A Rather Large Post on Abortion and Democrats

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Okay, This is going to be the largest, most EXPLOSIVE post you will EVER read in your entire life.....

I'll start with an interesting article I read today in the local paper written by a fellow student.

Sarcasm exposes gruesome reality of partial-birth abortions
By: Kody Cooper

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear two arguments on the federal law banning partial-birth abortion.

The cases come six years after Stenberg v. Carhart, where the Supreme Court upheld 5-4 a woman's right to obtain a partial-birth abortion.

With the replacement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor by Justice Samuel Alito, many think the new court will overturn that decision.

What exactly is a partial-birth abortion? (WARNING: if you have a weak stomach, stop reading now.)

First the abortionist dilates the mother's cervix, and the fetus is extracted with forceps. The fetus is then dismembered piecemeal or, as one doctor testified, the abortionist "basically tears off pieces of the fetus and pulls them out."

Some abortion doctors don't favor tearing fetuses limb from limb. Instead, they prefer a more imaginative method called "dilation and extraction." When fetuses are more developed in the mid to late second trimester and early third trimester, the abortionist must be a bit more creative.

After dilating the cervix, the abortionist grabs the fetus by its feet and pulls him or her out of the uterus into the vaginal cavity. Just a few inches from birth, the fetus is stuck in this position, partially dangling outside the mother's body. The abortionist then stabs the fetal skull with a pair of scissors and proceeds to vacuum out his or her "intracranial contents."

The Supreme Court declared in 2000 that this procedure was protected by the U.S. Constitution.

As I have asked before, I continue to ponder what Thomas Jefferson really meant when he said, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

I don't think he was talking about autocratic monarchs and democratic colonials. No, he was talking about despotic fetuses and oppressed women.

The fetus is not a nascent human being but a tyrant. Partial-birth abortion isn't murder - it's fertilization. It is only with a little uterine blood from patriotic women mixed with the wicked blood of partially-birthed and aborted tyrants that we have the fecund manure necessary to fertilize the tree of female liberty.

Without this steady flow of bloody fertilizer, there is no guarantee women can continue to divorce sex from procreation. Women cannot be guaranteed to have sex without the responsibility of motherhood.

So, I rhetorically ask the Supreme Court: what signify forty million lives lost in a decade or two? The tree of female liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriotic women and tyrannical fetuses. Unwanted babies are its natural manure.

Now, I'm sure we'll hear the banal nagging of Christians. They'll cry out all human beings have dignity and deserve equal respect and treatment no matter their stage of development.

Well, I point them to their Bibles and Hebrews 9:22, which says, "Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins."

My dear Christians, open your ears that you may hear.

Unless we continue to shed the blood of partially birthed fetuses, we will never atone for two hundred years of sinfully forcing women to have children.

May the blood continue to flow, and may we be forgiven.

Editor's note: While the content of this column might be offensive, it is sarcastic.

Now on to my point on the Democrats.

I think it's fair to agree that a majority of Americans, as well as many europeans find the act of Partial Birth abortion to be just barbaric. Regaurdless of how you feel about abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, this is just dispecable right?

Tell that to 141 Democrats and 1 Republican in the House of Representatives who attempted to obstruct the bill by voting NO. Also tell that to the 39 Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 1 Independant Senator who voted No as well. John Kerry amongst them.

Now this Bill, "does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

Glad to know that these people, I hope the Republican "ney" voters were ousted on Tuesday, are now a majority.

Okay, I lied, it's not the longest you've ever read.

If you want the statistics on who voted what, go Here .

[Lusted]

Just to make sure im more aware of your views on the matter:

Is it just partial-birthabortion you find barbaric?
Do you think that abortion in the early stages of pregnancy should be legal as it is now in the US and most European nations?

[Ó Cathasaigh]

My opinion is fairly irrelevant. Though, I admit that I find Partial Birth abortion EXTREMELY barbaric.

[vikrant]

so u think abortion is illegal ??
no matter what stage it is and the reasoning behind it??

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Abortion is legal in some places, but I don't recall stating anything about any abortion other than "partial-birth abortion"

[Sher Khan]

I suppose the issue at stake is the right of the birthing mother. From what I can see (and read of chapter 74), this bill does not apply to instances where the mother may die. Only that. My assumption is that the Democrats didn't like the bill because it left out a provision for exempting the act in a situation where the mother may be physically harmed but not killed. If the mother were to suffer irreparable damage or loss of fertility but still be alive after it all, this bill would prevent her having the option to protect her well-being.

You have to read between the lines when discussing government bills. The most important lesson I learned in State and National mock student Congress.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

From what I can see (and read of chapter 74), this bill does not apply to instances where the mother may die.

That is very debateable. If there is the chance that the mother could be seriously harmed, the risk of death is a possibility, I am sure a Doctor would know very well the risks of birthing a child and would not be restrained by the bill.

You have to read between the lines when discussing government bills. The most important lesson I learned in State and National mock student Congress.

I was also involved in a similar program, although I only went to the state version, it was very enjoyable and surpriseing how quickly you get caught up in Partisan politics, especialy with two parties that have no real platform. (we used Federalists and Nationalists)

It should be noted that not all the Democrats voted No. Many supported this bill, what I find disturbing is the number of No voters that they had.

[Bwaho]

abortion eh? just suck em out, stab em and flush em down the toilet!!1

i think all abortion should be banned except in cases of rape

how do you check if someone really got raped though? can't the woman just say she got drugged and raped while she was unconscious?


btw I didn't know Finland had stricter laws on abortion than most other european countries, how does it work over there?

[VALIS]

how do you check if someone really got raped though? can't the woman just say she got drugged and raped while she was unconscious?

good point,it would be very hard to find out,and one problem would be women who want to kill there babies and then say 'oh i was raped' as a cover story
.....................i'll have to think this through,but i'm just saying that from a perfect world position,i'm sure there would be many real difficulties in the real world.
abortion is still disgusting though.........it is legalised murder.



ps.goddam someone resize that image!

[John Wayne]

It is unfortunate that decisions such as this are typically based on Party lines and not on what one believes is proper or just.

[Sher Khan]

That is very debateable. If there is the chance that the mother could be seriously harmed, the risk of death is a possibility, I am sure a Doctor would know very well the risks of birthing a child and would not be restrained by the bill.

Very true. However, I meant to say that in the instance where the mother will be harmed, but not in a life-threatingly manner, the bill would prevent her from seeking protective measures. Again, causing infertility is rarely life-threatening, but the mother will have no choice but to go through with it because of the bill, scarring her for life - but not killing her.

My only issue with the bill is the lack of a middle ground. Very few instances involve a risk of death for the mother, but many more times is there a chance of physical injury that doesn't lead to death. This bill punishes rightly those who want a partial-birth abortion for petty reasons like the Duke mentions, but also punishes the vast majority of mothers who are neither petty nor subject to death.

It's not about 'I like to dismember babies, lol'. This bill hinders the rights of a woman to protect herself from physical harm of which it makes no provision to protect. I suspect this sole issue caused so many Democrats and a few Republicans to vote against it. Ad hominem attacks on the moralities of the liberals because they voted against this supposed 'fair' bill are irrelevant and dishonest. No one but the mentally crazed would enjoy baby-dismemberment.

Another issue I would like to mention: doctors almost never suggest partial-birth abortions unless the death of the mother or the death of the fetus itself is assured otherwise. From my knowledge, partial-birth abortions are used almost entirely in cases where the fetus would die anyway. Here, it is not an issue of 'I'm not ready for this'. It's an issue of 'What are you going to be ready for?'

I was also involved in a similar program, although I only went to the state version, it was very enjoyable and surpriseing how quickly you get caught up in Partisan politics, especialy with two parties that have no real platform. (we used Federalists and Nationalists)

My single greatest achievment was passing a bill on the State level that 'reduced the open seats of the senate and house by 30%.' I passed, almost unanimously after heated debate and rhetoric, a bill that fired most of us, lol.

It should be noted that not all the Democrats voted No. Many supported this bill, what I find disturbing is the number of No voters that they had.

Again, they most certainly voted no because of the restrictive nature of the bill. No one would willingly argue for the exact opposite of the bill.

[VALIS]

abhorrent....truly disgusting,i am apalled.
i think all abortion should be banned except in cases of rape or if the baby will die and kill the mother.

any other forms of abortion SHOULD be illegal.I become enraged when i hear about some bubblehead nincompoop who wants an abortion because 'she cant be bothered' or 'i'm not ready'.
it is vile,it is murder.

[bigfootedfred]

I think it's fair to agree that a majority of Americans, as well as many europeans find the act of Partial Birth abortion to be just barbaric. Regaurdless of how you feel about abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, this is just dispecable right?

Abortion.
where i stand is that i don't agree with it. I don't like it,
and i do essentially think that it is a death sentence for what would be a healthy human child.
So the question is, does an unborn child, or cluster of cells that will become a child have basic human rights?

I think yes. it does.

[gigagaia]

What is so interesting about that map that Vikrant posted, is that it shows that the vast majority of states which we trump as socially and economically developed, have abortion on-demand, whereas states that we largely find "different" and "other" (such as Islamic states, Hispanic states etc...) do not have legal abortion, or have severe restrictions around it.

So does that mean that the western world has something to learn from the parts of the world that we are on a mission to export our values to? I thought that these states were backward places ruled by fascist dictators?

[Ó Cathasaigh]

So does that mean that the western world has something to learn from the parts of the world that we are on a mission to export our values to? I thought that these states were backward places ruled by fascist dictators?

China? Turkey? North Korea? Cuba? Former Soviet republics (the stans)?

It goes both ways.

[Visna]

FIrst things first.
Someone, please for all that's sacred and holy, resize the images.

Now, on topic.
What is it you find so "extremely barbaric" about Partial Birth Abortion Hicks?
First of all, it's very rarely used. But better to have the opportunity, should the need arise, than not having it at all, I would say.
Second, it's almost exclusively used in cases where delivering the child would potentially kill the woman, or severely harm her. Loss of reproductive ability for instance.
Third, from what I can read in the act you referred to, the Democrats were opposed to it, because the "harming the woman" reason would not be a viable and legal reason to perform the procedure, it would only apply if her life was at stake.
And fourth, the fetuses who are so unlucky to be on the receiving end of this procedure, would not be able to survive outside the womb anyway.

[Garbarsardar]

FIrst things first.
Someone, please for all that's sacred and holy, resize the images.

Your prayers have been answered

Now, on topic.
What is it you find so "extremely barbaric" about Partial Birth Abortion Hicks?
First of all, it's very rarely used. But better to have the opportunity, should the need arise, than not having it at all, I would say.
Second, it's almost exclusively used in cases where delivering the child would potentially kill the woman, or severely harm her. Loss of reproductive ability for instance.
Third, from what I can read in the act you referred to, the Democrats were opposed to it, because the "harming the woman" reason would not be a viable and legal reason to perform the procedure, it would only apply if her life was at stake.
And fourth, the fetuses who are so unlucky to be on the receiving end of this procedure, would not be able to survive outside the womb anyway.

What the woman said.

Furthermore the argument that resurfaces is the foetus=human being equivalence. I guess most of us, in the case of a hospital fire, having to choose between 10 fertilised eggs and a baby, we would go for the fertilised eggs since there are more humans in there...

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Furthermore the argument that resurfaces is the foetus=human being equivalence. I guess most of us, in the case of a hospital fire, having to choose between 10 fertilised eggs and a baby, we would go for the fertilised eggs since there are more humans in there...

That's a bit unfair don't you think? No one is saying we should kill babies or any living creature in order to have fertilised eggs survive.

I do beleive a man was charged with 2 counts of murder when he killed a pregnant woman a few years back, would you say that it's a just decision by the court?

[Shaun]

I think it's fair to agree that a majority of Americans, as well as many europeans find the act of Partial Birth abortion to be just barbaric. Regaurdless of how you feel about abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, this is just dispecable right?

No, not at all, and your appeal to persuade us to think it is despicable by highlighting the gruesome (well that is debatable itself) nature has failed, and the true nature of an abortion is irrelevant. If you are trying to ban something just because you think it to be gruesome then in order to not be a hypocrite I would expect you to ban hunting, killing animals for food and fur - slaughter houses are also pretty gruesome - and be against all wars. Are you?

What ever happened to "its the woman's body, so its the woman's choice"? I think the woman should come first, not the unborn foetus.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

What is it you find so "extremely barbaric" about Partial Birth Abortion Hicks?

Only this part

After dilating the cervix, the abortionist grabs the fetus by its feet and pulls him or her out of the uterus into the vaginal cavity. Just a few inches from birth, the fetus is stuck in this position, partially dangling outside the mother's body. The abortionist then stabs the fetal skull with a pair of scissors and proceeds to vacuum out his or her "intracranial contents."

If that isn't unsetteling to you, you are either fooling yourself or are a complete animal.

If you are trying to ban something

Oh, It's allready been banned. I'm simply showing my disgust for the Democratic party and how they are willing to be obstructive to obviously needed laws.

just because you think it to be gruesome then in order to not be a hypocrite I would expect you to ban hunting, killing animals for food and fur - slaughter houses are also pretty gruesome - and be against all wars. Are you?

Why would I be against those things? We are natural predators, and kill animals in humane ways. We're part of the foodchain, not above it. Why would I be against all wars? I'm against civilian deaths/wounds, isn't that enough?

Though, I hate to go down this road, as you're obviously not going to debate like a civil human. What kind of debate begins with "you're wrong, and a hypocrite". So, unless you have anything to further the topic at hand that don't involve character assasination, I'd rather not speak to you again.