On 5/19/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 09:41 AM 5/18/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: > >> Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults > nationwide. > >> MoE � 3 (total sample). > >> > >> "Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a > >> specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a > woman's > >> pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary > to > >> save the life of the mother?" > > [snip] > > >According to legal analysis and the language in the bill itself it did > >not ban late term abortion. > > > >It banned a particular procedure and then messed up the language on > >that procedure so that it bans some abortions at 12 weeks. (Actually > >what the GOP has been describing as partial birth-abortion which has a > >feet first delivery isn't banned at all.) > > Not true. From the law "the term `partial-birth abortion' means an > abortion in which the person performing the abortion.... deliberately and > intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a > head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the > mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal > trunk > past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of > performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially > delivered living fetus;:
May I just point to "in the case of a head-first presentation" or do you to read the about six hundred pages of the legal decisions on this case? > >A majority 53% of Democrats would agree to a late-term abortion ban > >with exceptions for the life of the mother. 65% of Republican agree to > >this. Why wasn't this the bill? > > As you can see in the quoted portion above, the poll question referred to > "specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's > pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion". And then it describes another procedure. >The bill was ruled unconstitutional because it had no exceptions for > >the well-being of the pregnant woman and in one of the trials in a > >finding of fact a conservative pro-life judge ruled that GOP > >leadership had to know that this was a procedure often used for the > >medical health of the mother despite them presenting false evidence > >this was not so. > > Often? I thought that it was 0.004%??? ;-) Whenever that procedure is used. Is that often enough? >JDG is arguing any woman dumb enough to have an unwanted pregnancy is > >rich enough and smart enough to find a doctor who would say having a > >child is bad for their health. > > Not true. Any abortionist could make the necessary mental health > diagnosis, as Dan M. has noted. There has never been a test case to see if a "mental health diagnosis" is sufficient to weight the women's health over a viable life. I doubt that argument would fly and doubt that you would get doctors and a clinic willing to risk prosecution. You and Dan seem to be picking extreme hypotheticals to support your position. How about this - tell us under what conditions and at what stage of development would you permit abortion? Where do you draw the line? There are a range of religious and social lines that have been drawn. The Catholic Church official position is before insemination - using contraception is thwarting the will of God. There have been societies where infanticide is permitted. Pick a spot and tell me your reasoning. So you and Dan are both arguing over these fuzzy lines in the later stages of fetal development and what constitutes the health of the mother. Is that all you really want to stop? Somehow I just think that is where you may think you have your best shot of a winning argument right now. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
