USAToday Article

The house and senate both passed a bill banning partial birth abortions that President Bush is expected to sign. A court battle is expected to be looming over this.

My take...
I am pro-life...but support Roe v. Wade. If abortion iin whole is made illegal there is no way to regulate it and to think abortions will stop is assinine. But to abort a baby right before you give birth to it is as close to murder as it comes. Scott Peterson is even facing a murder charge for the death of his unborn son Connor...but it is alright to abort(kill) a baby by going to a doctor. Abortion itself is wrong...but anything outside the first trimester should be illegal and considered murder!

 

I agree. Roe v Wade was a good precedent, albeit one that is being chipped away at more and more. Partial birth abortions are horiffic...like you said, anything after the first trimester is just plain wrong.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments about partial birth abortions - no need to add more there. However, and I don't mean to take this off-topic, but I happened to catch part of a discussion about what would happen if Roe v. Wade was repealed. I thought I heard that if it were repealed, abortions (or the legislation of them) would then fall to individual states. Have you heard anything similar to this? Just curious, as I am not trying to hijack your thread. Regards.

 

David,

I believe if Roe v. Wade is repealed the decision would then become up to the states. Repealing Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal...just there is no longer a federal law making it legal. If there was a federal law that banned all abortions then there is nothing the states can do but to follow it. State laws have to fall within federal laws...although there are loopholes, ie. marijuana.

 

Yes, since the decision was up to the states before Roe v Wade made abortion federally legal :-)

 

The problem with this bill is that the only exception included is if the mother will die without the abortion. In its current form, the bill would mean that if a mother's health will be significantly negatively affected but she's not going to die, there's nothing that allows her get recourse and she is forced to have the baby. This stipulation was intentionally left out because the pro-lifers feel it could be exploited by "evil" abortion-providing doctors that would say the mother faces significant harm to her mental health even when it's not true just so they can go and kill another baby for some unknown motivation. The reason the last two partial-birth abortion bills were vetoed by Clinton was because they too lacked a "significant harm to the mother's health" exception.

Also, "partial birth abortion" is not an actual medical term and in this legislation is only very loosely defined. There are techniques such as dilation and extraction which would supposedly fall under the "partial birth abortion" classification, but the politicians should really stick to the medical definitions if they're going to try and regulate medical procedures.

Finally, when it comes to complications from pregnancy there are no absolutes. Just because the woman makes it past the first or second trimester doesn't mean that she's out of harm's way and doesn't still stand a chance to either die or be significantly harmed from not aborting the pregnancy. While abortion may be squeamish, the government cannot go about restricting the ability for doctors to provide legitimate medical care that could either save the life of the mother or save her from severe health problems. If Bush signs this bill into law that's exactly what will happen.

 

.... people should have the right to choose, period. You can preach pro-life all day long... but when it comes down to it, NO ONE should be able to interfere with the decision of the mother.

Although I do think these partial-birth abortions are, well... not quite right. I wouldn't do it, but to each their own.

 

I will fight 120% for the father to interfere...that baby is just as much his as it is hers. If the roles were reversed and the father did not want the baby and the mother did he could not force her to have an abortion...but he would pay child support! Who says the mother has the right to get an abortion because she does not want the baby while the father is the one that wants to keep the unborn child...can the father prevent her from getting an abortion?

And this thread is not for/against abortion...only certain types of abortions...the ones after the first trimester. Although I am anti-abortion I do support a womans right to choose so that abortions are done clean and safe but most of all regulated. If you outlaw abortions entirely you will start having back-alley and coat hanger abortions which are not good. Still though to be able to abort a baby right before it is born is murder...same reason Scott Peterson is facing murder charges in the death of his unborn son.

 

werd to mamas makin choices

 

VERY RARELY (if at all) is the mother ever in this kind of danger.. definitely not enough to warrant the horror that is partial birth abortion. the whole "it's for the safety of the mother" argument is just inaccurate pro-choice dogma. especially since many mothers suffer severe mental anguish after having undergone an abortion. and we all know that the vast majority of abortions are to halt unplanned or unwanted pregnancies, not to "save a mother's life".

twist it around and sugar it up any way you want, it still doesn't make tearing an unborn baby out of a mother's womb "legitimate medical care".