baggio202 Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 the senate today passed a bill to ban 3rd term or partial birth abortions by a wide margin...the house is expected to pass the same bill..this has happened before but bil lcliton refused to sign it into law..this time president bush says he will sign it as soon as it crosses his desk...pro choice groups say the will sue the government to have the bill deemed unconsititutional.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Seperation of Church and State, PLEASE!!! I mean, yeah partial birth abortion is really iffy (excluding cases where the mother has septic shock, etc.), but can we please leave out our morals? Every other quote from the people who were opposed said it was "morally wrong" and other bulls***. Bah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hotsoxchick1 Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 ya know whats scarry about this.. alot of women dont even know theyre pregnant till the third month..... its very common even with todays technology.... its a shame that they dont have the right to choose if they want to keep the kid or not......what sucks even more is guess whos gonna take care of that unwanted kid a woman is forced to carry to term ......yep the tax payers are when its placed into the states custody......if it doesnt end up in a dumpster somewhere first cause the mother didnt want it...or some gawd aweful thing like that.........dont like the idea of this bill and im sure the pro choice groups will find a way to stall it or get it so its not passed.........a woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 "partial birth abortion" is a made up politically charged term for a certain type of medical procedure that is used very, very rarely in circumstances where there is severe threat to the life of the mother and fetus - it is dangerous to outlaw medical procedures - and this is such a false issue - being used by certain groups to push their own agenda - the bill being pushed is a dangerous attack on the right to choose. Third term abortions are already severly limited by law and when a late term emergent threat will take the life of probably both mother and fetus, what law should be passed that will let everything end in death and in suffering rather than save the life of the woman just because the anti choice faction wants it so? The procedure is used very, very rarely unnder limited circumstances and the term "partial birth abotion" is a triumph of pr and spin over medical procedures and necessities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zach61 Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 baggs, Be carefull what you wish for. I don't want to see a law passed for or against abortion because someday that law could be changed. Just think if the law was passed preventing abortion and then 20 years from now the law was ammended to force anybody pregnant under the age of 18 to have an abortion. Sounds crazy, but not all countries and religions have the same morals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 ya know whats scarry about this.. alot of women dont even know theyre pregnant till the third month..... its very common even with todays technology.... its a shame that they dont have the right to choose if they want to keep the kid or not......what sucks even more is guess whos gonna take care of that unwanted kid a woman is forced to carry to term ......yep the tax payers are when its placed into the states custody......if it doesnt end up in a dumpster somewhere first cause the mother didnt want it...or some gawd aweful thing like that.........dont like the idea of this bill and im sure the pro choice groups will find a way to stall it or get it so its not passed.........a woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body...... Banning 3rd term would mean they they have until the 6th month to terminate. 3 months seems like plenty of time to make a decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hotsoxchick1 Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 ya know whats scarry about this.. alot of women dont even know theyre pregnant till the third month..... its very common even with todays technology.... its a shame that they dont have the right to choose if they want to keep the kid or not......what sucks even more is guess whos gonna take care of that unwanted kid a woman is forced to carry to term ......yep the tax payers are when its placed into the states custody......if it doesnt end up in a dumpster somewhere first cause the mother didnt want it...or some gawd aweful thing like that.........dont like the idea of this bill and im sure the pro choice groups will find a way to stall it or get it so its not passed.........a woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body...... Banning 3rd term would mean they they have until the 6th month to terminate. 3 months seems like plenty of time to make a decision. 3 months may be enough time but..either way, i do not want some old men( or anyone else for that matter).. telling me what i can or can not do to MY body..................they dont have the right......just as i dont have the right to tell them not to put their "cigar" in someone elses body parts........if you get my drift....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Banning 3rd term would mean they they have until the 6th month to terminate. 3 months seems like plenty of time to make a decision. except if medical consequences develop in the 3rd term - 3rd term abortions are very rare, have been limited under law under Roe v Wade, and are almsot always for medical situations/complications that arise in the latter stages of pregnancy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 Banning 3rd term would mean they they have until the 6th month to terminate. 3 months seems like plenty of time to make a decision. except if medical consequences develop in the 3rd term - 3rd term abortions are very rare, have been limited under law under Roe v Wade, and are almsot always for medical situations/complications that arise in the latter stages of pregnancy there is an exception in the bill for when the life of the mother is at risk... pacifist = pro choice??...cant see the connection.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 ya know whats scarry about this.. alot of women dont even know theyre pregnant till the third month..... its very common even with todays technology.... its a shame that they dont have the right to choose if they want to keep the kid or not......what sucks even more is guess whos gonna take care of that unwanted kid a woman is forced to carry to term ......yep the tax payers are when its placed into the states custody......if it doesnt end up in a dumpster somewhere first cause the mother didnt want it...or some gawd aweful thing like that.........dont like the idea of this bill and im sure the pro choice groups will find a way to stall it or get it so its not passed.........a woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body...... Banning 3rd term would mean they they have until the 6th month to terminate. 3 months seems like plenty of time to make a decision. 3 months may be enough time but..either way, i do not want some old men( or anyone else for that matter).. telling me what i can or can not do to MY body..................they dont have the right......just as i dont have the right to tell them not to put their "cigar" in someone elses body parts........if you get my drift....... I get it and I understand your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Banning 3rd term would mean they they have until the 6th month to terminate. 3 months seems like plenty of time to make a decision. except if medical consequences develop in the 3rd term - 3rd term abortions are very rare, have been limited under law under Roe v Wade, and are almsot always for medical situations/complications that arise in the latter stages of pregnancy I'm aware of this as well. Although it's rarely called an "abortion" (as the public understands the word) at that point. I can't imagine medical emergencies would still not qualify even under the new law (admittedly I did not read the bill so I could be wrong). So few are done anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Banning 3rd term would mean they they have until the 6th month to terminate. 3 months seems like plenty of time to make a decision. except if medical consequences develop in the 3rd term - 3rd term abortions are very rare, have been limited under law under Roe v Wade, and are almsot always for medical situations/complications that arise in the latter stages of pregnancy there is an exception in the bill for when the life of the mother is at risk... pacifist = pro choice??...cant see the connection.. Ah. Thanks Baggio. I just questioned this in a previous post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 yw steff my take on this is that 14 democrats crossed the aisle on the most volitile issue in politics to ban partial birth or 3rd term (depending on your POV) abortions...more than likely all 14 of these democrats are pro choice...and there are probably a few pro choice republicans in the senate..if they see a reason to vote to ban this proceedure then its probably the right thing to do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hotsoxchick1 Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 yw steff my take on this is that 14 democrats crossed the aisle on the most volitile issue in politics to ban partial birth or 3rd term (depending on your POV) abortions...more than likely all 14 of these democrats are pro choice...and there are probably a few pro choice republicans in the senate..if they see a reason to vote to ban this proceedure then its probably the right thing to do no its not the right thing to do .. it only means they got something in return which will come later on down the road.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted March 15, 2003 Author Share Posted March 15, 2003 yw steff my take on this is that 14 democrats crossed the aisle on the most volitile issue in politics to ban partial birth or 3rd term (depending on your POV) abortions...more than likely all 14 of these democrats are pro choice...and there are probably a few pro choice republicans in the senate..if they see a reason to vote to ban this proceedure then its probably the right thing to do no its not the right thing to do .. it only means they got something in return which will come later on down the road.............. youre saying 14 democratic senators sold their votes out on the abortion issue???....if thats true and it comes out..it will damn near ruin the party..kinda hope you are right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hotsoxchick1 Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 well other than being promised sex... that would be the only other thing that makes any sense... dont you agree............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted March 15, 2003 Author Share Posted March 15, 2003 well other than being promised sex... that would be the only other thing that makes any sense... dont you agree............ or they really dont think 3rd term abortions are a good thing...remember this legislation passed twice in clinton administration..he just refused to sign it into law... if this is challenged by pro choice and it goes to the supreme court they might end up getting roe v wade overturned all together..the problem imo , with roe v wade is that it should be a states rights issue..not at the federal level...all these women's rights groups running around saying if roe v wade is overturned we wil go back to wmoen having abortions with coathangers is bulls***...what will happen is the very next day every state in the union will be introducing abortion bills into their state senates and houses..in some states they will pass..including palces like new york , illinois and massachuttes where they will also pass partial birth abortion bills..orthers they will fail and it will be illegal in states that are more conservative leaning...massachittes and illinois might let you get abortions 5 years after the baby is born ..other health issues are all handled at state levels..even the right to death..which i believed passed in oregon..but abortion for some reason is at the national level a legal arguement against abortion is child support laws..the man has no rights..if a women decides she is not financially stable enough to have the child she can get an abortion and everyone says, ohhh , what a wise choice , now you can go onto college and make a life for yourself and have a family when you are ready...if that same girl decides to keep it the first thing thats done is everyone looks to the father and says pay up ass hole for the next 18 years or your ass is going to jail...what happens if the father feels he is not ready for a family and would like to go to college and start a family when he is ready???can he get an abortion.???..nope ..he is called a deadbeat dad...thats bulls***...if youre going to have abortion the there should be a stipulation for financial abortions for fathers who dont want the kid...that might sound screwed up and i agree...but if you have abortion its the fair thing to do... thats two arguemenmts against roe v wade that have nothing to do with religous beliefs...now i admitt i believe abortion is wrong on my religous beliefs but one can make a case against it w/o brigning religon into it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hotsoxchick1 Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 actually baggs i partly agree here with you... the father rights thing for sure... i really feel bad for those kids who find themselves in a situation where they screwed up and dont know what to do.. i think that they should be able to make abortion available to those kind of cases as well as medical... beats my tax dollars going to pay for someone elses mistake right..........i would rather they pay for the kid who finds themselves in this situation and give them the abortion so we dont have to carry that kid for the next 18 years on welfare...i also think that fathers rights are pretty much screwed up... espically when it comes to wether he has a choice in the matter or not... there are legal ways to go about it if you really can afford to challange the court system, i have seen it done in california when i was stationed there where a kid did revoke his rights and the girl did revoke any chance of going after him later on for support .. but thats a rareity....long court battle and lawyer fees out the ying yang.. but he did have a choice in the end....i wish that congress would take a day and watch some of the bulls*** day time tv and all these kids who dont know who the father is and such... maybe educate them a bit or tie up their parts or something......its amazing to me how many kids dont know who the fathers are of their kids.... they should focus on s*** like that before they start taking away one of the only remedies some of these kids may have......its really screwed up... and like i keep saying i dont want some person to tell me what i can or cant do with my body.... if i play i pay or i can have a choice to terminate it.. thats the way it should be... (of course its always a bunch of men who have no clue what those 9 month entail who decide the final outcome right lol) but seriously if they did pass a bill such as this and it didnt get jumped on at the state level we just may see some of those back alley things with coat hangers start to come back .....scarry thought but true none the less... one never know what a desperate woman would do............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted March 15, 2003 Author Share Posted March 15, 2003 actually baggs i partly agree here with you... the father rights thing for sure... i really feel bad for those kids who find themselves in a situation where they screwed up and dont know what to do.. i think that they should be able to make abortion available to those kind of cases as well as medical... beats my tax dollars going to pay for someone elses mistake right..........i would rather they pay for the kid who finds themselves in this situation and give them the abortion so we dont have to carry that kid for the next 18 years on welfare...i also think that fathers rights are pretty much screwed up... espically when it comes to wether he has a choice in the matter or not... there are legal ways to go about it if you really can afford to challange the court system, i have seen it done in california when i was stationed there where a kid did revoke his rights and the girl did revoke any chance of going after him later on for support .. but thats a rareity....long court battle and lawyer fees out the ying yang.. but he did have a choice in the end....i wish that congress would take a day and watch some of the bulls*** day time tv and all these kids who dont know who the father is and such... maybe educate them a bit or tie up their parts or something......its amazing to me how many kids dont know who the fathers are of their kids.... they should focus on s*** like that before they start taking away one of the only remedies some of these kids may have......its really screwed up... and like i keep saying i dont want some person to tell me what i can or cant do with my body.... if i play i pay or i can have a choice to terminate it.. thats the way it should be... (of course its always a bunch of men who have no clue what those 9 month entail who decide the final outcome right lol) but seriously if they did pass a bill such as this and it didnt get jumped on at the state level we just may see some of those back alley things with coat hangers start to come back .....scarry thought but true none the less... one never know what a desperate woman would do............ good points..you know as poilarizing as this issue is there are good people on both sides....id like to see both sides work together more to prevent the need for abortions all together...then it becomes mute..but i dont know if that will ever happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.