Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: concerned about politics
I agree totally that this law should be in effect BUT AND ONLY BUT....

If it is true in instances in which the mother's life is in danger then that should be included in the bill.

AND ONLY THAT nothing more. If a stay has to be put on this bill to allow that exemption then I am ok with that. I love my wife and if it were her life and that of a child I am sorry I wpuld have to opt for the life of my wife.
8 posted on 11/05/2003 12:40:49 PM PST by AbsoluteJustice (Kiss me I'm an INFIDEL!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: AbsoluteJustice
AND ONLY THAT nothing more. If a stay has to be put on this bill to allow that exemption then I am ok with that. I love my wife and if it were her life and that of a child I am sorry I wpuld have to opt for the life of my wife.

There is never any medical or health reason to briefly pause childbirth long enough to kill the baby before he or she is fully birthed. In fact, birthing the feet first (as is done with the D&X procedure) is more dangerous to the mother than birthing head first. If you can deliver the child's legs and torso, there's no reason to not deliver the head - unless of course you intend the sneak into the legal window that allows you to murder the baby inches before full birth.

10 posted on 11/05/2003 12:46:50 PM PST by Spiff (Have you committed one random act of thoughtcrime today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: AbsoluteJustice
AND ONLY THAT nothing more. If a stay has to be put on this bill to allow that exemption then I am ok with that. I love my wife and if it were her life and that of a child I am sorry I wpuld have to opt for the life of my wife.

It's in there. The last time they signed this bill, it wasn't there. That's how the pro-death killers got it thrown out.
They didn't want to make that err again.

12 posted on 11/05/2003 12:48:56 PM PST by concerned about politics ( As a rightous man declarith a thing, so shall it be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: AbsoluteJustice
There are no cases in which the delivery can hurt the mother WHEN ALL BUT THE TOP OF THE BABY'S HEAD IS ALREADY OUT!!! Do a little research before spouting off.
24 posted on 11/05/2003 2:36:33 PM PST by johnb838 (What about MY right to free speech?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: AbsoluteJustice
Ask your wife what she would want you to do.
27 posted on 11/05/2003 4:22:46 PM PST by SwinneySwitch (Freedom isn't Free - Support the Troops & Vets!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: AbsoluteJustice
There has always been an ethical medical rationale to save the LIFE of a mother over that of a fetus . Even the Catholic church agrees with that. However, the Partial birth procedure would never be used in a life threatening situation. The uterus has to undergo several days of 'ripening' medications, before the natural premature labor begins.

No doctor would choose this to for a woman threatened with death.
It is generally chosen so that the mother avoids a Caesarian section scar.

33 posted on 11/05/2003 6:15:37 PM PST by maica (Leadership matters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: AbsoluteJustice
I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if I'm repeating something. I don't know if you and your wife have had children already, I'm sorta assuming not.

There is NO WAY a baby can be that far along in the delivery and suddenly the wife's life is in danger. Perhaps complications arise...but don't you ALL remember something called C-section???? That WAS how things were (and still are) handled if there seems to be a breech birth (or other complications).

Trust me on this. They are part of the culture of death, those ghouls who advocate this. They're demonic in my opinion. And they WILL answer to God someday.
38 posted on 11/05/2003 8:21:09 PM PST by Brad’s Gramma (I have a good recipe for Spotted Owl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: AbsoluteJustice
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, along with hundreds of physicians and the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) said that this "procedure" is never necessary to save the life of the mother.

Dr. Nancy Romer, FACOG, Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Miami Valley Hospital in Ohio said, "People deserve to know that the partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated either to save the health of a woman or preserve her future fertility."

Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist who specializes in these late-term abortions, has admitted to performing over 1,000 of these abortions. He stated in a recorded interview with the American Medical News (the official newspaper of the AMA) that: "In my particular case, probably 20% (of these procedures) are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective." That means in 80% (that's over 800 babies) there was no health risk for the mother and the baby had no handicaps.

It has been documented that thousands of these abortions are performed each year. A New Jersey newspaper reporter with the Bergen County Record discovered and reported that 1,500 babies are killed each year by partial-birth abortion at one New Jersey "Hospital" alone. - source

46 posted on 11/06/2003 6:13:10 AM PST by shhrubbery!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson