial birth abortions would continue as if there were never any legislation passed.

The testimony FROM DOCTORS showed there is NEVER a reason for this procedure, to protect the health or life of a woman... NEVER! NEVER EVER! Got it?
 
"The testimony FROM DOCTORS showed there is NEVER a reason for this procedure, to protect the health or life of a woman... NEVER! NEVER EVER! Got it?"

So you are saying that ALL doctors agree with this assessment? Somehow I doubt that. There is NEVER! NEVER EVER! a reason that you can give that should prohibit a procedure based on testimony given to Congress. Just because a situation has not yet occured doesn't mean that one never will. Only a complete moron would put an absolute on this.
 
So you are saying that ALL doctors agree with this assessment?

All the ones called before Congress to testify said this, yes.

Just because a situation has not yet occured doesn't mean that one never will.

You are misunderstanding what they said. They didn't testify that no such situation had occurred, they said that such a situation NEVER exists. They didn't say such a situation might happen, or such a situation was possible, they said that such a situation NEVER exists. Not only that, but the exact opposite is true, it's a risk to a woman's health to have the procedure. They are the doctors, not me! I trust what they said was true, I have no basis to deny it, and according to you we should be inclined to listen to the doctors on this, correct? So, why would you be okay with Congress refuting what the doctors said and passing legislation based on what the politicians thought instead?
 
So you are saying that ALL doctors agree with this assessment?

All the ones called before Congress to testify said this, yes.

Just because a situation has not yet occured doesn't mean that one never will.

You are misunderstanding what they said. They didn't testify that no such situation had occurred, they said that such a situation NEVER exists. They didn't say such a situation might happen, or such a situation was possible, they said that such a situation NEVER exists. Not only that, but the exact opposite is true, it's a risk to a woman's health to have the procedure. They are the doctors, not me! I trust what they said was true, I have no basis to deny it, and according to you we should be inclined to listen to the doctors on this, correct? So, why would you be okay with Congress refuting what the doctors said and passing legislation based on what the politicians thought instead?


1) Not true, not all Doctors who testified said its never necessary.

2) You can get a Doctor to say just about anything, just go watch a few P.I trials.
 
1) Not true, not all Doctors who testified said its never necessary.

Yes, it is true, unless you can show us otherwise, you can't just waltz in here and refute that fact. I posted the actual words from the legislation, and it's pretty damn clear on the matter. The doctors who testified before Congress, ALL stated that partial birth is NEVER required to save the life or preserve the health of the mother, and in fact, is just the opposite, detrimental to the health and life when performed.

If you have some information to support your claim, now would be the time to produce it, because as it stands, I have presented my case backed with facts and you've presented your wrongheaded opinion. I win! You lose!
 
2) You can get a Doctor to say just about anything, just go watch a few P.I trials.

Really? Well, gee... it seems like the pinheads would have been able to find at least one or two doctors to disagree with the concensus that the procedure is never necessary, doesn't it?
 
A complete moron or someone with a political agenda!

Really? So these doctors who testified under oath before Congress, they had a "political agenda"? And what might that be? Can you explain this allegation, or is it just more liberal blather you want to heap on to the already preposterous arguments you've made? I personally think you are in deep enough, and shouldn't be making anymore outrageous claims, but that's just my opinion.
 
1) Not true, not all Doctors who testified said its never necessary.

Yes, it is true, unless you can show us otherwise, you can't just waltz in here and refute that fact. I posted the actual words from the legislation, and it's pretty damn clear on the matter. The doctors who testified before Congress, ALL stated that partial birth is NEVER required to save the life or preserve the health of the mother, and in fact, is just the opposite, detrimental to the health and life when performed.

If you have some information to support your claim, now would be the time to produce it, because as it stands, I have presented my case backed with facts and you've presented your wrongheaded opinion. I win! You lose!


You are the one making the claim.... .

Back up your claim! Because I call bullshit!
 
2) You can get a Doctor to say just about anything, just go watch a few P.I trials.

Really? Well, gee... it seems like the pinheads would have been able to find at least one or two doctors to disagree with the concensus that the procedure is never necessary, doesn't it?

The Republican majority did the inviting.
 
Back
Top