1
   

Truth and The Swift Vets

 
 
Ibredd
 
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 05:55 pm
Truth and The Swift Vets

The Swift Vets represent the only breath of truth and fresh air in Politics in decades for
the regular voter in America. So politicians would be advised step aside and get behind
these people and help promote this truth movement as it is more important than any
election.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 949 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 06:03 pm
Shocked Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 06:15 pm
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32213

So, a judge today ruled that a law against "partial birth abortion" was unconstitutional.

Another setback for the Bush administration.

Let's talk!
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 06:18 pm
How is it unconstitutional? Because it won't allow women and doctors to kill babies that could survive outside thw womb? Why don't they have a C section and save the child? Are they so heartless that they would kill the child at any costs?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 06:19 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/26/politics/26CND-ABOR.html?hp

[sotto to ehBeth -- first sally went well.]
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 06:20 pm
get over it pal...the God Almighty courts have ruled....the courts put bush in office so they must be right about everything eh?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 06:25 pm
Sozobe - I hadn't heard that yet. Did the article say what the argument was for it being unconstitutional?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 06:28 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
get over it pal...the God Almighty courts have ruled....the courts put bush in office so they must be right about everything eh?


We will see what happens when the Supreme Court gets their hands on it. I think the courts will be over turned. It's those damn activists judges have tried to make law when they shouldn't be. It is always the truth that what liberals can't get done with law they will do in court. It seems they are sore losers.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 06:31 pm
A link to the article up there a ways, Squinney ^^

If you can't get in, here's the most pertinent part:

Quote:
A federal judge in New York ruled today that a federal law that banned a form of abortion is unconstitutional because it does not include an exception for cases where the procedure might be necessary to protect a woman's health. The law, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, enacted in November, makes it a crime for doctors to perform any "overt act" to "kill the partially delivered living fetus."

Advertisement


Today's ruling, by Judge Richard Conway Casey of the Federal District Court for the Southern District, came in a case brought by the National Abortion Federation and seven physicians. Judge Casey determined that a decision in 2000 by the Supreme Court required that any law limiting abortion must have a clause allowing doctors to go ahead with the procedure if they determine that the risk to a women's health is greater without it.

"While Congress and the lower courts may disagree with the Supreme Court's constitutional decisions, that does not free them from their constitutional duty to obey the Supreme Court's rulings," Judge Casey wrote. In its 2000 ruling, he said, the Supreme Court "informed us that this gruesome procedure may be outlawed only if there exists a medical consensus that there is no circumstance in which any women would potentially benefit from it."
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 06:39 pm
If the baby is alive and viable, why smash its head after birthing the body?

How can smashing it's head save the mother?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 06:41 pm
Because that's not what dialation and extraction ("partial birth abortion") is, Sofia. We talked about it a while back -- I'd thought you were in that discussion. Lemme find it...
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 06:42 pm
Nope I was confusing you with Fox. (Sorry/ you're welcome. :-D) Here's what I was thinking of:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=25980
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 06:44 pm
Especially this post:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=719415#719415
0 Replies
 
PKB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 07:00 pm
Sofia,

The baby would not have its head "smashed" if it were viable. The thing is Partial Birth abortion can take place from 4 months I believe. I can understand the judges ruling. He isn't against ruling PBA out entirely he is just pushing for a better written law. One that would allow PBA in the case of the mother's health being endangered. I'd think it would be devastating for any woman to even make that call once you are that far along but then the world is full of so many different shapes, sizes, walks, talks, beliefs, etc. Nothing surprises me anymore. There for a while in the late 80's and early 90's Madonna was pretty good at shocking me but I don't think she could shock me. I guess that is why she toned it down and started writing childrens books. :wink:
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 07:05 pm
Hee hee...

Welcome, PKB (waving back.)
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 07:06 pm
PKB--

You are mistaken. They do suck the brains out of viable, hell, live babies.

I took an article to the thread soz has linked here. You can find it on the Judge Rules Against Ban on Patial Birth Abortions thread.

The nurse discusses witnessing a PBA on a 6month 'fetus', because the mother didn't want a Down's Syndrome baby. This BS about the mother's health is a smoke-screen for people who either decide late to abort--or people who find out they are carrying 'damaged goods'.

How can killing the baby, when it could live, save a mother?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2004 07:14 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction

Quote:
Circumstances in which the procedure is performed


Intact D&X procedures are extremely rare, carried out in roughly 0.2% (two-tenths of one percent) of all abortions in the USA. They may be performed during the third trimester of pregnancy if:

The fetus is dead.

The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.

The fetus is alive, but the woman wishes to end her pregnancy for non-medical/psychological reasons.



Some of the fetuses which fall into this category have developed hydrocephalus. Approximately 1 in 2,000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb; this is about 5,000 a year in the United States. The defect is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester of pregnancy. If a fetus develops hydrocephalus, the head may expand to a size of up to 250% of the radius of a normal newborn skull, making it impossible for it to pass through the cervix. In such a case, the physician may elect to perform an intact D&X procedure by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. However, a caesarian section delivery would allow the safe delivery of a hydrocephalic fetus without significant danger to the mother.


In the 2 to 3 day procedure, the cervix is dilated. The fetus is delivered feet-first. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains and its fluids are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the uterus. The fetus can then be removed with less damage to the woman. The technique was pioneered by Dr. Martin Haskell in 1992.


Intact D&X procedures are not performed during the first trimester, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow such a procedure because the fetus' head is quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.


It's a horrible thing, and I'm glad it's so vanishingly rare. (2/10ths of 1 percent of abortions performed.) It's the far reaches of the abortion debate, but note that the part being objected to here is, "it does not include an exception for cases where the procedure might be necessary to protect a woman's health."

So if it's not necessary to protect a woman's health -- as in your example -- fine. Illegal. If it IS, though...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Truth and The Swift Vets
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 02:19:43