I could easily say 'I don't care....I'm not an American'....but even non-Americans are human and have a sense of humanity....and this sort of legislation is draconian at best and more invasive in a human rights sense than leaving the responsibility for decision with the experts where it belongs, not some dim-witted ego-tripper looking for self-agrandisement via the political forum.

but look at it this way, the one problem that will destroy this planet is over population.

http://www.crlp.org/hill_int_ggr_hiv.html

Expanded Global Gag Rule Limits Women’s Rights and Endangers Their Well-being
A recent expansion of the "global gag rule" or "Mexico City Policy"-a policy that denies United States development funds to organizations that perform or advocate for abortion, even with their own, non-U.S. funds-poses a grave danger to the lives and health of countless women around the world.

http://www.crlp.org/hill_int_usfp.html

Recently, at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Children in May 2002, the Bush administration advocated for efforts to restrict sexual education and information to "abstinence-only until marriage" and claimed that the words "reproductive health services" implied access to abortion. The Bush administration has turned a blind eye to the glaring needs of adolescents for information and services to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy, and HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmissible infections. In the end, the U.S. agreed to retain references to reproductive and sexual health care, and in return was granted its bid to weaken references to the importance of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the agreement.


http://family.org/cforum/citizenmag/coverstory/a0001561.cfm

STERILIZE OR STARVE

In February, reports of a U.S.-funded campaign of forced sterilization in Peru found their way to the U.S. House International Operations and Human Rights subcommittee and into major media outlets including The New York Times

Buttressed by Peruvian witnesses and a report from congressional staffer Joseph Grover Rees, who had recently visited Peru, subcommittee chairman Chris Smith, R-N.J., presented evidence of numerous abuses. Among them: Doctors who are given sterilization quotas and rewards for sterilizing larger numbers of women, and mostly poor women who are required to undergo tubal ligations as a condition of receiving food.
-------------------------
HUMAN LAB RATS

In addition to promoting sterilizations, U.S.-funded programs routinely dispense contraceptives such as Norplant and Depo-Provera--which in some cases act as abortifacients and are known to cause dangerous side effects. PRI reports that in the U.S. alone, 50,000 lawsuits have been filed against Norplant's manufacturer, Wyeth-Ayerst.


What's worse, there's evidence that the programs have used Third World women as guinea pigs to test those drugs.


A 1995 British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) documentary, The Human Laboratory, reported that in the mid-1980s USAID paid a private group, the Population Council, to conduct Norplant tests in Bangladesh. The test subjects: poor women living in slums who were offered the drug for free and told it was proven safe. All they had to do was have six plastic cylinders implanted in their arms and their troubles would be over.

---------------

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/healthnet/SAsia/suchana/0200/h024.html

Rao, Mohan. : Neo-Eugenics : The Quinacrine Sterilisation of Women in India. Women's Link. 3(3). July-September 1997. P. 12-15. Location: SNDT Churchgate.

Neo-Eugenics [1]: The Quinacrine Sterilisation of Women in India


Dr. Kessel is on record that as a patriotic American he is proud to receive funding from such sources as he believes that, should the US allow free immigration, it would soon be turned into a Third World country. In a published paper they also argue that population control in Third World nations is of paramount importance to US security interests



neat huh?

enough info out there to wrap a mind around and understand where the claim of double standards and broken policy comes from...

All I want to say on this is...... My second child (Blair) could have been used to settle many, many child issues in this country! 1. We're thinking of having a child! Really, great I'll send Blair over Friday evening and you'll have your decision made before Monday...Guaronteed. 2. Can't make up your mind about the "pill"... no problem you can babysit Blair 3 days this week and by Friday you'll know for sure if you want it or not! 3. Can't decide where you stand on abortion..... Let Blair live with you for a week.....problem solved. I just want to warn you before he gets there, at present murder and abortion are still handled differently so don't confuse the two before you send him back home! Don't get me wrong I love him more than life itself and wouldn't trade him for anything, he's 175% boy and raising him by myself has sure cleared up some of these issues for me! I think Ortho should pay me for not using him to put them out of business! I love everyone here, please forgive me I just had to share my little comical twist in here!

Brad, no I didn't read the bill. But from what I read, the bill does NOT include health exceptions, which was the reason why Clinton opposed his veto twice in 2000. Also, still from what I read the bill defines partial abortion as second and third term pregnacies. The second term is where most of the health problems are found in the faetus. I see no reason why a malformed child should be allowed to be born.

I don't like abortions but I think it's a choice left to the woman. The problem I have with this procedure is that a living, innocent human being has it's head sticking out of the mother, mere moments away from a full life and it is killed. It sounds barbaric. What do they do? Chop the head off? Smother it? We don't hear those gruesome details but somehow they are murdering a child half out of the womb. Politically, I think this is why this law has been able to get through because some of the shroud over this "procedure" has been lifted and exposed the actuality of it. That said, I don't think the law should or will go any further,

BakerStreet, I'm sure you won't agree, but yes, I most definately think that children with severe handicaps should not be born. I'm not talking one missing finger or something small that would make little diference in one's life, I'm talking serious handicap, where that human being would be miserable and unhappy for the rest of his life, or makes everybody else's life unhappy.  There is no reason why a child with the Down Syndrome should be born. What kind of life do these children - and eventually adults - have? They will never be autonomous.  They will be dependant on their mother until she is 100 years old and dies, and then they'll be transfered to some special home. Of course they're too retarded to understand what is happening, they may be sortof happy, in the way a dog or a cat can be happy. But really, is that a life? 

Anyway, I understand from your last post that you probably have a very strong opinion against any form of abortion, so indeed, we should just leave it at that before we get our guns out.  Oh wait, I don't have one.

paxx...my wife is a speech pathologist....working for 'Scope' [formerly the 'Spastic Society']....and would tend to differ....

Wow! What a loaded subject!! I guess all we can go by is personal experience (at least that's how I live MY life...that...and good ole common sense)and so...having terminated a pregnancy that was a result of a very violent and horrible encounter in young adulthood, I was convinced that the 4 later miscarriages were a direct punishment for "murder"...having matured and finally having two children (grown now), I think differently. There are so very many social, cultural, religious and economic issues that combine to put so many critical issues on a single decision...how can a "blanket" statute apply to such a diverse population? I can't claim I have the answer because I don't...I just think that maybe a little more consideration should be given before we judge anyone...or force a "one law for all" demand on such a complicated and obviously delicate problem. Peace.

My 2 cents:

This can be ended in 2 words : WOMAN'S CHOICE, or
3 words, if you are picky : ALWAYS woman's choice.

Done


Sajuuk

If that's the case,then the article doesn't explain it very well. I was under the impression that the bill was about outlawing ANY form of procedure that could kill the baby any time after the first trimester and before the birth.  I didn't know it was about a very particular procedure that consists of puncturiung the brain of the half-born baby.

Maybe I didn't read right. I must improve my reading skills.

Personally, I think abortions should be outlawed. And sterilization should be incorporated. Especially for these crack smoking mothers who have six children to get welfare and the poor babies are born addicts with mental problems. One crack baby and she loses her ability to infect children and steal from society to support her drug habit.

For everyone else except Rape victims and medical situations, Responsibility is the answer. If you get a woman pregeant, you should marry her and give her baby, a father, a mother and a family unit. I feel sorry for these single mothers who have to take all the responsibility for the rest of their lives(except the crack mothers). If you can't get along with the mother, use birth control and stop thinking about your own five seconds of pleasure. If you did use birth control and it didn't work, too bad. You put it there, and enjoyed it, now you have to take responsibility for your actions. The other solution would solve the problem completely. Abstinence. Can't do that, you stud? Take RESPONSIBILITY