Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban!

[snrsvdbygrc]

Vote was way too close though, might not be this way in a few years but at least it is something for now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266724,00.html

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

:godisgood::jesus::thumbs::1_grouphug:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

There's a stipulation about the woman's health, which is a pretty slippery slope, this sin't done, just yet. And the slim majority certainly is no reason to celebrate, yet.

 

[mnw]

Having seen pictures, diagrams and videos of these partial birth abortions I do not understand how anyone could think they are okay.

In the process of partially bringing the baby out they sometimes rip off limbs. But it gets worse, the baby is partially delivered, then has a hole punched in the back of the neck and then the brains are sucked out. The skull is then collapsed and the rest of the head removed.

How can any vote be less than 100% against such barbaric cruelty?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Having seen pictures, diagrams and videos of these partial birth abortions I do not understand how anyone could think they are okay.

In the process of partially bringing the baby out they sometimes rip off limbs. But it gets worse, the baby is partially delivered, then has a hole punched in the back of the neck and then the brains are sucked out. The skull is then collapsed and the rest of the head removed.

How can any vote be less than 100% against such barbaric cruelty?

There will be silence form the left on that one.

 

[Pastor Larry]

This is a good reminder why the 2004 election of Bush was critical to this issue of justices. With a President Kerry (or Gore), this vote would have gone the other way. It reminds us how imperative it is in 2008 because the next president will probably have at least two more appointees. Voting for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning will be nothing short of contributing to the murder of more children through the judicial process.

The abortion crowd understands how significant this was. I fear the right will not.

 

[KenH]

Voting for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning will be nothing short of contributing to the murder of more children through the judicial process.

That is not true. You have no moral authority to cast judgment on another person's vote. No one died and made you king. You don't even know how each person arrived at how he/she voted.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

That is not true. You have no moral authority to cast judgment on another person's vote. No one died and made you king. You don't even know how each person arrived at how he/she voted.

Good to see you, KenH. Hope you make a habit of showing up.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Voting for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning will be nothing short of contributing to the murder of more children through the judicial process.

I could not disagree more. I'm a little sick of hearing the GOP is the anti-abortion party, too much evidence to the contrary.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

There's a stipulation about the woman's health, which is a pretty slippery slope, this sin't done, just yet. And the slim majority certainly is no reason to celebrate, yet.

NBC reproted to the contrary tonight.

 

[DeeJay]

Having seen pictures, diagrams and videos of these partial birth abortions I do not understand how anyone could think they are okay.

In the process of partially bringing the baby out they sometimes rip off limbs. But it gets worse, the baby is partially delivered, then has a hole punched in the back of the neck and then the brains are sucked out. The skull is then collapsed and the rest of the head removed.

How can any vote be less than 100% against such barbaric cruelty?

I agree, but the only difference I see between partial birth abortions and other abortions is that somebody has to see the baby being killed.

All abortions are just as barbaric the only difference is that the Dr. can kill the baby without looking at it. The same thing is happening to the baby.

 

[mnw]

You're right DeeJay, any abortion at any stage is murder and morally and spirtually wrong.

 

[Pastor Larry]

That is not true. You have no moral authority to cast judgment on another person's vote. No one died and made you king. You don't even know how each person arrived at how he/she voted.

How can I respond to someone who is not posting here??? Is this yet another case of Ken changing his mind???? (You know you set yourself up for that, my friend).

But to the point, I have not assumed moral authority, and I have casted no judgment. How someone arrived at a voted is irrelevant. I made a statement about outcome. If the outcome of the 2000 or 2004 election had been different, this vote yesterday goes the other way, and continues the murder of the innocent. Because some conservatives had the common sense to vote for someone imperfect, we now have for the first time in 30 years a nationwide restriction on abortion. And those who voted for a third party candidate with no chance of winning did not help. Had it not been for Ross Perot in 92, this may have happened 10 years ago.

As for the Republican being the anti-abortion party, they are grossly weak and ineffective. They have done far too little to stop it. But they have done more than the Democrats have done. And right now, that is the only choice.

My recommendation is that those who are concerned should work hard for a third party in the runups to the election, but if their candidate does not win, vote the better of the candidates that can win.

At some point, principles have to be more important than politics. And the principle of getting the best possible guy in office (emphasis on possible ... let's face it, in 2000 and 2004 it was not possible to get a 3rd party guy in), must take precedence over the politics of trying to get a national third party.

 

[snrsvdbygrc]

There will be silence form the left on that one.

I don't think the left will stay silent, with the main stream press on their side they are even more embolden. I posted the subject and verbatum subject on a liberal secular board and here was the first reponse:

Women whose life and/or fertility are compromised by a doomed pregnancy can no longer receive appropriate care.

This is an interesting summary of the now-banned procedure, from Canada:

A very small number of abortions occur after 20 weeks of gestation primarily because the fetus is gravely or fatally impaired, or the woman's life or physical health is at risk, or both (Statistics Canada, Therapeutic Abortions, 1995). Many impairments or health risks are not detectable until after the 24th week of gestation. In 1998 an American Doctor, George Tiller, opposed efforts to ban late term abortions in Kansas, using "statistics and photos of catastrophic pregnancies he had aborted." The images showed fetuses with missing skulls or spinal cords, and in one case twins fused into a single body (Dave Ranney, "Tiller: Abortion Bill an Insult to Women," Wichita Eagle, April 11, 1998, and Colleen McCain and Dave Ranney, "Five Kansas Families share Deeply Personal Stories," Wichita Eagle, April 19, 1998).
Those opposed to abortion rights have portrayed women as having late term abortions out of "selfish convenience" or because they "suddenly can't get into a bathing suit." This misrepresentation of women’s decision making with regard to abortion is always inaccurate, but especially so in cases of late term abortion. Most women who terminate their pregnancies after 20 weeks wanted to have a child, and were forced to consider abortion for medical reasons. Other women may be in desperate social circumstances, such as an abusive relationship, or they may be very young teenagers who have delayed abortion care because they were in denial about the pregnancy.

​

Those would-be parents in Kansas who shared their painful, sad stories... tell them it's a good day, would you?
There is another aspect I find troubling. The conservatives, those zealots who love to compain about ACTIVIST JUDGES (remember that from the Schiavo debacle?). Read the text of the majority decision: do they refer to Obstetrician/Gynocologists? No, they refer to "abortion doctors." Tell me, honestly, does anyone find that anything less than completely politically motivated?
Women, say goodbye to self-determination and privacy. Now that we're over the slippery slope, you can look forward to losing your birth control options, one by one. Pretty soon, the government will be forcing you to track your menstrual periods and consume folic acid. Think I'm alarmist? Take a look at the guys Bush keeps on trying to put at the top of the FDA.
Oh - and all the "pro-choice" politicians who voted for cloture on Alito? You can bet your pro-choice constituents will remember and hold you responsible for this day.

As you can see, those on the far left are just frothing at the mouth over this.

 

[Ralph III]

Having seen pictures, diagrams and videos of these partial birth abortions I do not understand how anyone could think they are okay.

In the process of partially bringing the baby out they sometimes rip off limbs. But it gets worse, the baby is partially delivered, then has a hole punched in the back of the neck and then the brains are sucked out. The skull is then collapsed and the rest of the head removed.

How can any vote be less than 100% against such barbaric cruelty?

Hillary Clinton and a few other Democrats came right out, after this was handed down, to condemn this ruling. So there are those who have no problem with partial birth abortion. What a Crime! I understand the Supreme Court opinions included "specific" and horrendous examples in this decision.

A mothers health was the main reason abortion advocates argued in keeping partial birth abortion. Yet, as noted yesterday by a Senator on the Shawn Hannity show; it was found that 95+ % of 500,000 late term abortions performed, were performed on a healthy mother and healthy child. I think this number was given for a one year period but that would have to be confirmed.


The overall consensus of the Medical community is that late term abortion is never necessary in saving the mother's life. Every year this debate arises and arguments occur from those as Hillary Clinton; the senator asks them to give any example's where late term was necessary in saving the mothers life of which they are unable.

Hurray for the Supreme Court on this one!:jesus: :godisgood: :applause: :applause:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The right to pull a baby half way out & stick a chisel into his or her brain. I definately do not see how a Christian could support this. I'm almost crying typing it. What horror !!!!


Remember, children have gone home healthy after only 22 weeks in the womb.

 

[saturneptune]

The right to pull a baby half way out & stick a chisel into his or her brain. I definately do not see how a Christian could support this. I'm almost crying typing it. What horror !!!!


Remember, children have gone home healthy after only 22 weeks in the womb.

This in my mind is the number one moral issue. It is pure murder, nothing else. This is just an extreme form of it. It is easier for me to deal with any other moral issue than this.

For some of the posters above, who give credience to the stench that Bush and his hoard of republican buddies have created on the issue of abortion, is pathetic.
As usual, there was no leadership on the issue.

What is this, some kind of contest. That is to say, well Bush is better because during his term 8 million babies died compared to 11 million for Clinton. Is that the high standard we use to give this POTUS a pass on this issue?

You know, it is time that we all stood tall, vote for a man or woman (whatever party, 3rd most likely) who has no compromise or lack of determination about this subject. If you dont think the stench from the republicans on this reaches a Holy God, then make an appointment with the brain doctor for an examination. If we vote and lose, then we vote an lose. Never again a vote for the likes of what we have now, one without a spine.

 

[DeeJay]

This in my mind is the number one moral issue. It is pure murder, nothing else. This is just an extreme form of it. It is easier for me to deal with any other moral issue than this.

I agree

For some of the posters above, who give credience to the stench that Bush and his hoard of republican buddies have created on the issue of abortion, is pathetic.
As usual, there was no leadership on the issue.

I see what you are saying. I would prefer a prez that stood up and made the total ban on abortion his number one priority. A prez who spoke of banning this crime during every speech.

However, like Bush or not, like his policies or not. He does get some credit for nominating Supreme Court Justices that will stand up and ban at least this one type of abortion. Maybe this is a start. Bush gets credit in my book for choosing good Justices.

What is this, some kind of contest. That is to say, well Bush is better because during his term 8 million babies died compared to 11 million for Clinton. Is that the high standard we use to give this POTUS a pass on this issue?

Not a contest. Like I said, I would prefer an out right ban. But it is something.

You know, it is time that we all stood tall, vote for a man or woman (whatever party, 3rd most likely) who has no compromise or lack of determination about this subject. If you dont think the stench from the republicans and democrats and American public who let it continue on this reaches a Holy God, then make an appointment with the brain doctor for an examination. If we vote and lose, then we vote an lose. Never again a vote for the likes of what we have now, one without a spine.

Absolutly :thumbs:

I added words in red.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

As usual, there was no leadership on the issue.

AMEN!!!!!!!

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I don't think the left will stay silent, with the main stream press on their side they are even more embolden. I posted the subject and verbatum subject on a liberal secular board and here was the first reponse:

Women whose life and/or fertility are compromised by a doomed pregnancy can no longer receive appropriate care.

This is an interesting summary of the now-banned procedure, from Canada:

A very small number of abortions occur after 20 weeks of gestation primarily because the fetus is gravely or fatally impaired, or the woman's life or physical health is at risk, or both (Statistics Canada, Therapeutic Abortions, 1995). Many impairments or health risks are not detectable until after the 24th week of gestation. In 1998 an American Doctor, George Tiller, opposed efforts to ban late term abortions in Kansas, using "statistics and photos of catastrophic pregnancies he had aborted." The images showed fetuses with missing skulls or spinal cords, and in one case twins fused into a single body (Dave Ranney, "Tiller: Abortion Bill an Insult to Women," Wichita Eagle, April 11, 1998, and Colleen McCain and Dave Ranney, "Five Kansas Families share Deeply Personal Stories," Wichita Eagle, April 19, 1998).
Those opposed to abortion rights have portrayed women as having late term abortions out of "selfish convenience" or because they "suddenly can't get into a bathing suit." This misrepresentation of women’s decision making with regard to abortion is always inaccurate, but especially so in cases of late term abortion. Most women who terminate their pregnancies after 20 weeks wanted to have a child, and were forced to consider abortion for medical reasons. Other women may be in desperate social circumstances, such as an abusive relationship, or they may be very young teenagers who have delayed abortion care because they were in denial about the pregnancy.

​

Those would-be parents in Kansas who shared their painful, sad stories... tell them it's a good day, would you?
There is another aspect I find troubling. The conservatives, those zealots who love to compain about ACTIVIST JUDGES (remember that from the Schiavo debacle?). Read the text of the majority decision: do they refer to Obstetrician/Gynocologists? No, they refer to "abortion doctors." Tell me, honestly, does anyone find that anything less than completely politically motivated?
Women, say goodbye to self-determination and privacy. Now that we're over the slippery slope, you can look forward to losing your birth control options, one by one. Pretty soon, the government will be forcing you to track your menstrual periods and consume folic acid. Think I'm alarmist? Take a look at the guys Bush keeps on trying to put at the top of the FDA.
Oh - and all the "pro-choice" politicians who voted for cloture on Alito? You can bet your pro-choice constituents will remember and hold you responsible for this day.

As you can see, those on the far left are just frothing at the mouth over this.

I was talking about the left that participates on this board.