|
lightshineon -> RE: Babies are Punishment (4/3/2008 2:34:01 PM)
|
you know that is the sad part of it. It seems the two or three, which I do not understand, because even if the baby is hydropalic, C-sections could be done, shunt in the brain. There is not that many conditions I could think of ( which I am no doctor) could harm the mom. I appreciate your kind reply though.[:)] I am just wondering what is the greater evil on the abortion side, two or three, if proven? Or thousands and Thousands. Thanks again[:)]
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
Well WIC is a good thing, a really good thing, of all programs to cut, I hope not that one. That is a different issue than abortion, and especially partial birth abortion. How could anyone do that? seriously? Is anyone fimilar how this procedure is done? I think BO should have to watch one. I heard a quote that went something like this. " Funny those who are pro-choice, are already born." Maybe not excactly the quote, but it makes sense.
A pregnancy with complications can be a very frightening thing. For example, if a baby has hydrocephalus, there sometimes may be no alternative to partial-birth abortion for anyone to walk away alive.
Oftentimes, a partial-birth-abortion is necessary to save the mother's life or prevent severe damage to the mother's long-term health.
I don't think any Democrat would like to see more partial-birth abortions- or any abortions for the matter. The reason that so many Democrats voted against the bill was because they were afraid it was unconstitutional. A few years before the PBA ban, the Supreme Court ruled Nebraska's ban unconstitutional because it didn't provide an exemption for the health of the mother. Democrats wanted to vote for a bill that would have provided an exemption for the mother's long-term health, which would have let the bill pass constitutional muster. Instead of passing a law that would actually help prevent this form of abortion, Congress decided to turn this into a political issue, and the powers that be decided to bring a bill that only exempted the mother's life to the floor.
Congress could have done the right thing by just passing a clean bill quickly and easily. Instead, it had to worry about the rare woman or two who would try and have this procedure to protect her long term health. As a result, we've been dragged through the whole legal process of finding out whether it's constitutional to not to prevent the two or three women every year who need the procedure for health reasons from having them, in addition to the 1000 or so who do so for other reasons.
|
|
|
|