Post Partial Birth Abortion Act.

H

H D A

New member
When the United States House and Senate passed the "Partial Birth Abortion act of 2003," they stated;

"(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion -- an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing deliveryof the dead infant -- is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited."

The Supreme Court of the United States in "Gonzales vs. Carhart" (October term of 2006), upheld the ban on partial birth abortion and the procedure remains banned to this date.

My question is this: "Do you agree with the (2003) ban on the "partial birth abortion" procedure and the United States Supreme Court's (2006) decision to uphold the ban?
 
After the first three months of a known pregnancy, all abortions should be illegal with exception of cases where the life of the pregnant person is at risk with advancement toward birth. If the birth has begun...let it happen.

There are too many couples wanting to adopt children to say that the aborted ones would have been a problem.

Life begins at conception.
 
Shouldn't this be in the abortion forum?

I personally do not agree with abortions above the 12 week stage, but crucially if the life of the mother is at risk with the continuation of the pregnancy it's an entirely different story.
 
When an abortion takes place, it should take place in whatever means a minimum of stress to the mother. In some (rare, admittedly) situations, 'partial birth abortion' provides this method. If you want to make late-term abortion illegal, go for it - but criminalising a technique on the basis that some of the time it is used in a situation you have moral issue with does not make sense.


This is a misunderstanding of the procedure, one which (I suspect) has been fostered by use of the term 'partial birth abortion'. The 'quotes' are because the term was coined by pro-lifers, and is not a 'partial birth' beyond the fact that the foetus is 'partially out' - but it has been pulled there by forceps, nothing more.

There were 1.2 million abortions in the US last year. In 2001 (I don't have more recent figures) ~127,000 children were adopted, of which 2/5 were from publicly funded groups.

Supply very definitely exceeRAB demand. Adoption is not a practical solution.

You may want to take that up in the relevant thread. Seeing as Chuz completely missed the point of anyone who disagreed with him, I welcome your arguments.
 
It should be established an Intrauterine Life Department of a Minor`s Institute.

Performing an abortion without having a license to do it and without reporting it to that Institute, would imply 5 years of imprisonment.

State should have the control of therapeutical abortions to avoid extremisms.
 
Illegal!





Bringing an End to Abortion: Is Abortion Ever Justified?

A c-s is always an option 99.999% of the time, if you can partial birth the baby in order to jam a sharp object into him/her skull to kill him/her, then you can certainly birth them all the way and give them up for adoption. I've had 5 births, I know pretty well how hard it is to give birth right, much less do it induced and legs coming out first (aka the wrong way). There shouldn't be any votes for legal, imo. Even planned parenthood acknowledges there's really no need for it. That's got to say something!
 
Back
Top