You are the one making an outragous claim!
IDIOT STATEMENT: If you dont want to make it illegal, you support and condone it!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
You are the one making an outragous claim!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I already did, scroll up and you will see it...
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.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The Republican majority did the inviting.
This is not true, any and all Congressional hearing are organized by committees comprised of both parties in Congress, as it always has been. You are really grasping at straws here, dude!
This is not true, any and all Congressional hearing are organized by committees comprised of both parties in Congress, as it always has been. You are really grasping at straws here, dude!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"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."
And exactly WHERE in the above does it say ANYTHING about ALL the doctors agreeing with the above statement?
And exactly WHERE in the above does it say ANYTHING about ALL the doctors agreeing with the above statement?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You are the one making an outragous claim!
No, I've not made any claim, I just posted what I found on the Internet, and what is a matter of public record. You are the one who has yet to produce any evidence to support your claims. Is that forthcoming?
No, I've not made any claim, I just posted what I found on the Internet, and what is a matter of public record. You are the one who has yet to produce any evidence to support your claims. Is that forthcoming?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And exactly WHERE in the above does it say ANYTHING about ALL the doctors agreeing with the above statement?
Super, you are starting to sound like a damn liberal! Let's see if we can't parse out our own meanings and interpretations of the facts, huh?
Congress held extensive hearings, where doctors testified before Congress, and gave them the information requested. Let's not act like this didn't happen, or that I haven't proven it happened, that is just intellectually dishonest, and you know better. I'm extremely disappointed in you!
Super, you are starting to sound like a damn liberal! Let's see if we can't parse out our own meanings and interpretations of the facts, huh?
Congress held extensive hearings, where doctors testified before Congress, and gave them the information requested. Let's not act like this didn't happen, or that I haven't proven it happened, that is just intellectually dishonest, and you know better. I'm extremely disappointed in you!
Where does this say not one Doctor said the procedure can sometimes be necessary for the life of the mother?
Anyone can see it does not say what you claim it says... As much as you want it to support your claims... it does not!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"Congress held extensive hearings, where doctors testified before Congress, and gave them the information requested. Let's not act like this didn't happen, or that I haven't proven it happened, that is just intellectually dishonest, and you know better. I'm extremely disappointed in you!"
Be disappointed all you want Dixie, I really do not care. Bottom line is this... extensive hearings and doctors testifying does NOT equate to 100% agreement by the doctors.
Be disappointed all you want Dixie, I really do not care. Bottom line is this... extensive hearings and doctors testifying does NOT equate to 100% agreement by the doctors.
Support that claim! And even if they did, so what. I dont trust the AMA.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Good old Jarod, can't defeat the argument, so impeach the AMA source.
1) Ive yet to see an AMA source, other than your bold face claims.
2) I dont have a lot of respect for much the AMA says.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
trog... I would also like to see your link to the AMA's position. Thanks in advance.
Our view on 'partial-birth' abortion: Congress claims an M.D.
Justices will decide whether politics can set medical facts.
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments today on whether to uphold Congress' 2003 ban on what doctors call "intact dilation and evacuation" and what critics call "partial-birth abortions."
By whatever name, the procedure is awful to contemplate. But to let the ban stand, the court would have to pretend that Ilene Jaroslaw does not exist.
Jaroslaw, a 43-year-old New York City lawyer, is agonizing proof that this procedure is sometimes necessary to protect a mother's health — something that Congress, in its scientific wisdom, found "is never necessary." (Read the Opposing view.)
About four months pregnant in May 2003, Jaroslaw learned that the fetus she was carrying had a fatal spinal cord and brain defect. "There was absolutely no hope at all" that the baby would survive for long, she told USA TODAY reporter Joan Biskupic. Because Jaroslaw wanted another child and had had two cesarean sections and other surgery, her doctor recommended an abortion procedure that would do as little damage as possible to her uterus. She agreed.
The 2003 law, passed a few months later, would have prevented that choice. The law, tied up in the courts since its passage, simply ignores cases like Jaroslaw's and asserts that such abortions are never important to a woman's health.
The obvious place to seek an authoritative opinion is the doctors who handle such procedures. Some physicians oppose the banned procedure, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says it has safety advantages, particularly for women with serious medical conditions; it can avert "massive hemorrhaging, serious infection and subsequent infertility."
Nor does the law target one procedure, as supporters claim. It is so vague that it threatens an array of safe abortion procedures used after the 12th week of pregnancy, when about 11% of the estimated 1.3 million abortions are performed in the USA each year.
The congressional sleight of hand is instead an effort to see whether the Supreme Court is willing to accept Congress' medical opinions, even if they lack scientific validity.
Six years ago, the court by a 5-4 vote struck down state "partial-birth" bans for precisely the reasons at issue today. It ruled that a Nebraska law was too vague and, more to the point, lacked an exception for times when a mother's health was at risk. Congress tried to negate that problem by simply asserting that no risk exists.
Absurd as that may sound, many court watchers believe it will work.
Last year, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who cast the decisive vote in the Nebraska case, was replaced by Samuel Alito, who is believed to be more hostile to abortion rights. If the court reverses precedent, it would begin a slide away from 30 years of decisions that uphold personal liberty and religious tolerance.
No matter how sincere the beliefs of abortion opponents that this gruesome procedure is never necessary, that belief is not based on science. It is an attempt to impose one group's beliefs on others. The procedure can avert serious harm for some women, even determine whether they can have more children. Many renowned physicians believe it is sometimes necessary.
Ilene Jaroslaw is proof they're right.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/post_21.html
Justices will decide whether politics can set medical facts.
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments today on whether to uphold Congress' 2003 ban on what doctors call "intact dilation and evacuation" and what critics call "partial-birth abortions."
By whatever name, the procedure is awful to contemplate. But to let the ban stand, the court would have to pretend that Ilene Jaroslaw does not exist.
Jaroslaw, a 43-year-old New York City lawyer, is agonizing proof that this procedure is sometimes necessary to protect a mother's health — something that Congress, in its scientific wisdom, found "is never necessary." (Read the Opposing view.)
About four months pregnant in May 2003, Jaroslaw learned that the fetus she was carrying had a fatal spinal cord and brain defect. "There was absolutely no hope at all" that the baby would survive for long, she told USA TODAY reporter Joan Biskupic. Because Jaroslaw wanted another child and had had two cesarean sections and other surgery, her doctor recommended an abortion procedure that would do as little damage as possible to her uterus. She agreed.
The 2003 law, passed a few months later, would have prevented that choice. The law, tied up in the courts since its passage, simply ignores cases like Jaroslaw's and asserts that such abortions are never important to a woman's health.
The obvious place to seek an authoritative opinion is the doctors who handle such procedures. Some physicians oppose the banned procedure, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says it has safety advantages, particularly for women with serious medical conditions; it can avert "massive hemorrhaging, serious infection and subsequent infertility."
Nor does the law target one procedure, as supporters claim. It is so vague that it threatens an array of safe abortion procedures used after the 12th week of pregnancy, when about 11% of the estimated 1.3 million abortions are performed in the USA each year.
The congressional sleight of hand is instead an effort to see whether the Supreme Court is willing to accept Congress' medical opinions, even if they lack scientific validity.
Six years ago, the court by a 5-4 vote struck down state "partial-birth" bans for precisely the reasons at issue today. It ruled that a Nebraska law was too vague and, more to the point, lacked an exception for times when a mother's health was at risk. Congress tried to negate that problem by simply asserting that no risk exists.
Absurd as that may sound, many court watchers believe it will work.
Last year, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who cast the decisive vote in the Nebraska case, was replaced by Samuel Alito, who is believed to be more hostile to abortion rights. If the court reverses precedent, it would begin a slide away from 30 years of decisions that uphold personal liberty and religious tolerance.
No matter how sincere the beliefs of abortion opponents that this gruesome procedure is never necessary, that belief is not based on science. It is an attempt to impose one group's beliefs on others. The procedure can avert serious harm for some women, even determine whether they can have more children. Many renowned physicians believe it is sometimes necessary.
Ilene Jaroslaw is proof they're right.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/post_21.html
Last edited:
May I ask, HOW you can make this decision if the Mother and the unborn child are BOTH humans and are both deserving of all Human rights alotted to humans, as you have stated above?
In this dire situation, why is the mother's life always chosen OVER the unborn child?
Even in hospitals, the rule is that the life of the mother supercedes that of the unborn child...but as I mentioned, WHY?
Even in the old testament, the life of the mother supercedes the life of the unborn child...why?
Has the determination that a BORN human being's life is more valuable than the UNBORN's life and if so, THEN doesn't that mean that a "lesser worth" is given to the unborn child, NOT making them on equal footing as you have expressed to Jarod that you feel they are equal, even in their earliest stages you put them equal....?
Just logically, the mother's life is chosen over the unborn child in MOST everyone's mind....?
I realize that abortion, in general is not a life or death situation, yet always choosing the mother over the unborn child also shows that an unborn does NOT have the same worth EVEN in your mind, no?
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
AMA policy statement H-5.982. Read it in entirety, and accept the full context not a few cherry picked points.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
The AMA announced support for ban when the issue first came up in 1997.