Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban!

I think you might be surprised that some of the "left" on this board, (namely me), cannot be fit into some neat little ideological box. My political beliefs and convictions run the gamut of the political spectrum. Each issue is looked at separately and certainly not as conforming to any particular political ideology.

I do not support abortion, especially partial birth abortion, unless it is medically neccessary. I do believe that some women would not feel the need to seek out an abortion if they had help dealing with other circumstances in their lives before it reaches this point, i.e., abusive partner, incest, etc. Some women, not all, seek an abortion out of sheer desperation and feeling backed into a corner with no real options.

 

My feeling is 90% of abortions, probably more, are done for convenience.

 

That's not principle, that's compromise. Principle is voting for the person that you think will make the best officeholder and leaving the results in God's hands.

Don't worry, PL. I'm not really here. This is just some drive-by posting I am doing.

 

Political persuasion in general can not be fit into a neat little box. Left to Right it is on a line. Some more conservative or liberal then others depending where you fit on the line.

On top of that you can be a social conservative and a fiscal liberal. Or vice versa.

I suspect Social moderate (leaning conservative) and fiscal liberal is the neat little box you fit into Filmproducer. Correct me if I am wrong.

Its not that you can not fit people into political neat little boxes. Its just that you need more boxes then the two.

 

What kind of medical emergency legitimizes murder?

 

I think your position is abject compromise. You are willing to compromise the future of the nation you say you love so you can satisfy your own desires and ambitions to start a third party. I think that is total compromise. And it affects more than just you.

That's a relief. For a minute, I thought you were actually posting

 

Sorry Deejay, but you're not correct. On most social issues I would probably be considered a social liberal, it really and truly depends. Fiscally it depends on the issue, once again, but you're probably more accurate. This is not even taking domestic v. international issues into account.

I do agree that there needs to be more than two boxes.

 

Partial Birth abortion is neve medically necessary. As is proven since there is no provision with this ban for the "health" (which is loosely defined) of the woman. How in the world can anyone think that delivering a child all but the head, inserting a tube in the back of the skull and sucking out the brains could ever be "medically necessary". They can't.

 

Well, I'm not a doctor, so I am not going to pretend to know. If it is deemed medically neccessary to save the mother's life then, imo, abortion should be an option open for the family to decide. I would never terminate in such a circumstance, but I am not willing to make that decision for another human being.

 

If you note, I never said it was.

 

Here we go again. You should reread your post # 21 let me quote it for you:

Please "note" the words in black. Or did I once again "misunderstand" your words.

 

I don't really want to comment on your statement...

I just want to say, you are the most conservative liberal I have ever met!
:wavey: are you sure you are a liberal?:laugh: :thumbs:

 

There is nothing "conservative" about that statement.

 

Let me clarify. I meant in general. I was not arguing that there have been, or will be, cases where a partial birth abortion has been/would be medically necessary.

 

:laugh:

I'm pretty sure I am being misunderstood. I am not pro-choice. IMO the only time it should ever be an "option" is when the mother's life is in serious danger, i.e. death. I don't even know when that would happen, but in those rare instances where it is true I will not fault the family for considering it.

 

By allowing that "option" you are making the decision for someone else, namely someone who cannot defend themselves. Given the medical advances, caesearean deliveries, and the likes, it seems that most doctors agree that there are no circumstances in which a PBA is necessary. Think about it. A PBA delivers the baby, and then kills it. How does that save the life of the mother in a way that letting the baby live would not? I don't think it takes a doctor to figure that out.

 

For Pete's sake, in the post just above I clarified what I meant. I am not arguing for partial birth abortion. By medically necessary I meant the mother's life is in danger, i.e., death, NOTHING else. I also said I don't know if or when this is ever the case.

 

Some stats might help:

64% of abortions in the USA involve the mother being coerced. It may be by the parents of the expecting mother, the boyfriend, husband, employer, peer pressure etc.

Less than 1% of abortions are due to health threats to the mother. One USA Surgeon General, Dr. Everett Koop, said in 38 years he had never personally seen a case.

Abortions in the case of saving the mother's life is something of a smoke screen that pro-choicers often use. (Not saying any one here is pro-choice)

 

the problem with this idea is that the word "health" wiht regards to women and abortion includes the mental health. so if the woman is put under stress to have the bably then by the legal definition the baby can be aborted. By legal definition stress makes it medically necessary. This is why the option for the womans health was not included in the PBA Ban.

 

Which is really sad, (the definition of health). When I say medically necessary I mean serious life threatening issues, nothing else. The term health is so deceiving as well, because many people do not know that it defined so broadly. This is how so many pro-choice groups are able to garner more support for themselves. It would be possible to change the course of abortion in this country if judges would stand up and narrowly define "medically necessary" and "health".