Current Events

TOPICS:

11/9/03

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

426 | 427 | 428

 ... 484

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Bridget

Bridget

HOPEFUL

Nauru

NOV 05, 2003 10:42 AM

Is anyone else watching this? Bush claims this is "important legistlation" to prevent "violence against children." But then again, he did just say "Senator Santorum," so at least I got a chuckle out of this whole affair.

Jeff_Fries

Jeff_Fries

Humptulips, WA
September 2003

NOV 05, 2003 02:38 PM

Sort of a reactionary post against a controversial issue. I myself want partial-birth abortions illegal.

[Edited on Nov 05, 2003 by Jeff_Fries]

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

NOV 05, 2003 02:43 PM

Why do you want them banned? How much do you know about how partial birth abortions actually work and how often they occur?

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

NOV 05, 2003 02:45 PM

For information you should check out this thread as well as this one

jake_lex

jake_lex

Lexington, KY
February 2003

NOV 05, 2003 04:39 PM

I'm sick of how the anti-abortion movement's name for this procedure, "partial birth" abortion, has come to be the most commonly used name for it. (So much so that I actually had to look up the real name, dilation and extraction, because it was slipping my mind.) It's an emotionally loaded term that implies a baby is being killed, when, in fact, the procedure is used to terminate pregnancies in which the fetus has died or cannot live outside the womb, and continuing the pregnancy risks the health of the mother.

_Sarah_

_Sarah_

Kalamazoo, MI
January 2003

NOV 05, 2003 05:23 PM

Bingo.

I'd like to thank Congress for letting women die in order to save a fetus. Bravo.

Eva2

Eva2

SUICIDEGIRL

Pennsylvania, USA

NOV 05, 2003 05:25 PM

Correction:

Let's thank Congress for declaring war, then for letting women die in order to save a fetus.

troglodyte

troglodyte

Victoria, BC
May 2003

NOV 05, 2003 05:39 PM

Jeff_Fries said:
Sort of a reactionary post against a controversial issue. I myself want partial-birth abortions illegal.

[Edited on Nov 05, 2003 by Jeff_Fries]



Exactly what was reactionary about it?

unravled

unravled

Portland, OR
August 2003

NOV 05, 2003 06:10 PM

Bush signed the bill today. A judge in Nebraska has already taken action against it.

Read more.

swingkitten

swingkitten

Portland, OR
OLD SKOOL

NOV 06, 2003 12:32 AM

Whether this particular kind of abortion makes you squeamish or not, keep in mind that this bill is merely a first step.

Imagine what comes next.

I don't like it.

tarbaby

tarbaby

I'm lost
April 2003

NOV 06, 2003 01:06 AM

weird. the guy i was talking to in one of those threads got zotted. now it looks like i'm talking to myself.... surreal

aelectric

aelectric

Los Angeles, CA
January 2003

NOV 06, 2003 01:47 AM

Well if Rick Santorum says they're unnecessary...well then it MUST be true...puke

I for one think having an abortion is a really tragic, difficult choice for a woman to have to make...and I think the government should stay the fuck out of it.

So...

If you have freinds who are apathetic and don't vote, start working on them so we can get rid of 'Lil Shrubbie and his cronies

We Hates Them...We Hates Them Forever mad

RubberSoul

RubberSoul

Los Angeles, CA
February 2003

NOV 06, 2003 02:04 PM

I would say this going to go all the way to the Supreme Court where far-right crackpots like Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas will probably not only rule in favor of the abortion ban, they may even try to require women to give birth to minimum number of children...and be barefoot while doing it.

galvagin

galvagin

Silver Spring, MD
June 2003

NOV 06, 2003 05:39 PM

I suspect the bill won't survive a SC challenge, even with Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas on the bench. The SC already ruled (please, please, don't make me go find a case cite! Nooooo!) that any such ban needs exceptions both for life (which this one has) and health (which it lacks). I doubt they'll reverse... unless we see a liberal or swing justice replaced before the case comes up.

jake_lex

jake_lex

Lexington, KY
February 2003

NOV 06, 2003 05:42 PM

Yeah, but I think that's part of the political calculation in this. It will be struck down as unconsitutional, and Karl Rove will send out his little blast faxes to fundamentalist groups saying "We need your money to help Bush get re-elected to help us put judges who love Jesus in."

galvagin

galvagin

Silver Spring, MD
June 2003

NOV 06, 2003 06:12 PM

Oh, I don't doubt it Jake_Lex. The Republican strategy has long had more to do with galvanizing their core over abortion issues than actually mounting a full assault on Roe v. Wade. I was just responding to Souljacker's prediction - unless the next justice to retire is O'Connor rather than Rehnquist (or, heavens forfend, Stevens bites it - but, G-d bless him, they're going to have to take him off the court feet first).

Jeff_Fries

Jeff_Fries

Humptulips, WA
September 2003

NOV 07, 2003 12:32 AM

troglodyte said:

Jeff_Fries said:
Sort of a reactionary post against a controversial issue. I myself want partial-birth abortions illegal.



Exactly what was reactionary about it?



It's such a tricky issue that to infer that it is nothing but conservative bullshit is bullshit. When is a human being a human being? is a real question. Maybe that question is easier to answer when you're only looking for material to use in the case of Humanity v. the Republicans, but it's a lot harder when you're not. It's hypocritical to call conservative reactions against abortion fundamentalist nonsense, when reactionary reactions against the reactions of Republicans are every bit as fundamentalist and nonsensical. And I hope you're too busy untangling that godawful sentence I just wrote to notice I didn't actually answer your question.

[Edited on Nov 07, 2003 by Jeff_Fries]

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

NOV 07, 2003 04:08 AM

why the "partial birth" abortion ban is more than the first step to banning all abortion:

http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9331


In that bill, the term "partial-birth abortion" means an abortion in which -- "(A) the person performing the abortion 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; and "(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus..."

Although the definition may seem to apply to a specific, late-term abortion procedure, anti-abortion advocates believe that all fetuses, at all stages of development are "living," from the moment of conception. In all vaginal abortions, at all stages of pregnancy, the fetus comes outside of the woman's body either head-first or in a breech presentation. They believe that all abortions—at all stages of pregnancy—constitute "an overt act of intentional killing," regardless of the reason for the abortion. So in their minds, all abortions, at all stages of pregnancy, fit the definition in the "partial birth" abortion ban.



welcome back to the dark ages, folks. hopefully rational minds will prevail, and this misnamed "partial birth" ban will be revealed for what it truly is.

[Edited on Nov 07, 2003 by s5]

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

NOV 07, 2003 08:31 AM

But this ban isn't about when a human is a human, it's about banning a procedure that people find "gross" and working their way towards banning all abortions.

Besides that, I never understand why it always has to be about "is it a human being or not"? I'm pro-choice and I say, yeah, it's a living being. I just care more about the mothers life than I do about it's life. I think born people's rights are ALWAYS more important than that of unborn lives.

gojason

gojason

San Diego, CA
October 2003

NOV 07, 2003 09:01 AM

Bush signs the Partial Birth Ban Act - See anything missing from this picture?

Les

Les

SUICIDEGIRL

Oregon, USA

NOV 07, 2003 09:11 AM

Women. Why do we have old white guys deciding what we can do with our bodies?

Les

Les

SUICIDEGIRL

Oregon, USA

NOV 07, 2003 09:18 AM

not to mention that probably every single one of those guys, have payed for their underage hooker to have an abortion.

robinbanks

robinbanks

Cleveland, OH
August 2003

NOV 07, 2003 10:10 AM

edit: I know better

[Edited on Nov 07, 2003 by robinbanks]

robinbanks

robinbanks

Cleveland, OH
August 2003

NOV 07, 2003 10:41 AM

I just found a photoshopped picture of the above with senators holding coat-hangers in their hand.. decided it was too grotesque to post.

In any case, I can't figure out if it's grotesque due to the fact that 1) those senators are smiling despite the fact that women will be dying because of this legislation 2) the thought of women being forced into "back-alley" abortions is just insane in this day-and-age. 3) or both.

In any case, I decided to edit it out.. hence the above post. frown

[Edited on Nov 07, 2003 by robinbanks]

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

NOV 07, 2003 11:09 AM

Oh my god, they are all grinning about it, too. I want to kick their balls back into their bodies, those fuckheads.

As AdamElectric said, we hates them mad

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next