Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban...

I am amazed that the media always refuse to this brutal murder as "as a certain type of abortion" never saying what it really is. Why do they never describe a "partial birth abortion?" We all know why, people would be horrified.

I fear that the judiciary will once again support the senseless murder of innocent children and court injunctions will stop enforcement.

 

"at last" it's been addressed he says, hoping that he doesn't have to deal with the "abortion issue" again.

And with that, he washes his hands and expects your vote.

Meanwhile, the slaughter continues, 3500+ babies per day.

 

Jim,

If this is no big deal, then why is Planned Parenthood filing lawsuits to stop the new law to any liberal judge who will listen to them? Why are the Liberals going absolutely nuts saying things like if Bush can do this with the stroke of a pen, what else can he do and if Bush is re-elected next year, that will be the end of a woman's right to choose? Do they know something you don't?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Jim, it's a step. The American people aren't going to go for it being banned outright immediately.
As far as how many it will help, I think I recall a statement from you before saying partial birth abortion doesn't happen. When I get time I'm going to see if I can find an article I wrote on it about two years ago. There was a murderer here in Ohio who told the truth about it and how many he himself had performed in his clinic.
Gina

 

Do you know the mind and heart of this man? I do not believe he has washed his hands on the abortion issue. </font>[/QUOTE]

I don't know his mind and heart. You say that you do not believe he has washed his hands of the issue, so apparently you do.

I'm just going by what I DON'T hear him saying.

Something like "This is a very small step and we must continue to work until all unborn babies have the protections afforded the rest of us".

That's what I would expect from a top political leader whose heart was vexed by this horrible injustice and slaughter, with 3500 due to be killed today.

So, other presidents are the standard??

Your priveledge.

I'm not upset. I'm just pointing out that there is a HUGE danger here. And that is that pro-lifers will get all giddy about this EXTREMELY small improvement (yes, it's good if it saves one life) and allow politicians to use it as a ticket to their votes, many having no intention of doing anything effective to stop the killiing that continues at the rate of 3500+ per day.

 

Joseph, go ahead and elect Bush next year and see. Send me a check for $1000 if he doesn't do it.

As to your other question:

There are several possibilities, and I think it is likely a combination of all of them.

1. PBA is cheaper and easier at that stage of development. And I'm sure that you know that the abortion industry is largely about money, at least to the killers who run it.
2. They are simply mistaken that it will curb abortions. It happens on both sides of the political spectrum all the time. F'rinstance, look how many Christians think that Bush is a conservative.

3. They are taking a hard line stand, knowing that it is at least a symbolic issue and are unwillling to accept anything at all that they perceive as an encroachment.

4. They are bloodthirsty killers and through pure hatred actually consider the procedure to be a symbol of what they stand for. This of course would be a small minority.


Lastly, I could be wrong.

But, again, the biggest danger that I see here (please, please, PLEASE, get this point is that this will be used by politicians to gain votes, get re-elected, and continue to follow their path of least resistance to their big pensions. While the clock ticks and babies die at the rate of 3500+ per day. We need representatives who are willing to STOP IT!

Re-electing politicians who do not intned ACTION NOT CAMPAIGN RHETORIC is condemning countless little ones. I hope you can see this.

 

With the Roman Catholic view of abortion one would hope that the very, high majority of Catholic Democrats would cast the ballot for President George W. Bush, just because of the moral and life question. We will see how this plays out.

 

Gina,

Please, I never said that it didn't happen. I know that it does.

The same babies will likely be killed now with other "more acceptable" methods.

But that's OK with politicians who will skate to a pro-life victory with this vote on their records.

I think I remember seeing your article last year. You don't need to convince me, but if it's the one I remember it was excellent and worth posting again.

 

Ok, the light of understanding just went off. I didn't understand the bill. I assumed that it meant late term abortion and not just the method of late term abortion.
Guess it's back to saline poisoning...
Wow. Can't believe I didn't get that...wonder how many others thought the same thing?
Gina

 

&gt;&gt;I'm not upset. I'm just pointing out that there is a HUGE danger here. And that is that pro-lifers will get all giddy about this EXTREMELY small improvement (yes, it's good if it saves one life) and allow politicians to use it as a ticket to their votes, many having no intention of doing anything effective to stop the killiing that continues at the rate of 3500+ per day.&lt;&lt;

The way I look at is this.

God made the earth, and everything in it. He formed man and woman from man. He knew they would sin. He knew the whole world's population would be born into sin. Yet, he still sent His only son to die on a cross for our sins. He knew some would accept Christ, and that some would reject Him. But God still sent Christ.

PBA ban is an "EXTREMELY small improvement".

Comparing the population of the earth and the amount of sin in the world, one person coming to Christ is an "EXTREMELY small improvement", yet Christ was stil sent for that one person.

Because it is only an "EXTREMELY small improvement", should we do nothing?

 

Joseph, go ahead and elect Bush next year and see. Send me a check for $1000 if he doesn't do it. </font>[/QUOTE]Now why would I do that when I could put that money in my son's college fund?

As to your other question:

There are several possibilities, and I think it is likely a combination of all of them.

1. PBA is cheaper and easier at that stage of development. And I'm sure that you know that the abortion industry is largely about money, at least to the killers who run it.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. A little bit of economics here. If this procedure is cheaper and it is all about money, wouldn't there be more of these occurring than the more expensive methods. This would seem to contradict your earlier claim that this is not used enough to make this change relevant, wouldn't it?

2. They are simply mistaken that it will curb abortions. It happens on both sides of the political spectrum all the time. F'rinstance, look how many Christians think that Bush is a conservative.[/QUOTE]

I am not sure how many Christians think Bush is a conservative. I think many of us think he more conservative than Clinton, Gore, or Clark. He certainly isn't a Ronald Reagan. But, there are some good aspects about him. You would have us believe that there is no difference whatsoever between him and Clinton, Gore, or Clark. I disagree. Name one of those guys who would ever pass a ban on any type of Abortion. As a matter of fact, I think they would be willing to advance the pro-death agenda even further instead of taking any steps to curve it.

3. They are taking a hard line stand, knowing that it is at least a symbolic issue and are unwillling to accept anything at all that they perceive as an encroachment.[/QUOTE]

Or, maybe they understand the politics of gradual change. Maybe they understand the concept of the frog in the kettle since they have used these concepts in their favor for decades to erode the moral values of America.

4. They are bloodthirsty killers and through pure hatred actually consider the procedure to be a symbol of what they stand for. This of course would be a small minority.[/QUOTE]

Can't argue there.

Lastly, I could be wrong.

But, again, the biggest danger that I see here (please, please, PLEASE, get this point is that this will be used by politicians to gain votes, get re-elected, and continue to follow their path of least resistance to their big pensions.[/QUOTE]

I am guessing that even if Bush were a one term president, he would have enough money to live a very nice life for the next three generations of his family with his oil ties, Governor's pension, book deals, lecture circuit, etc...

While the clock ticks and babies die at the rate of 3500+ per day. We need representatives who are willing to STOP IT![/QUOTE]

Are you absolutely positive you don't already have that? We didn't get to where we are morally in this country overnight and we are not going to get back to where we want to be overnight without a major violent uprising. Is that what you want?

Re-electing politicians who do not intned ACTION NOT CAMPAIGN RHETORIC is condemning countless little ones. I hope you can see this. [/QUOTE]

Casting a vote for someone who can't win and thereby allowing pro-death candidates to win is condemning even more countless little ones as Clark or any one of the Democrats will immediately repeal the ban and will then continue to further the pro-death campaign from there. That won't be the end for them, it will only be the start. I hope you can see this.

Joseph Botwinick

 

It is amazing to me that one judge in more powerful than Congress and the President.

 

The power of the judiciary might be a good topic for another thread.

I am no big fan of President Bush, but am sad that some find a way of turning threads into an attack on him. I applaud him for this step in the right direction.

 

Sorry, I double posted unintentionally,

 

Uh Oh. I just noticed this is a Baptist Only Forum - Sorry - Forum Leader, feel free to delete.

I believe it was 1993 that I became a Precinct Committee Officer in my area, I was so enraged as WA state came forward with the absolute WORST abortion laws in the country at that time. The law on the ballot at that time was IN SMALL PRINT "That two Dr's must both agree in writing that active labor has begun, for any woman in the state of WA to be denied a state paid abortion conducted in the state of WA"

I called strangers, I talked to people everywhere I could, and it still passed. My heart was broken and I cried my eyes out. When I asked people afterward how they could have voted for such a thing, people told me they didn't beleive that women would actually HAVE an abortion that late in a pregnancy, and they believed the rhetoric put out by the pro-humanism side, that to vote against it would take away from a womans right to choose.

I think that ANY LITTLE THING that takes away any little piece of a womans right to end the life of her precious baby should be applauded.