Partial Birth Abortion

l really ride the pro choice/pro life fence, so l didn't vote, but pba's should be banned.

Pro-Choice and heinous.

Originally posted by stevielynn

. . . should have been phrased pro-choice or pro-life . .just to be fair. :-)

absolutely not. this implies that those who are pro-choice are anti-life.

Sunny you did it--you made the topic work Voted....good poll.

I haven't voted yet. What I'd like to know is, is there a place where a procedure like this would save the life of the mother?? As it stands, I would vote that it's heinous (and I am definitely pro-choice), but I'd like to know if I am not informed...

Anyone??

For those of us (including me) who are news deprived.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=455D208D-7F9B-478B-AE86CAE76CECC2F2

US Senate Approves Ban on 'Partial Birth Abortion'

Deborah Tate

Capitol Hill

13 Mar 2003, 17:27 UTC

The U.S. Senate has voted 65 to 32 to ban a controversial abortion procedure. The House of Representatives is expected to follow suit and President Bush says he will sign it into law.

A ban on so-called 'partial birth abortion' has been a priority for President Bush and Republicans who control Congress.

Mr. Bush immediately praised the vote as 'an important step toward building a culture of life in America'.

The legislation bans doctors from performing what the bill calls 'an overt act' to kill a partially-delivered fetus. It would apply to cases in which the entire head of the fetus is outside the mother, or in the case of breech of delivery, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the mother's body.

The bill includes an exemption in cases where the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.

"It is nice to see that the United States Senate, when it sees evil, will do something to stop evil," said Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who has been a leading supporter of the measure.

Opponents say the bill is unconstitutional.

"The proponents of this bill distort the law and the position of our side with inflammatory rhetoric, while advocating a bill that will not stop one single abortion," said Senator Ted Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat.

The Congress has been debating the issue since 1995. It twice passed a ban, but President Clinton vetoed it each time. Congress was poised to pass the ban again in 2000, but stopped short after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law that was similar to the proposed congressional ban.

Supporters of the new congressional measure say it addresses objections raised by the high court. Opponents disagree, and say they will launch a legal challenge.

Originally posted by kelligrl

I haven't voted yet. What I'd like to know is, is there a place where a procedure like this would save the life of the mother?? As it stands, I would vote that it's heinous (and I am definitely pro-choice), but I'd like to know if I am not informed...

Anyone??

I am with kelli -- I need to know more (I voted and chose "other"). And I don't trust the Senate; I'd like a MEDICAL opinion. :)

Originally posted by kelligrl

I haven't voted yet. What I'd like to know is, is there a place where a procedure like this would save the life of the mother?? As it stands, I would vote that it's heinous (and I am definitely pro-choice), but I'd like to know if I am not informed...

Anyone??

From my understanding, it would be "legal, in certain situations".

Pro-choice....ban

Originally posted by emily_mom

From my understanding, it would be "legal, in certain situations".

Pro-choice....ban

I think what many of us are wondering is what "certain situations" it would be legal in. And why other interventions couldn't be done.

Anyone know?

The fetus feels pain as early as the end of the first trimester. That pretty much decides the issue for me.

I guess the other thing is, for those who would allow PBA (or D&X, if you prefer a less politically charged term), why would a PBA ever be necessary to save the life or health of the mother? A Cesarean section accomplishes the same goal, right? At the very least, the baby would be allowed to die a good death, with adequate pain control.

Originally posted by sunnygirl272

absolutely not. this implies that those who are pro-choice are anti-life.

I agree. But, isn't that the reason for the "pro-life" moniker?

Isn't that their point, to make those of us whom are pro-choice appear that we must therfore be anti-life?

The same reasoning/tactics are behind why commercials for SUVs, gasoline/oil companies, etc., nearly always show scenes of nature and animals in their ads.

They want to associate their image with the environment, the very thing that they most harm.

Not trying to start any controversy or anything, not trying to change any opinions.

Just commenting.