That is the whole point when you work to have YOUR/MY morals legislated.

 

If we can't all agree on when LIFE begins, and we can't, then you let the Doctor and her patient make the call, otherwise YOU (the general you) need to be ready to step in and make all of my medical decisions.

 

That worked so well with Terry Schiavo.

 

Yes but each doctor and patient will have a very different interpretations. I don't need to make all of your medical decisions, and I largely don't care, but there is a line somewhere.

Yes but each doctor and patient will have a very different interpretations. I don't need to make all of your medical decisions, and I largely don't care, but there is a line somewhere.

 

Why does there have to be a line somewhere? If DNX is a sin, won't God take care of that?

While it's a step in the right direction, it's not really going to have a major impact IMO. Partial birth abortion is gone, but abortion is still out being done all over the country.

Why does there have to be a line somewhere? If DNX is a sin, won't God take care of that?

 

I'm sure he will, but that is irrelevant here, for me at least. I feel like the government has at least a remote responsibility for protecting its citizens, whether they are a partially-born baby or a grown person.

The point is the disagreement on who the citizen is. You say it is a citizen in the womb, others say it is not.

 

As long as this is the disagreement you can't create good law.

The point is the disagreement on who the citizen is. You say it is a citizen in the womb, others say it is not.

 

As long as this is the disagreement you can't create good law.

 

 

The thing is, there's disagreement on everything. Most of which is for the sole purpose of just disagreeing. So with that theory there wouldn't be any law and we'd be living in anarchy.

The scariest part of this whole thing (outside of your moral beliefs) is that now the supreme court has decided that a medical procedure performed in the privacy of a doctor's office with the consent of the patient is illegal. What a slippery slope we follow.

 

I am opposed to transplants on moral grounds (not really) but I begin working to ban the procedure based on my moral convictions . . . I work to elect a president who is also against transplants . . . she gets elected and appoints supreme court justices that agree with her positions.

 

Transplants are now banned.

 

See how scary the possibility is . . .

Oh come on Ace! Your comparison is just silly. If you've done any research at all on the DNX procedure, then you know that there is absolutely NO medical reason to perform the procedure. If a mother's life is in danger, then an emergency Caesarean makes much more sense. Either way, the fetus is usually viable outside the womb when the DNX is perfomed. The doctor and patient just choose to make sure it doesn't finish the birthing process alive. Cut out one little step, you know the part where the doctor stabs the baby in the back of the head with scissors and vaccums its brains out?, and you have a new human life.

Why does there have to be a line somewhere? If DNX is a sin, won't God take care of that?

This reminds me of the old axiom..'kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.' There has to be a line somewhere!!!

While it's a step in the right direction, it's not really going to have a major impact IMO. Partial birth abortion is gone, but abortion is still out being done all over the country.

 

And they will continue to be performed as long as the RNC has its way. God forbid they'd lose their No. 1 wedge issue.

Oh come on Ace! Your comparison is just silly. If you've done any research at all on the DNX procedure, then you know that there is absolutely NO medical reason to perform the procedure. If a mother's life is in danger, then an emergency Caesarean makes much more sense. Either way, the fetus is usually viable outside the womb when the DNX is perfomed. The doctor and patient just choose to make sure it doesn't finish the birthing process alive. Cut out one little step, you know the part where the doctor stabs the baby in the back of the head with scissors and vaccums its brains out?, and you have a new human life.

 

 

How anyone could support partial birth abortion is beyond me...

How anyone could support partial birth abortion is beyond me...

 

:thumb: :thumb:

 

I can understand the arguement for "normal" abortion, but partial birth is flat out murder IMO.

Oh come on Ace! Your comparison is just silly. If you've done any research at all on the DNX procedure, then you know that there is absolutely NO medical reason to perform the procedure. If a mother's life is in danger, then an emergency Caesarean makes much more sense. Either way, the fetus is usually viable outside the womb when the DNX is perfomed. The doctor and patient just choose to make sure it doesn't finish the birthing process alive. Cut out one little step, you know the part where the doctor stabs the baby in the back of the head with scissors and vaccums its brains out?, and you have a new human life.

 

Did anyone see Larry King last night? I agreed 100% with what you all are saying until I saw the show. King was interviewing Bill Clinton and they were discussing the ruling. Clinton said that he did not support a ban on partial birth abortions due to some of the people he met in office. He had met three couples who found out in the middle of their pregnancy that their baby suffered from a defect that meant that it would likely not survive full term and would not survive past birth. Additionally, the defect would cause the baby's head to swell abnormally, running the risk of (whether she gave birth or had a C-section) that the mother's uterus would suffer damage that would not allow her to have more children. He ended with saying that the decision is not best decided by me and you, but by the mother and her doctor.

 

I have to say, I see things a little differently now.

The point is the disagreement on who the citizen is. You say it is a citizen in the womb, others say it is not.

 

As long as this is the disagreement you can't create good law.

With this mindset, slavery would still be legal because in the 1800's the country couldn't agree whether slaves were a thinking human being deserving of citizen status or not.

With the other line of thinking, anything that a group considers a sin can be outlawed.

 

Prohibition comes to mind - that social experiment worked really well

Terry Schiavo - as I have already mentioned, and the government was spot on

Teaching Evolution in the Classroom (Scopes trial ruled against evolution)

Galileo's theory that the earth rotates around the Sun

 

In this particular case the logical conclusion is that a fetus has human rights. If that is the case, most birth control pills must be banned b/c they prevent fertilized eggs (embryos/fetii) from connecting to the uterine wall - causing "death", I would guess from starvation or suffocation since the connection allows respiration and feeding to take place. Isn't this also cruel?

FINALLY !!!!!