President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Postby donnaplease » Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:41 am

conversationpc wrote:
I've never understood the rationale at all for ever performing a partial-birth abortion. Some wackos say that it should be necessary to save the life, or even "health", of the mother. My question is...If the baby is born all except the top of the head to be brutally murdered, then why not just complete the birth altogether. It's not going to harm the woman's health in any additional way to just pull the head out the rest of the way. Unbelievably barbaric.


Not only that, but in order to perform this procedure, the baby has to be delivered breech, which as most people know is much more dangerous to the... mother. Go figure. :roll:

Fredinator, this thing must be common enough to require legislation to define it. IMO, one case is more than enough to see it come to an end. I'd love to get my hands on the sick fuck that devised this method. Maybe someone should poke a hole in the back of his melon and suck the contents out with a straw... :evil:
User avatar
donnaplease
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:38 am
Location: shenandoah valley

Postby Saint John » Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:15 am

donnaplease wrote: I'd love to get my hands on the sick fuck that devised this method. Maybe someone should poke a hole in the back of his melon and suck the contents out with a straw... :evil:


You can bet your ass that if this were to happen to a convicted murderer and/or rapist that the far left liberals would be up in arms screaming and protesting. They simply hate this country and what it stands for, and have no respect for innocent life (but they do for killers and rapists).
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby slucero » Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:40 pm

Rockindeano wrote:I never called you a notveryprettyface, as you have been extremely kind to me.......however, I think the religious right is indeed dangerous and their agenda is scary. Look at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman and Sharron Angle and then get back to me if you're comfortable with them. They are scary bitches.



the "religous right"... is equally as dangerous as the "liberal left"...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Postby fredinator » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:19 pm

conversationpc wrote:
donnaplease wrote:
Angel wrote:
...even "health", of the mother. My question is...If the baby is born all except the top of the head to be brutally murdered, then why not just complete the birth altogether. It's not going to harm the woman's health in any additional way to just pull the head out the rest of the way. Unbelievably barbaric.


You have no idea what you are talking about here. Damn.
fredinator
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:30 pm

Postby fredinator » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:21 pm

If it were one of you all in this situation, you'd be the first ones in line and then rationalize your behavior later, lol.
fredinator
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:30 pm

Postby Mikey B » Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:11 pm

Rockindeano wrote:
Mikey B wrote:President Barack Obama - One Term Thread

Giving him a second term will bankrupt this country


Dude, great idea. Let's go back to the republican way of doing things that got us into this fucking mess in the first place. Tax cuts, just say no and do nothing. Brilliant.


It is not a my team is better than your team political pissing match that will get this country out of the financial nosedive we are in. That is why Washington is so fucked up.

Stop spending money we don't have would be a start. And how much power should the government have over our lives?

Bush was another big spender. No, we do not need to go back to that.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit
Mikey B
Radio Waves
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:23 pm
Location: FL

Postby RedWingFan » Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:45 am

slucero wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:I never called you a notveryprettyface, as you have been extremely kind to me.......however, I think the religious right is indeed dangerous and their agenda is scary. Look at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman and Sharron Angle and then get back to me if you're comfortable with them. They are scary bitches.



the "religous right"... is equally as dangerous as the "liberal left"...

Would you consider the founders and the framers "religious right"? Yeah, real dangerous, looking to destroy this nation. :roll:

Yeah Dean...Sarah, Michele and Sharron and their belief in Constitutional government....Oooooooh :roll:
You might actually have to take care of yourself?
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby Monker » Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:17 am

Saint John wrote:
donnaplease wrote: I'd love to get my hands on the sick fuck that devised this method. Maybe someone should poke a hole in the back of his melon and suck the contents out with a straw... :evil:


You can bet your ass that if this were to happen to a convicted murderer and/or rapist that the far left liberals would be up in arms screaming and protesting. They simply hate this country and what it stands for, and have no respect for innocent life (but they do for killers and rapists).


And, if "conservatives" were actually conservative they would not want the government to come between doctors and their patients, in ANY circumstance.

But, of course, they also have to become all emotional and softies and not allow people to make their own decisions - because they are offended by some procedure.

Hypocrites.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12673
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:38 am

RedWingFan wrote:Would you consider the founders and the framers "religious right"?


No. Ben Franklin was banging parisian whores at the Hellfire club and Thomas Paine was a goddamned atheist socialist. Most, if not all, of the Founders were religious, some even men of the cloth, but the Constitution enshrines religious freedom. Bachmann, Palin, and other Falwell-type fundamentalist snake wranglers want to tear down that wall. No comparison.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16111
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby RedWingFan » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:34 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:Would you consider the founders and the framers "religious right"?


No. Ben Franklin was banging parisian whores at the Hellfire club and Thomas Paine was a goddamned atheist socialist. Most, if not all, of the Founders were religious, some even men of the cloth, but the Constitution enshrines religious freedom. Bachmann, Palin, and other Falwell-type fundamentalist snake wranglers want to tear down that wall. No comparison.

Have any of them talked about establishing a state religion and persecute those who practice otherwise? No.
They speak of their desire to beat back over-reaching government back within its Constitutional limits. Hardly dangerous, wouldn't you say TNC?
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby BobbyinTN » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:38 am

Rockindeano wrote:
fredinator wrote::) , touche... (My son is in there cackling about it...)

I guess what I'm trying to convey is that partial birth abortions are done rarely so why is there so much hype about it?


Becuse the religious right is fucking wacked and needs the drama to enhance their agenda. They need to be stopped.


I agree completely. Some of them have what would have been diagnosed years ago as a mental illness. Those Jesus abusers are the ones that kill me. They can't breathe or fart without thanking Jesus for it. LOL
User avatar
BobbyinTN
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:12 am

Postby RedWingFan » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:41 am

Monker wrote:And, if "conservatives" were actually conservative they would not want the government to come between doctors and their patients, in ANY circumstance.

Conservatives don't agree with bastardization of the Constitution by reading a "right to privacy" that is not there.
Monker wrote:But, of course, they also have to become all emotional and softies and not allow people to make their own decisions - because they are offended by some procedure.
Hypocrites.

"some procedure"? What an utterly dispicable excuse for a human being you are. If you got jumped held down and had thugs puncture the back of your skull I would have zero sympathy for you too....SERIOUSLY!!!!
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
User avatar
RedWingFan
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 7868
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: The Peoples Republic of Michigan

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:51 am

RedWingFan wrote:Have any of them talked about establishing a state religion and persecute those who practice otherwise? No.


Bachmann has sponsored several bills promoting Christianity and has even called on her constituents to pray and fast to defeat healthcare.
She's one re-election away from openly speaking in tongues and drinking the strychnine. If the GOP wishes to align themselves with someone like that, go ahead. But don't conflate her evangelical bible-thumping with the enlightenment-inspired writings of Jefferson and Adams - (who were both religious, but not religious right).

RedWingFan wrote:They speak of their desire to beat back over-reaching government back within its Constitutional limits. Hardly dangerous, wouldn't you say TNC?


Depends what they want to overturn.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16111
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby conversationpc » Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:20 am

fredinator wrote:
conversationpc wrote:...even "health", of the mother. My question is...If the baby is born all except the top of the head to be brutally murdered, then why not just complete the birth altogether. It's not going to harm the woman's health in any additional way to just pull the head out the rest of the way. Unbelievably barbaric.


You have no idea what you are talking about here. Damn.


The woman's "life" (supposedly) is in danger due to the impending birth of this unborn child and you seem to think it actually then HELPS her "life" and or health to then have that child BORN breach (which is traumatic in and of itself), all except the top of the child's head, which is left inside the mother, at which point the child's head is punctured and his/her brains are sucked out. Explain to me how that procedure helps preserve the "life" or health of the mother? Dude, even a vast majority of ardent supporters of abortion rights are against this procedure.

If it were one of you all in this situation, you'd be the first ones in line and then rationalize your behavior later, lol.


Seeing as how you know me and my personality so well, please pontificate upon how you've gained such amazing insight into my personality and what I might do in that situation. I'm waiting to hear your brilliance on this one.
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby lights1961 » Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:01 am

Rockindeano wrote:I never called you a notveryprettyface, as you have been extremely kind to me.......however, I think the religious right is indeed dangerous and their agenda is scary. Look at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman and Sharron Angle and then get back to me if you're comfortable with them. They are scary bitches.


liberal left is more dangerous... starting with moveon.org...





R
Rick
lights1961
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5362
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:33 am

Postby BobbyinTN » Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:16 am

lights1961 wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:I never called you a notveryprettyface, as you have been extremely kind to me.......however, I think the religious right is indeed dangerous and their agenda is scary. Look at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman and Sharron Angle and then get back to me if you're comfortable with them. They are scary bitches.


liberal left is more dangerous... starting with moveon.org...





R


Liberals don't want to control people's lives. The Christian Reich in America are no better than the Taliban.
User avatar
BobbyinTN
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:12 am

Postby lights1961 » Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:33 am

BobbyinTN wrote:
lights1961 wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:I never called you a notveryprettyface, as you have been extremely kind to me.......however, I think the religious right is indeed dangerous and their agenda is scary. Look at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman and Sharron Angle and then get back to me if you're comfortable with them. They are scary bitches.


liberal left is more dangerous... starting with moveon.org...





R


Liberals don't want to control people's lives. The Christian Reich in America are no better than the Taliban.


thats just ignorant...

YES liberals do want to control our lives... what is GOVT REGULATION???? telling your business what type of car to build... what gas you can fill yoru ar with, what typye of house to build... nationalizing health care... WHERE you can live... what type of crop to farm, wow... you have no idea what liberalism is do you???
Rick
lights1961
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5362
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:33 am

Postby conversationpc » Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:08 am

BobbyinTN wrote:Liberals don't want to control people's lives. The Christian Reich in America are no better than the Taliban.


Boy, talk about people who disagree with you on gay marriage being a bigot. What a hypocrite.
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby Saint John » Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:18 am

BobbyinTN wrote:Liberals don't want to control people's lives.


They sure as fuck do ... and already do. It's called welfare, Bobby. The left recognized long ago that keeping people uneducated and government dependent will yield offspring of the like, and that will guarantee votes for not only life, but generations. Here's something for you to smile about, though; the last Republican/conservative president will here soon ... if at all. The good, hardworking, land-owning people that made this country great are simply not reproducing at the same rate that the inner-city, slum-dwelling/government housing/section 8 Mexicans and blacks are. And that's not to say that there's not white trash, because there is, but they're not as large as a percentage and they're not having kids at a rabbit's pace. The majority of this country's major cities resemble outdoor prisons. Just off the top of my head; Detroit, Dallas, Baltimore, LA, Miami, New Orleans and Philadelphia. The only service these cities offer is the set for the television show "Cops."
User avatar
Saint John
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 21723
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:31 pm
Location: Uranus

Postby Michigan Girl » Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:37 am

Saint John wrote:
BobbyinTN wrote:Liberals don't want to control people's lives.


They sure as fuck do ... and already do. It's called welfare, Bobby. The left recognized long ago that keeping people uneducated and government dependent will yield offspring of the like, and that will guarantee votes for not only life, but generations. Here's something for you to smile about, though; the last Republican/conservative president will here soon ... if at all. The good, hardworking, land-owning people that made this country great are simply not reproducing at the same rate that the inner-city, slum-dwelling/government housing/section 8 Mexicans and blacks are. And that's not to say that there's not white trash, because there is, but they're not as large as a percentage and they're not having kids at a rabbit's pace. The majority of this country's major cities resemble outdoor prisons. Just off the top of my head; Detroit, Dallas, Baltimore, LA, Miami, New Orleans and Philadelphia. The only service these cities offer is the set for the television show "Cops."


You need to dig deeper, I know there's more there!! You are talking about the slum areas and you'll find that in any city USA...I
haven't been to Philly or Miami in ages, but I spend large amounts of time in the above bolded cities, and not at the strip
clubs ...come out and enjoy the rest of what these cities have to offer ...don't be shy!! :wink:

The rest of the post is top notch!!
Michigan Girl
MP3
 
Posts: 13963
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:36 am

Postby RocknRoll » Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:41 am

Saint John wrote:
BobbyinTN wrote:Liberals don't want to control people's lives.


They sure as fuck do ... and already do. It's called welfare, Bobby. The left recognized long ago that keeping people uneducated and government dependent will yield offspring of the like, and that will guarantee votes for not only life, but generations. Here's something for you to smile about, though; the last Republican/conservative president will here soon ... if at all. The good, hardworking, land-owning people that made this country great are simply not reproducing at the same rate that the inner-city, slum-dwelling/government housing/section 8 Mexicans and blacks are. And that's not to say that there's not white trash, because there is, but they're not as large as a percentage and they're not having kids at a rabbit's pace. The majority of this country's major cities resemble outdoor prisons. Just off the top of my head; Detroit, Dallas, Baltimore, LA, Miami, New Orleans and Philadelphia. The only service these cities offer is the set for the television show "Cops."


Don't forget your hometown, where a 13 year old can be shot 22 times. I know there is hope out there but this really sucked!!
RocknRoll
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1707
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:46 am

Postby fredinator » Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:41 am

Asked my sis about HELLP while she was on her way to work--she said HELLP has to do with pre-eclampsia and asked what has that got to do with partial birth so she didn't say anything else about HELLP:

A 23-weeker is considered a viable fetus. Those deliveries--you have a neo there. If you're terribly sick and you have to deliver a pre-viable fetus, those questions go to the hospital ethics committee. It sounds like you all are confusing critically ill mothers in hospitals with those that are having 2nd trimester ab's in free-standing clinics. "I know of no HOSPITALS that would do a partial birth on a critically ill woman that has a viable fetus." She has seen fetuses where their heads have been pulled off accidentally because they were already dead and macerated. Is that what they mean by partial birth abortion? (She said no, don't put that, but I told her I was since maybe that's what people think it is.) She has seen no statistics on partial birth except being a procedure done on hydrocephalics and those are historical references. "Show me some numbers." She works in a Catholic hospital and the Catholic church recognizes those instances where babies that are pre-viable have to be delivered in order to save the mother's life.

She was a little irritated with the questions because she feels this is a non-issue in a hospital situation. If a woman goes to Planned Parenthood to deliver a baby and her life was in danger they might do one there but what woman in a dire situation would go to PP and not a hospital to deliver?

I quoted Dave's comment re: just pull the baby out and she got really irritated so I just dropped that comment since it wasn't worth discussing, lol.

She asked me, what forum are you on, lol? I told her and she said she was watching MTV the other day and saw a Journey video and said those guys sure wore their jeans up to their armpits didn't they?

Her last words before she went into work were there are things that are worse than death.
fredinator
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:30 pm

Postby Angel » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:02 am

Interestingly enough, Fredinator, you just said exactly what I've been saying all along. In a hospital situation where the mother's life is in danger you would deliver the baby-with the neonatologist present and hope for the best. There is no need to do a partial birth abortion to save the mother's life. Maybe you don't fully understand what a partial birth abortion is. In an abortion clinic where partial birth abortions are performed-a mother with a life threatening condition should not be having a procedure. There may be cases where a partial birth abortion is done in the hospital when the mother's life is in danger-but again, it is getting the baby out that saves the mother's life-not ending the baby's life intentionally that saves the mother's life.
User avatar
Angel
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:41 am

Postby fredinator » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:13 am

This is from Wiki:

"Since it was first coined in 1995 by pro-life congressman Charles T. Canady, the term "partial birth abortion" has been used in numerous state and federal bills and laws, although the legal definition of the term is not always the same. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act defines "partial-birth abortion" as follows:
“ An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531) ”

In the 2000 Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, a Nebraska law banning "partial-birth abortion" was ruled unconstitutional, in part because the language defining "partial-birth abortion" was deemed vague.[8] In 2006, the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart found that the 2003 act "departs in material ways" from the Nebraska law and that it pertains only to a specific abortion procedure, intact dilation and extraction.[2] Some commentators have noted that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act's language was carefully crafted to take into account previous rulings.[9] Although in most cases the procedure legally defined as "partial birth abortion" would be medically defined as "intact dilation and extraction", these overlapping terms do not always coincide. For example, the IDX procedure may be used to remove a deceased fetus (e.g. due to a miscarriage or feticide) that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction.[10] Removing a dead fetus does not meet the federal legal definition of "partial-birth abortion," which specifies that partial live delivery must precede "the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus."[11] Additionally, a doctor may extract a fetus past the navel and then "disarticulate at the neck", which could fall within the terms of the statute even though it would not result in an intact body and therefore would not be an intact dilation and extraction."

The way I read this is "partial-birth" is a vaguely defined term coined by a conservative legislator--that "partial-births" are performed when the fetus is dead. My sister gets irritated I guess because there really isn't such a thing other than "disarticulating the neck" and that evidently isn't covered by the law.
fredinator
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:30 pm

Postby fredinator » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:14 am

She was also saying that if there is a threat to the mother's life, they do other procedures to terminate the pregnancy and it is something that even the Catholic church is aware of and understands that it has to be done. They don't do "partial-birth" procedures.
fredinator
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:30 pm

Postby Angel » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:27 am

fredinator wrote:She was also saying that if there is a threat to the mother's life, they do other procedures to terminate the pregnancy and it is something that even the Catholic church is aware of and understands that it has to be done. They don't do "partial-birth" procedures.


Isn't this what I've been saying for like two days now??????????????????
User avatar
Angel
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:41 am

Postby RossValoryRocks » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:28 am

I don't think the government has the right to tell a woman not to have an abortion even though I find the whole abortion as a method of "birth control" thing disgusting, distrurbing, however the use of the term "fetus" dehumanizes the life that is being taken.

It's A BABY...a little innocent baby...call it what it is...and at least own up to the fact that an innocent human life is being taken.
User avatar
RossValoryRocks
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:47 pm

Postby fredinator » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:32 am

Angel wrote:Interestingly enough, Fredinator, you just said exactly what I've been saying all along. In a hospital situation where the mother's life is in danger you would deliver the baby-with the neonatologist present and hope for the best. There is no need to do a partial birth abortion to save the mother's life. Maybe you don't fully understand what a partial birth abortion is. In an abortion clinic where partial birth abortions are performed-a mother with a life threatening condition should not be having a procedure. There may be cases where a partial birth abortion is done in the hospital when the mother's life is in danger-but again, it is getting the baby out that saves the mother's life-not ending the baby's life intentionally that saves the mother's life.


Yeah, I guess you're kind of saying that here... I got a little confused about the whole freaking issue a day or so ago, lol. The gist to me is they don't do "partial-births" anywhere anymore so the first part of your post is moot. If you replaced the words "partial birth abortion" in the 2nd part of your post with injecting with potassium or whatever to save the mother's life then yeah I would agree with you.
fredinator
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:30 pm

Postby fredinator » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:35 am

Actually Natalie your post doesn't make any sense, lol.
fredinator
Cassette Tape
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:30 pm

Postby Angel » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:43 am

fredinator wrote:
Angel wrote:Interestingly enough, Fredinator, you just said exactly what I've been saying all along. In a hospital situation where the mother's life is in danger you would deliver the baby-with the neonatologist present and hope for the best. There is no need to do a partial birth abortion to save the mother's life. Maybe you don't fully understand what a partial birth abortion is. In an abortion clinic where partial birth abortions are performed-a mother with a life threatening condition should not be having a procedure. There may be cases where a partial birth abortion is done in the hospital when the mother's life is in danger-but again, it is getting the baby out that saves the mother's life-not ending the baby's life intentionally that saves the mother's life.


Yeah, I guess you're kind of saying that here... I got a little confused about the whole freaking issue a day or so ago, lol. The gist to me is they don't do "partial-births" anywhere anymore so the first part of your post is moot. If you replaced the words "partial birth abortion" in the 2nd part of your post with injecting with potassium or whatever to save the mother's life then yeah I would agree with you.


Injecting potassium has the same effect as partial birth abortion if the baby is viable-ends the baby's life unecessarily to save the life of the mother-when in reality it's just getting the baby out of there that saves the mother's life. I apologize that my post doesn't make sense-it would if you understood the issue.
User avatar
Angel
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3995
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests