Help the Choice Lobby in America (2 Viewers)

[stunning]

And for comedian Margaret Cho's viewpoint on all this condom-crazed genocidal
pathology spewing like so many wretched chunks from Vatican City ---- check
out her blog at http://www.margaretcho.com/blog/blog.htm. Look for the 10/10/03
posting on Abstinence. My that gal has a potty mouth!

!baggyyyy

 

[broken arm]

Re: last post shudda said

Ya, but they also spread lies about condoms not being effective against stds and so on. And the abstinance thing is patently bollocks - not even churchmen keep to it.

they may be working on the lines of information like this :

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992852

dont you feel secure.

 

[pete]

Re: last post shudda said

Senate passes 'partial birth' abortion ban

Court challenge certain

WASHINGTON (AP) --The Senate on Tuesday voted to ban the practice that critics call partial birth abortion, sending President Bush a measure that supporters and foes alike said could alter the future of U.S. abortion rights. A court challenge is certain.

Years in the making, the bill imposes the most far-reaching limits on abortion since the Supreme Court in 1973 confirmed a woman's right to end a pregnancy.

"This is an enormous day. It's been a long seven-year fight about the issue of partial birth abortion," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas. He was a leader of the drive to end abortions, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially delivered before being killed.

"This is indeed a historic day," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, lead opponent of the legislation, "because for the first time in history Congress is banning a medical procedure that is considered medically necessary by physicians."

The 64-34 vote came three weeks after the House passed the same measure by 281-142.

Bush had urged Congress to pass the ban, which Republicans had pursued since the GOP captured the House in 1995, and the president had said he would sign it into law.

But opponents said the first federal ban on abortion since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was unconstitutional and, like similar state laws, would be struck down.

The president, said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey "will become the first United States president to criminalize a safe medical procedure." Doctors who violate the ban would be subject to prison terms of up to two years.

The two sides differed widely on the frequency and definition of partial birth abortion, which is not a formal medical term.

The bill defines partial birth abortion as delivery of a fetus "until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus."

Opponents question goal

Opponents of the legislation argued that, as defined in the bill, it could apply to several safe and common procedures, and that the real goal of the legislation was to erode overall abortion rights.

"I see what this is about ... this is about politics," said Boxer. "I never dreamed I'd be down here with senators who think they know more than doctors."

But Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, chief sponsor of the bill, said the procedure was both inhumane and unnecessary. "We can't allow this kind of brutality to corrupt us. It makes a much more brutal and harsher country if we stand here and say, yes, for whatever reason, we are going to allow this to occur."

Several groups, including the National Abortion Federation and the Center for Reproductive Rights, plan to challenge the measure in court as soon as it is signed into law. "We will take this fight from the Capitol to the courtroom to safeguard the lives and health of women," said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Gloria Feldt said her group would seek an injunction preventing the legislation from taking effect.

A key focus will be the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in 2000 that a similar Nebraska law was unconstitutional because the definition of the practice was too vague -- making it unclear to doctors what procedures were illegal -- and didn't have an exception concerning risks to the health of the mother to go along with an exception for when the life of the mother was in danger.

Santorum argued that supporters had met those constitutional questions by tightening the definition and offering extensive findings that the procedure was never needed to protect the health of the mother.

President Clinton twice vetoed partial birth bills on the grounds that they did not include health exceptions.

Anti-abortion leaders said the coming court battle would have far-reaching ramifications.

"In 2000, five Supreme Court justices said that Roe v. Wade guaranteed the right of abortionists to perform partial-birth abortions whenever they see fit. But Congress is now inviting the Supreme Court to re-examine that extreme and inhumane decision," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.

 

[Wilbert]

There was a woman in England a few weeks ago, who had an abortion after the legal time-limit and her reason was that the child would be born with a cleft lip and palate.

here's the link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/4354469.stm

It's absolutely disgraceful. I am not anti-abortion necessarily. I would personally never insist on one or want one for a partner but I would not want to stop another responsible person from having it as an option.

I think Stunnings statements about how a man has no say in anything because it is not his body is outrageous and perhaps if you (stunning) were ever in a situation where a child you wanted was going to be aborted and you were told it was basically none of your business, you might feel differently.

You can't just say that women can have abortions for whatever reason they like and men had better just get used to the idea.

The woman in the link above should be in jail as should her doctors. Someone who has an abortion because of something like this is deranged.

People have to accept some responsibility for their actions.

There, I've said my piece. Now, bring it on!