flushd wrote:I feel like I'm back at the trailor park....
I understand your
eye-roll flushd. You, who is so sharply wry as to make a joke of a human embryo omelet, cannot but feel abraded by a crude Creasy comment about male dominance.
Hey, there was no little emoticon with a ciggie hanging out of its mouth, so I went with the eye roll
flushd wrote:Hey, there was no little emoticon with a ciggie hanging out of its mouth, so I went with the eye roll
Not sure what sort of emoticon conjures up the image of someone who can crack wise about human embryo omelettes, but if you say it's one with a cigarette dangling from the mouth, who am I to argue.
Finn's real problem with abortion is that he feels that there just aren't enough perfect little white babies out there for adoption by Joe and Mary Whitefolks!!
I've honed in on one of his posts, but the last three pages pretty well sum up where Finn comes from!!
Anon
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1732391#1732391
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Stevepax wrote:McGentrix wrote:Any idea how long the wait to adopt a child is Stevepax? Any concept of what families incapable of bearing children have to go through?
Any time you want to adopt achild, there are thousands of special needs kids just waiting for someone to step up ... RIGHT THIS SECOND! Not to mention the thousands worldwide that need parents RIGHT THIS SECOND. There's no need to create any more unwanted children.
You're right, there are thousands of "special needs" kids waiting for someone to adopt them.
And your point is?
It's (your point) difficult to fathom, but it seems that you are somehow suggesting that childless couples should adopt "special needs" kids rather than argue against abortion.
Now, we all now that "special needs" is a euphemism for "difficult," or "trouble."
This is not to say that these poor children don't need loving families, because surely they do and God bless those who find it in themselves to brave the problems associated with a "special needs" kids and adopt them, but is there any reason to implicitly sneer at couples who choose not to adopt "special needs" kids?
On the one hand we have individuals who have no problem with fertility (except that they
are fertile) whom stevepax feels it is perfectly OK for them to end the lives of their "unwanted" children.
On the other , we have infertile couples who, unless they are quite rich and look to overseas opportunities, are never going to have but one adopted child, and who seem to be considered by stevepax as somehow shallow because they do not want to to take their first (and only) step into parenthood with a child that, tragically, comes equipped with a load of baggage.
Arguing that abortion somehow addresses the issue of
unwanted children is amazingly facile.
Every healthy, white baby born in America is wanted, and if born to a reluctant mother, will be adopted in the blink of an eye.
The unwanted children are non-white, disabled or older than two years of age.
Since there are hundreds of thousands of such unwanted children, it would seem that abortion ain't doing the trick.
It would seem that you pro-abortion mavens (particularly those of you who predicate your position on the issue of "unwanted children") need to do a better job in making sure that the women who are likely to give birth to an "unwanted baby" make the
choice for abortion.
The bottom line is that regardless of whether one is Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, an argument that the world needs abortion because it doesn't need any more "unwanted babies" is ludicrous.
John Creasy wrote:Iron my shirt woman.
Yes, let's do all we possibly can to get the creaseys out.
Anon
Thank God we have you to keep us in line.
I've ate worse than human-embryo omelettes.....
ever eaten at Arby's?
bleeeeh!
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Anon
Thank God we have you to keep us in line.
Just doing my part to keep the conversation honest!! :wink:
Anon
flushd wrote:I've ate worse than human-embryo omelettes.....
ever eaten at Arby's?
bleeeeh!
See? That's the sort of
know no bounds sophisticated wit of Howard Stern that reveals the moral depravity of "Trailor Trash."
How can a poor rube such as myself hope to match your bon mots?
JTT wrote:John Creasy wrote:Iron my shirt woman.
Yes, let's do all we possibly can to get the creaseys out.
Make me a sandwich and be quiet.
careful johnC... you are in danger of developing a sense of humor.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:careful johnC... you are in danger of developing a sense of humor.
No way, that'll ruin my reputation.
Appeals Courts Uphold Abortion Finding By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Two federal appeals courts on opposite sides of the country declared the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Tuesday, saying the measure lacks an exception for cases in which a woman's health is at stake.
The first ruling came from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hours later, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued a similar decision in a 2-1 ruling.
The New York decision affirmed a 2004 ruling by a judge who upheld the right to perform the procedure even as he described the procedure as "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized."
Tuesday's ruling was marked by an unusually sharp dissent by Judge Chester J. Straub, who said he believed Congress' determination that the procedure was never medically necessary to protect a women's health was well founded and supported by a lower court ruling.
"Allowing a physician to destroy a child as long as one toe remains within the mother would place society on the path towards condoning infanticide," he said.
He added: "I find the current expansion of the right to terminate a pregnancy to cover a child in the process of being born morally, ethically and legally unacceptable."
The California court said the law was vague and so broad that no other remedy was possible except to throw it out.
"We are reluctant to invalidate an entire statute," Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote. "However, after considering all of the obstacles to our devising a narrower remedy, we conclude that such is our obligation."
The panel also rejected arguments made by the Justice Department that there was general agreement among doctors that such late-term abortions were never necessary to preserve the health of a woman.
"The government all but admits in its reply brief that no medical consensus exists regarding the need for the prohibited procedures to preserve the health of women in certain circumstances," the panel concluded.
Justice Department attorneys also said the procedure is inhumane and causes pain to the fetus. A government lawyer argued it "blurs the line of abortion and infanticide."
The law, signed in 2003, banned a procedure known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed. The procedure is generally performed in the second trimester.
President Bush signed the abortion ban in 2003, but it was not enforced because of legal challenges in several states.
A federal judge in Nebraska also has ruled the ban unconstitutional. The Nebraska ruling was upheld in July by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tuesday's decisions were also expected to be appealed to the high court.
The ban, which President Clinton twice vetoed, was seen by abortion rights activists as a fundamental departure from the Supreme Court's 1973 precedent in Roe v. Wade. But the Bush administration has ued that the procedure is cruel and unnecessary and causes pain to the fetus.
Hey guys, look at this.
Quote:02/10/2006
SD House Approves Abortion Ban
The South Dakota House has passed a bill that would nearly ban all abortions in the state, ushering the issue to the state Senate.
Supporters are pushing the measure in hopes of drawing a legal challenge that will cause the US Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision legalizing abortion.
The bill banning all abortions in South Dakota was passed 47-to-22 in the House.
Amendments aimed at carving out exemptions for rape, incest and the health of women were rejected.
The bill does contain a loophole that allows abortions if women are in danger of dying. Doctors who do those abortions could not be prosecuted.
SOURCE
I wish this had not been written so extreme as I do not think it wise or practical to outlaw all abortions for any reason other than to protect the life of the mother. And I think it likely the SD senate will modify it. But it is a start. This issue should have been left with the states all along and perhaps this will get it back to the states where it ought to be.
What is required now is an adoption list of all those opposing abortion so that they may be held responsible for their laws. If it were up to the mother, that child would not have been born, and signing a statement to that effect should constitute a release of reponsibility for that child.
As each unwanted baby is delivered, the next on list is required to adopt it, regardless of race, disablement, addictions, and all other maladies. This is the only fair way to make sure all these darling little lives are taken care of as they should be. The adopting parents will be required, without any state aid of any kind, to pay for all the hospitalization, care, education, college, and any other needs of the child.
Anon
I don't live in SD, so this law has no immediate impact on me, but I am saddened by it. I don't think the state should be deciding medical decisions for people.
I may be against abortion, but I am more opposed to laws against it.
I have no problem with reasonable laws protecting the unborn. I do think these laws should be debated and decided by the people who will live under them and the only logical way that can be done is locally, not federally. Actually Roe v Wade provides for such debate and decisions and, if applied as it was written and intended, could be a very good thing that would be closer to what most people want.
But in the end it all comes down to how we view life in general and what sanctity we apply to it. If that tiny being still within the womb is a human being, that is something very serious to consider. If it is not, that is something else to consider.
oh good. the alley clinics will soon enjoy a rise in productivity. i imagine the funeral homes will also see some business benefits.
good on ya s.d.!! now that's what i call compassion !
That's one way to look at it DTOM. Another way is that thousands of innocent babies will have a change to be born, grow up, and make their contribution to the world.
And another way to look at it is without the easy out of killing one's unborn child, maybe people will be a bit more careful about not starting one in the first place. You know, personal responsibility and all that used to be considered good values to have?
And finally, another way to look at it is that the states where the majority won't pass anti-abortion laws will enjoy a booming business. I can't believe every place will outlaw abortion. But I can't fault those who believe it is morally wrong doing so.
