People will then go elsewhere to have abortions. (Shrug)

I agree with tha vote to ban partial birth abortions. By the time a baby can come out it is fully functioning. Anyway if the mother wanted to have an abortion I think she should notice that she is pregnant some time before.

I'm against all abortions, but that to me is irrelevant to this ban.

You know, it was NOT the great Democratic US of A who were first to grant women the vote.......but New Zealand, followed by Australia.  They still remain second-class citizens with decisions such as this.

Clearly the Patriarchal society triumphs once more.....the issue of Abortion is nothing more than men scared that if women had full control of their lives that they [the men] would never have been born....

 

However, this topic touches on volatile emotion/s and may itself be aborted unless handled 'correctly'.

ugh. Not even going to touch it either. >

Usually, a woman knows before the first trimester if she wants to abort or not.
I'm sure that a good portions of abortion performed during the second or third trimester are done because there is something wrong.  Either the pregnacy isn't going well and could endanger the mother's life, or sometimes there could be something wrong with the baby itself (serious handicaps).  Such a law will result in more women death and more awfull lives of crippled children.

I said it once & I'll say it again...If the male species were the ones to give birth, You can sure bet they'd make a sport out of it!

Paul, you better close this before it gets ugly.



[Message Edited]

Are you guys suggesting that a woman should have the right to kill a "fetus" that is only minutes away from birth?

I have 2 children and while I am pro-choice, I do believe there should be a limit. After around 28 weeks of pregnancy the baby can live outside the womb.

I've yet to hear the excuse for why someone needs to abort a child that is only a month or less away from being delivered.

I think the Senate has no business dictating medical decisions. That method of terminating a pregnancy is not done lightly by anyone. And, they are just using the Pro Life hyperbole agenda to force this issue. What makes me really mad is that by the time a woman generally gets to that point in her pregnancy, she has like found out that something has gone horribly wrong, and chooses to abort. Sometimes, continuing the pregnancy will endanger the woman's life, but this ban doesn't even consider that.

I have a family member involved in the OB/GYN discipline of medicine, and has been for many years. She was faced with this decision with one of her patients a few years ago. The poor woman was going through hell. She finally had to travel a few thousand miles away to find a doc to abort her pregnancy, which btw, saved her life. Docs have become so afraid of the politics and of being held liable for what should otherwise be their and their patients' decisions.

Also, because this is such a rare and gruesome procedure, it's not used as a form of birth control. That's crap. That's just political hyperbole. It's a horrific decision that a woman makes when things go bad, and we have no business passing laws, never mind judgment on those who have to go through it.

Shame on us for enabling this kind of extremist crap into our political agenda. There is so much more important things that must be accomplished. This ban is just a diversion from what's important: medical coverage for everyone, education, the economy, fighting for peace, etc.

Damn, now I'm upset.......

Dabe

The government has the duty to protect the life of its citizens. Since this procedure takes place around the same time as a normal pregnancy I think that the baby could be taken out without killing it or its mother thus making the baby a citizen if born in the US. I might be wrong because I am not a medical professional, but wouldn't taking a dead baby out of the womb have almost the same effect on the mother as taking out a live one.

I'll say it again; I am against all abortions, but I don't feel that I am in the place to decide on its legality (I am male). However, I feel that this procedure banned is not abortion, but the same as murdering the baby right after birth.

The child can be disformed, have a desease. The second trimester ultrasound is used to confirm that the child is normal, that all the bits and pieces are in there right place.  What if they find out the child is growning a third arm on his forehead (OK, I'm exagerating, but you get the point). Or a tournout in the pregnancy could be placing the mother's life in danger. Extreme cases. But making it illegal in all cases can be dangerous.  The law they are passing says that ANY act putting the life of the faetus in danger would be illegal. Down syndrome screening for example is done by inserting a needle into the womb and causes a miscarriage 1% of the time. Such a law would then make that test illegal.

Only if you run as VP Jafo

oh by the way, I agree with you on all acounts

Doesn't it really come down to where you draw the line? A long time ago, it was common practice to 'still' a child after it was born, if it appeared 'unnatural', ie: deformed, etc. Eventually, through societal pressures and laws, it became not accepted to end the life once it was out 'in the air' , if you will.
Seems to me, this is just pushing the line a bit farther back.

For the record, I think abortions are a terrible thing, although sometimes necessary. In any case, I don't feel it's the Government's job to dictate in these matters. Procreation is, and should remain, a private, personal matter.