Once again, "for the life of the woman" was actually "for the health of the mother" and is still an "either allow" or "Not allow" and has no room for even an idea of compromise. It is one or the other for these two groups...
Sad time for America... Repugs pull it together!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Sorry I missed the health of the mother part.. and I agree when its necessary to protect the health of the mother I belive that the woman should have a right to make her own choice.
Just like President Clinton who when he was governor signed a bill making it illegal to have a late term abortion unless it was necessary to protect the life or health of the mother!
http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/partveto.htm
Just like President Clinton who when he was governor signed a bill making it illegal to have a late term abortion unless it was necessary to protect the life or health of the mother!
http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/partveto.htm
You are missing my point entirely. There are other options that we can work toward creating real choice rather than the pretense that the only choice is "do" or "do not". That type of compromise is ignored by the positions of both of the parties.
"... I implored Congress to add an exemption for the small number of compelling cases where selection of the procedure, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, was necessary to preserve the life of the woman or avert serious adverse consequences to her health. The life exception in the current bill only covers cases where the doctor believes that the woman will die. It fails to cover cases where, absent the procedure, serious physical harm, often including losing the ability to have more children, is very likely to occur. I told Congress that I would sign H.R. 1833 if it were amended to add an exception for serious health consequences. A bill amended in this way would strike a proper balance, remedying the constitutional and human defect of H.R. 1833. If such a bill were presented to me, I would sign it now."
http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/partveto.htm
http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/partveto.htm
No, I am saying that both parties are equally distant from what I want. That my type of compromise is ignored for the far simpler position of "do" or "do not"...
I am not saying I want a limit on something, I am saying I want a whole different option that neither care to even think on.
Are you really pretending not to know my position on abortion after all this time?
Rubbish. The idea that you must "allow" it under "these special, blah, blah" is "do" or "do not" those are not the only two choices.
My position is that we should remove the fetus and work towards saving its life, thus creating an actual option later that would allow women to choose whether to self-incubate or to incubate ex-utero.
I agree with that and thing we should work toward it... BUT I am talking about the CURRENT WORLD and what is possable today and what the laws surrounding what is possable should be!
It is possible to begin this right away. Once again you miss my point entirely. Neither party even thinks of any other option other than "allow" or "do not allow".
The "for the life of the mother" is still thinking in those terms and none other.
I would be fine with that IF the process of removing the fetus would not seriously endanger the mother... If it would she should have the choice. It is my understanding that they do this procedure when it is impossable to remove the intact fetus and save the health and or safety of the mother!