At 12:31 PM 5/19/2005 -0500, Gary 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?
It seems to me that the law covered both potential types of delivery. >> >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. I don't see how, the definition is very broad: `(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; ' >>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? Well, at one point you argued to me that the procedure was not used often - only 0.004% of the time. Now you are arguing to me that it is "often used for the medical health of the mother." That strikes me as inconsistent on your part, and I am wondering which is it. >How about this - tell us under what conditions and at what stage of >development would you permit abortion? Like Dan, I only support an abortion under similar legal circumstances to which the taking of a life would ordinarily be permitted. Direct and imminent threat to the life of the mother. My position on abortion stems directly from the simple truism that "we all have a right to life." >There are a range of religious and social lines that have been drawn. The >Catholic Church official position is before insemination This is not the Catholic Church's position. The Church's theology on abortion and on contraception have a great number of differences between them. Suffice to say your characterization appears to say "the Catholic Church's official position is to permit an abortion before insemination", which of course makes no sense. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
