Do you agree or disagree with the Court's decision???
2007-04-18 11:32:55 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
This law was passed by a Republican Congress, not the current Democrat Congress...
2007-04-18 12:58:47 · update #1
I agree with it. It is barbaric and cruel.
It is done at a time when the baby can feel whats happening. Why shouldn't it count as a human just because its head is still in the vagina?
In case you don't know what it is, its when the baby is partway born. Only its head remains. Then they crack the baby's skull open and suck its brains out with a tube.
2007-04-18 11:38:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I am very pleased that the Supreme Court upheld the ban. I find it disgusting that even the pro-choice approve of this cruel procedure. I do understand the pov of prochoicers but to defend a procedure where the difference between abortion & murder is a mere few inches is beyond vile. I only hope that this does set a precedent and that all abortions will be illegal and made unnecessary by making it easier not to have abortions(providing medical care, financial assistance, etc.)
2007-04-18 19:31:26 · answer #2 · answered by Linnygirl 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree...but I want more.
Dilation and Evacuation is still available and it's the one that is done more often. They cut off one leg and pull it out, then the other, then the arms, then the abdomen is taken out in pieces and finally the head. So...anyone who wants an abortion can still choose this option.
I am against abortion unless the life of the mother is really at risk such as a fallopian tube (ectopic) pregnancy.
2007-04-18 18:37:01 · answer #3 · answered by Its Me 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The Supreme Court is right to uphold the ban. Purposing to kill a partially born baby is barbaric and morally wrong. God is the giver of life - and the end of a life should be up to him. Any one who participates in such a death of the innocent is guilty of murder.
2007-04-18 18:44:27 · answer #4 · answered by Hope 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The only objectionable things about his law is that there are no concessions made for the instance where continuation of the pregnancy will put the life of the mother in imminent danger.
So realistically, if carrying the baby to term could kill the mother. There no exception, in that case we have not only a dead baby but a dead woman.
2007-04-18 18:47:21 · answer #5 · answered by smedrik 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Agree. I was wondering just how far down the slippery slope of cruelty the court was willing to go.
2007-04-18 18:36:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm for women's rights, but if you don't know you're pregnant until 21 weeks, you shouldn't have the option of a late-term abortion.
A baby can survive at 21 weeks.
I support early-term abortions, but late-term abortions is beyond the line of choice .
I don't understand the health of the mother reasoning. If the mother's life is in danger, why not just deliver?
2007-04-18 18:37:21 · answer #7 · answered by FaZizzle 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Thanks to a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS for signing the BILL.-Is it true that "Republicans" are divided on abortion over 7 million done since 2000.
2007-04-18 18:46:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with the ban but the law should have allowed them in cases of saving the mother's life.
2007-04-18 18:38:04 · answer #9 · answered by Raven 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Good, and I believe woman have the right to choose but partial birth how awful.
2007-04-18 18:38:02 · answer #10 · answered by joyce s 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋