SUPREME COURT: NO PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS

[BrewCityBuck]

HILLARY: 'Erosion of our constitutional rights'...I love killing babies!'GIULIANI: 'I agree with it'...OBAMA: 'I strongly disagree'...'I like killing babies more than Hillary.'ROMNEY: 'A step forward'...MCCAIN: I'm very happy...EDWARDS: 'I could not disagree more strongly'... Having a baby come out and killing it is very pleasureable.'http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

 

[the_pestilence]

"Partial birth abortion" is such BS and incorrect terminology. That would be like if I said "2500 american soldiers have been murdered by George Bush's own two hands". Simply factually incorrect.By the way, Romney is pro-choice, he just decided he was pro-life about three weeks ago to get more votes.I don't have any problem with this legislation though unless the mother's life is in danger. If somebody is too stupid to get an abortion the first month then they don't deserve one.

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 18 2007, 04:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>"Partial birth abortion" is such BS and incorrect terminology.</div>In what way? I mean, babies aren't born out the ass, you know.

 

[the_pestilence]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Apr 19 2007, 09:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>In what way? I mean, babies aren't born out the ass, you know.</div>because partial birth abortion implies that they are partially born when the abortion occurs, which they are not. It's just a certain amount of months that the conservatives decided they'd call "partial birth" so that they could get cheap votes and a minor victory as far as abortion goes.

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 19 2007, 03:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>because partial birth abortion implies that they are partially born when the abortion occurs, which they are not. It's just a certain amount of months that the conservatives decided they'd call "partial birth" so that they could get cheap votes and a minor victory as far as abortion goes.</div>That doesn't exactly answer my question. You basically just replied by saying, "because it isn't." I have been under the impression that a baby is partially pulled out from the vagina and subsequently the back of the neck is slit. Is the problem that they are never "birthed" because they do not remain alive, because it's not a natural birth at full term, or is it that you think that it is done by another procedure?

 

[the_pestilence]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Apr 19 2007, 07:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That doesn't exactly answer my question. You basically just replied by saying, "because it isn't." I have been under the impression that a baby is partially pulled out from the vagina and subsequently the back of the neck is slit. Is the problem that they are never "birthed" because they do not remain alive, because it's not a natural birth at full term, or is it that you think that it is done by another procedure?</div>I don't know exactly what this has to do with me saying that it's incorrect terminology, because it is incorrect. It is a terminology introduced by conservatives pushing an agenda to get the retards in the south to be even more likely to vote for them.

 

[Justice]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 19 2007, 09:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know exactly what this has to do with me saying that it's incorrect terminology, because it is incorrect. It is a terminology introduced by conservatives pushing an agenda to get the retards in the south to be even more likely to vote for them.</div>Let me ask you this again. What SPECIFICALLY makes it not partial birth abortion?Here is an example. If I said, "Why is calling a whale a fish incorrect?" You should reply with, "Because it is a mammal. It has hair and other similar traits to mammals." A bad way to answer this question would be, "Because a whale is not a fish." That is avoiding actually answering the question.

 

[Justice]

Well, somebody else on another forum said a similar thing... that the term is "misleading." Then he contradicted himself and said that he didn't say that it was, so okay. No answers from either of those that made such a claim.My roommate said that the apparent argument is that "partial-birth" abortions have nothing to do with birth, which I think is pretty much an argument based on semantics. I really think the sick part is the plunging the knife in the back of the neck and sucking out the brains part, not the fact that it is OMG PARTIAL BIRTH. There is frankly nothing that I find offensive about that. Regardless, I don't think it is misleading at all to call it partial-birth abortion. It is certainly less false than saying evolution has the same definition as natural selection.

 

[gentile]

YaY!!!!God finally won one. Take that Ted Haggard.