How was the law vague? It specifically outlawed "D & X" abortions unless needed to save the mother's life. As pro-abortionists have noted, these procedures constitute a very small percentage of all abortions performed annually in the US. The ban has had broad bipartisan support in Congress for years, even from otherwise "pro-choice" politicians.
Except that two (maybe by now it is three) different federal courts have ruled that the so-called partial birth abortion ban is unconstitutional because this "exception" you refer to is insufficient, and the wording leaves open the interpretation that would ban a much broader range of procedures. And please stop referring to pro-choice advocates as "pro-abortion." It is simply not an accurate label of my position.
I know. They want an elastic "health" exception that would gut the ban entirely. Have you read it? I don't know how it could be more specific. I realize that your side prefers to deal in euphemisms, but I don't play that game.
I have read the ban, but I an not a judge, so I can't say why three different courts from three different parts of the country have ruled this way. It is not a euphemism. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
Pro-choice is at least an accurate description of the position of most people who support the right to have an abortion. Pro-abortion is NOT an accurate description, unless you're referring to someone who goes out and has abortions for fun. Pro-life, on the other hand, is a euphemism. I think people on both sides of the issue would agree that it's wrong to kill a living human being, they just disagree on what a living human being is.
What about a late term 2nd trimester living fetus where the safest procedure is a partial birth abortion? What is the definition of "living fetus"? The term "D & X" was removed from the bill and replaced with "partial birth abortion", for which there was no definition, probably in an attempt to outlaw d&e as well as induction.
Pro-abortion is an accurate description of those who support abortion on demand without restriction. I suppose "pro-abortion rights" could describe moderates who believe that abortion should be legal but strictly regulated. A quote from an earlier post is in order: "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous, whether intra- or extra- uterine, until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices." "A New Ethic for Medicine and Society," California Medicine, 113 67, 68 (1970).
I don't know how anyone can defend such brutality if the mother's life is not threatened. The language is self-explanatory: `(b) As used in this section-- `(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion-- `(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of 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 "D & E" (decapitation and dismemberment) kills the baby in the womb and would therefore not fit this definition.
You shuld never kick a woman in the tummy for not thinking she will make a good mother and so the child should die. Instead teach her how to be a good mother or encourage her to give her baby up for addoption. Obviously there is way more to her story she has many issues and then because of thsoe issues got herself pregnant and is only as good of a mother as she knows how to be. If you care so much about that baby you should be there for her instead of diss her.
What do you expect? And so at waht point do you consider it to be more then that? I bet you have no children of your own. developmentaly no..your correct. But I don't see your point. Are you trying to say that babies and kids under 2 are not worthy of being alive or matter if they die?
That doesn't make any sense. Why is pro-abortion rights not an accurate description of those, like myself, who support abortion on demand without restriction? You're citing a 1970 medical journal as a defense of your position? Please tell me you're joking.
I believe I've already answered your questions about when a child is psychologically self-aware elsewhere in this thread. You are correct that I have no children. As we all know, every parent is awarded a PhD in child psychology when their first child is born, so my qualifications are dwarfed in comparison. (Yes, that was sarcasm) As I've said before, from a legal perspective life should and does begin at birth. From a psychological/biological perspective, self-awareness does not set in until much later. Again, there are gray areas of whether or not they are "people", which is why I favor erring on the side of protecting them...by keeping the moment of birth as the legal moment of personhood. Where did I say they weren't worthy of being alive? They are just as worthy of life as any animal with a comparable degree of self-awareness.
If you oppose even the most modest restrictions, then you essentially want abortion to be not only legal but commonplace. In any case, "pro-abortion rights" is much more meaningful than the hopelessly vague "pro-choice" slogan. Has science recently demonstrated that the unborn are neither alive nor human? You can argue that they are metaphysically not "persons," but their humanity is indisputable. Of course, the notion that some humans are not persons has ghastly implications, as others here have observed.
A 2 month old can very well think and can very well learn. And is very much human! Just because it cannot communicate with "words" it is still communicating and interacting with the world as a live being. Just because he does not know that the person in the mirror is actualy him until he is almost 2 does not mean he is not human.
A few years ago, a woman with a two yr old died in her home. The two yr old fended for herself for 2 weeks before anyone came to the house. Her instinct to survive kicked in and she found a way to do it. My daughter is 20 months old. Yes, she says "mine", but also snatches things away when she does it. She has a special kitty that she KNOWS is hers. She points to herself in pictures and says her name. She knows when she is hungry, tired, poopy, etc....and tells me. Don't tell me that children aren't aware of themselves until they are almost 3 yrs old.
Not true. I don't really care whether it's commonplace or not, but I do think it should be legal. I'll agree with you there. Whether or not an entity is a "person" isn't a black and white line. Science does not render moral judgements as to what is a "person", but the fields of psychology and neurology have given us fairly accurate information as to when a child becomes self-aware.
** So Huck once again it is sinners, immorality and hedonism? So if it is based in religion can you tell us what your priest has told you about abortion or the religious passages you views are based on? **
** Certitude, that freedom from doubt. The gift of the dogmatic and the curse of human kind. I said I seek understanding and that only with some understanding will come the information a person needs to help people. Some see no need in seeking understanding they know. They know that it is the sinner’s desire for sexual gratification, they know that personal immorality is responsible. They know that it is these peoples choice their ‘freewill’ that is utterly responsible for their actions, that they know that they took those actions because they are flawed by moral imperfection, corrupted by sinfulness. It doesn’t matter who or how they were brought up, their social or economic background, the culture in which they grow up or their education. Those things don’t matter because these people decide to act that way and would act that way wherever they came from because they are immoral souls. If you know that is the reason then that is all the understanding you need and as for help, there is only two ways such people can be helped (or should that be saved?). They can either voluntarily comply with their dogma. Or they can be forced to comply with their dogma. ** It is clear then that, at least for some here, this subject is a religious question and therefore not based on the rational or the reasonable but the doctrinal and dogmatic. **
