Partial-birth abortion ban...interested in hearing from those who oppose the ban?

Question

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU SUBMIT YOUR ANSWER!

As a pro-choice democrat, I am not in favor of partial-birth abortion unless the mother is in some sort of danger. It's my understanding that the new ban that came through today allows for life-threatening emergencies. So, for those of you who oppose the ban please explain to me why. I guess I don't really understand why it should be allowed, even though I am pro-choice.

I am not asking people to try to convince me to be pro-life. I do not believe abortions should be performed willy nilly....I actually oppose abortion but believe that women should have choices about their bodies, so please do not use this as a forum to spout your pro-life propaganda. Really, I just want to know the facts on this.

Looks like maybe half the people are actually paying attention to the question and really reading it. Can we please stay on the topic at hand. I really don't care about your views and opinions unless they relate to the question that I asked. It just frustrates me on here when people are so A.D.D. that they can't pay attention to what is being asked.

Answer 1

There is no exception for the _HEALTH_ of the Mother. Read Justice Ginsburg's dissent from the court decision today:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZD.html

There, she talks about how the law, banning a procedure, not banning abortion, is not rationally related to the government's objectives, how it takes the medical decision of which procedure is best for the health of the woman out of the hands of doctors and places it in the hands of politicians, how Congress's findings for the law were fundamentally onesided and flawed, and how it subverts the "viability/previability" line established in the 1980s in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

That should answer most, if not all, of your questions.

Answer 2

The ban allows for life-threatening emergencies, but not health-threatening emergencies.

So, if the mother's life was in danger the procedure could still be performed.

However, if keeping the child would merely cause total paralysis of the mother, then the procedure would be illegal.

I don't think the line is drawn in the right place.

My paralysis example is of course contrived, however it is an accurate assessment of the law and decision. While this would certainly be a tough choice to make, I think the woman should be given the choice, and that the government is completely out of line in forcing the woman to endure a life of paralysis.

Answer 3

because of the fact planned Parenthood is an professional-abortion extremist. There are a great number of alternative kinds of innovations that are nonetheless allowed and valid, and don't in contact sucking the newborn out with a gadget equivalent to a vacuum. i for my area think of that's a step interior the properly suited path. And to the "it is my physique" argument. a million) it is your physique, even nevertheless the component in question, is the actuality of killing a sprint one, it is own separate id, no longer approximately your physique. 2) if it is so "it my physique" why are their regulations in specific states dictating that a pregnant woman might properly be sent to rehab and in specific situations compelled rehab if she has been eating on a similar time as pregnant. You validate your argument that the government, and so on have not any rights to tell you what you're able to do including your own physique. right here is the place you're thoroughly incorrect. they might and that they do! occasion? How approximately drug regulations, it is your physique will no longer be able to you return to a determination what you ingest and don't ingest? to no longer point out permit's talk approximately your own physique your own existence, do you realize what happens to those who attempt to dedicate suicide and fail? it incredibly is top they get dedicate ed and oftentimes to a place which would be sure that they don't have the strategies or the skill to aim suicide lower back, the place does your it is my physique argument observe right here?regulations are put in place now and lower back to make certain the commonplace public good. those are the point of regulations.

Answer 4

I'm happy about the ban...and sad at the same time. I'm extremely pro life, but I do understand that there are situations where the mother could very likely die if she continues with the pregnancy. However, I can't understand why we decided that taking a pratically full term baby out, one that can wiggle his or her little fingers and toes, and most definitely feel pain...and stab it in the back of the head and remove the brains, was the best form of terminating the pregnancy. Anyone who supports this procedure is heartless in my book.

So, I'm happy that it was banned, but saddened that people are actually angry about the ban. I have a feeling that if you took some of these people in full support of partial birth abortion, sat them down, and had them watch someone take a puppy or kitten being born, stab it in the head, and suck the brains out, they'd be outraged, and horrified by such a senseless and terrible act of violence against an innocent animal.

....So then why is it okay for our children? If someone came along 5 seconds after the baby was born and did that, their picture would be all over the news, and they'd be labeled as a cold hearted murderer, and the worst type of person. But someone in a white coat and rubber gloves does it to the same child, just before they take their first breath of air, and its a medical procedure and nobody cares. Theres hypocrisy for you.

Answer 5

I would LOVE for someone to tell me how partially delivering a baby, and then sucking its brains out, could EVER be necessary to save the life of a woman.

IT IS JUST NOT POSSIBLE

Anyway, to answer the question asked, the people who oppose the ban seem to think that any restriction on abortion, no matter how narrow a restriction, spells the beginning of the end of all abortions. It is a ridiculous presumption, but the abortion debate moved well beyond rational discussion years ago.

Answer 6

I am with you, abortion is wrong.
but it is still a womans choice to do what they want with thier own bodies.
they are the ones who have to live with the fact that they killed an innocent life.
I do believe it should be made available in these three cases
1) rape.
2) incest (the person responsible should be put to death, but this is another subject.)

3) The life of the mother or child is in extreme danger of passing away during the pregnancy.

These are just my opinions and everyone has thier own beliefs.

Answer 7

First off, I am not against women having full control and choice over their reproductive rights. I have three sisters and a mother, and no one is going to give them grief over their rights.

With that said, the procedure that the court ruled on today is only one of two means for terminating a second trimester fetus. The second, and some would argue more humane, method is still available and is fully legal.

I agree with the minority view of the Supreme Court members who warn that this is only the first attempt to curb the rights of women in this country.

The ball is now in the legislative bodies of every state. Just watch the bad laws go flooding across the desks of the various governors who want to interfere with individual rights.

A fetus is not a baby. And an individual's body isn't a slave to ignorant thinkers. If you truly believe in smaller government, get your laws off the reproductive choices of women now.

Answer 8

The ban does NOT include a provision to protect the life of the mother.

Anytime legal people with no medical training limit what can be done to save a woman's life, the decisions her doctors and she have the right to make, it is a step backwards.

The SCOTUS decision was carefully and intentionally rushed to hide behind other news.

Answer 9

The partial birth-abortion ban should be lifted because there is no provision for the health of the mother. Also, the ban is wholely uneffective at preventing abortion because it bans only one type of abortion, other methods are more widely used and available.

This is a token gesture for the radical pro-life crowd. Little do they understand that their leaders have no intention of banning abortion or abortion rights. The clock does not run backward in Washington.

Answer 10

i oppose it... if you must have an abortion be a man about. partial birth abortions are the only type that "SHOULD" be allowed.