Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Supremes uphold partial birth abortion ban.

redguru

New member
Hillary calls it

Hillary said:
"As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."

the preciding quote was from her own website

They aren't upholding the outlawing of abortions, just a particularly barbaric procedure, carried out in late term.
 
a woman very close to me had a partial birth abortion
in hindsight probably the smartest move she ever could have made.
 
Wulfgar said:
a woman very close to me had a partial birth abortion
in hindsight probably the smartest move she ever could have made.

Why not carry the child for the same period and then give the child up for adoption? Heck, her medical bills might have even been paid and she could have gotten a stipend.
 
Wulfgar said:
btw whats with al the abortion threads?
heavy stuff recently on EF

I don't like to debate abortion itself, because no one ever agrees on the subject. However, this decision doesn't affect Roe V. Wade in any way. Trying to call it a right's issue evades the facts.
 
apparantly there was something deformed in the fetus, a physical deformity. cranial or something..so she decided for the good of the life, to end it early
 
Wulfgar said:
apparantly there was something deformed in the fetus, a physical deformity. cranial or something..so she decided for the good of the life, to end it early

At what point does physical deformity warrant death? Cleft palate? Missing limb? Freckles?
 
guns, abortions, and assvatars
 
redguru said:
At what point does physical deformity warrant death? Cleft palate? Missing limb? Freckles?
I agree here..People get the amniosynthesis(sp) done and find that there is a higher percentage for deformities and health issues..However, it does not describe what the issue at hand is..For instance my son has a genetic disorder where he is missing a muscle in his face..Nothing too serious..I know that if I had a test done when I was pregnant the percentage of having problems would have been through the roof..So I abort my child not knowing what the problem is?!?! Nope, He is here with my with his missing muscle growing, thriving, and ahead based on other children his age! Not to mention it is barely noticeable now.
Not that I am trying to argue the point here, just agreeing and adding my .02
 
Angel said:
I agree here..People get the amniosynthesis(sp) done and find that there is a higher percentage for deformities and health issues..However, it does not describe what the issue at hand is..For instance my son has a genetic disorder where he is missing a muscle in his face..Nothing too serious..I know that if I had a test done when I was pregnant the percentage of having problems would have been through the roof..So I abort my child not knowing what the problem is?!?! Nope, He is here with my with his missing muscle growing, thriving, and ahead based on other children his age! Not to mention it is barely noticeable now.
Not that I am trying to argue the point here, just agreeing and adding my .02
what muscle
 
youngguns said:
what muscle
how the hell should I know the name of the friggin muscle..I am lucky if I know where the calf is! Lol

It is called Depressor anguli oris AKA crying baby face.
Google it.
 
Don't worry, the liberals are already planning their counter attack to try and get what is a morally reprehensable act legal again.

However, don't bother using steriods, pro-hormones, or even ephedera in this country. And in most states, don't bother using some pot for medicinal purposes.

Oh, and yeah, consexual sex between adults which results in money changing hands... don't do that most everywhere either.

Oh, oh wait, don't forget, if you own a business, you don't have the right to say who you will cater to. Don't forget about that one.
 
sardonicone said:
Don't worry, the liberals are already planning their counter attack to try and get what is a morally reprehensable act legal again.

However, don't bother using steriods, pro-hormones, or even ephedera in this country. And in most states, don't bother using some pot for medicinal purposes.

Oh, and yeah, consexual sex between adults which results in money changing hands... don't do that most everywhere either.

Oh, oh wait, don't forget, if you own a business, you don't have the right to say who you will cater to. Don't forget about that one.

I disagree with a lot of the religious rights' crusades on personal behaviour. The Republican party would be better served (in my opinion) to stick with fiscal responsibility and leave behaviour alone. However, this procedure is not an issue of personal behaviour but a barbaric act and should be banned.
 
redguru said:
I disagree with a lot of the religious rights' crusades on personal behaviour. The Republican party would be better served (in my opinion) to stick with fiscal responsibility and leave behaviour alone. However, this procedure is not an issue of personal behaviour but a barbaric act and should be banned.


yep another libertarian in the making..

love ya..
 
redguru said:
I disagree with a lot of the religious rights' crusades on personal behaviour. The Republican party would be better served (in my opinion) to stick with fiscal responsibility and leave behaviour alone. However, this procedure is not an issue of personal behaviour but a barbaric act and should be banned.

Both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party believe in most of the ideals I set forth though.

It's a problem not with ideologues, but with idiocy in general.


The war on Drugs is a joke.
The war on Poverty is a joke.
The fact we have to wage war on social issues to placate the masses into thinking the goverment gives a shit is a joke.
 
SpyWizard said:
yep another libertarian in the making..

love ya..

Umm, I am a registered Libertarian. Since 9-11, I disagree with the national platform of non-interference militarily, however.
 
Can someone please give me the details?
Is partial birth abortion an option in medical emergencies?
When does partial birth abortion become necessary?
Do they ever need to do partial birth abortions before the fetus is viable?
 
So hard to say.

I wouldn't abort a baby as far along as I am (24 weeks) unless the baby was going to lead a life of absolute misery.

It would BREAK MY HEART to have that happen. I can't say that there is NO WAY i would do it though. If the baby was going to be a vegetable in constant pain, I would let it go on to heaven.

Some circumstances I guess warrant such an extreme. I don't know.
 
Mr. dB said:
I really had no idea The Supremes were so powerful.

the_supremes.jpg
Once they got "stop in the name of love" under their belts, they became really uppity witches...lol.
 
redguru said:
I disagree with a lot of the religious rights' crusades on personal behaviour. The Republican party would be better served (in my opinion) to stick with fiscal responsibility and leave behaviour alone. However, this procedure is not an issue of personal behaviour but a barbaric act and should be banned.


WORD!


How about making your President write "I shall remember the importance of FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY" on a blackboard about 2.5 trillion times!

When was the last time he even uttered those words?




b0und (Can't even remember when the GOP stood for FR)
 
Top Bottom