What Can You Not Understand?

And if the procedure is not medically necessary to protect the woman from MAJOR health issues, the ban would cover it. Oh, that's right, you're only interested in getting the ban in the way you want it. Compromise is not possible for people like you. The result will be partial birth abortions (as Max puts it) "on demand" being performed because the pro-lifers want to stand on their principles.

I AGREE WITH YOU that partial birth abortion is a procedure that is absolutely horrifying and should not be performed, it should be banned. It could be banned if everyone would be flexible in their beliefs and keep their principles to themselves. As it is, this will end up as another round of contentious fighting between the two camps because some people can't give in, no matter what.

 

You've got to be kidding, you seriously advocate the death of one life form due to the infliction of a non life threatening stroke on another???

Suggestions-

A) Back up your argument with any proof

B) Re learn yourself the value of human life, i.e. is one less human because they are r****ded or disabled? Is being human defined to just being a normal human?

 

How about protecting the mother from major physical health consequences?

 

I think you may be discounting the mental health aspect a little bit MadMax. How many mothers have we seen over the past few years kill their children because of mental health issues directly related to having children?

That doesn't mean I don't support a ban in that case, regardless, I just think you're being a little too flippant about what the possible mental health problems could be.

 

Like I said andy, back it up with proof....

 

Well you could just as easily put a ban on it because of the mental health problems that people who go through with abortions have...

 

The ban's already there. This wasn't a reason.

I'm not really arguing that the ban shouldn't be excepted because of mental health, I just think that the mental health issues are a lot more serious than MadMax thinks. See Andrea Yates.

 

I guess I'm confused (not a surprise). I thought Roe v. Wade prohibited abortions after the first trimester. Why were the doctors allowed to do this legally?

 

You've got to be kidding, you seriously advocate allowing a woman to have a potentially debilitating stroke that could be averted by a procedure to remove a fetus that might not even be viable???

What proof do you want? You are saying that a woman who is otherwise healthy should not have the option of aborting a fetus that might not even live even if that abortion would prevent the woman from having a stroke. You are so adamant on this that you would not want language in a partial birth abortion bill to protect that woman (the chances of this situation developing being infintessimaly small) from major physical health consequences despite the fact that this ban would save hundreds or thousands of other fetuses from being aborted.

Perspective and greater good, dude.

We are not talking about r****ded or disabled, where are you pulling that from? We are talking about allowing a woman to suffer major physical problems in favor of trying to save a fetus that may or may not live. If it is a choice between an already living, breathing human over a fetus, it is an easy choice for me.

Max, you can talk about "convenience" and "lifestyle choice" all you like, but that is not what I am talking about and you should know that. If the chances of the problems I am talking about are so slight, how much harm is there in the language I mention being put into a bill that would BAN A HORRIFIC PROCEDURE IN THIS COUNTRY? If the situation will never arise, then where is the harm in inserting the language?

 

What fricking proof do you want? There is no way to prove either side of the topic we are arguing. All I am espousing is language that would protect women in the case of MAJOR.....PHYSICAL....problems. The argumemt you keep coming back with is about mental health and that is not what I am saying.

 

man, can't say the same. i think it was when i saw the ultrasounds of my daughter that this whole issue changed for me. we've got a boy due in march, and just had the amnio a few weeks ago (done at 18 weeks). i confess that i don't know how i'd have reacted had there been a problem, i think the whole abortion debate has been perverted by absolutists on both sides. pro-choice shouldn't mean that there can be no restrictions. in any case, i don't believe that it's only a woman's choice. the father should be involved as well, after all she didn't get pregnant alone.

congratulations on your baby, btw!

 

Exactly. Like "major physical health problems." That is pretty specific.

Right, that was when we were talking about early abortions, not late term. You can't seem to get through your head that I am on your side on late term abortions, but I just want to make sure that the woman's health is taken into account.

And I haven't compromised my principles, I stand by mine fully. I just know when to keep my principles to myself for the greater good.

It didn't hold up, a judge stayed it an hour after it passed because the woman's health was not protected in the bill!

 

andy, you refuse to listen to reason. All evidence cited has yet to show anything that would debilitate the woman. Its all mental health reasons to this point. All fetuses were deemed viable. Listen to Max's point, the baby is half way delivered, there has been deemed no physical harm that can come to the mother...why oh why won't you look at the evidence. In retrospect, I'm glad your mom decided to have you, it lets good conversations like this were others can learn the Truth about things.

 

And that should be banned.

 

You haven't documented a case of risk to health other than that...not one...