Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (416292)	6/18/2003 1:04:00 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Respond to of 769667

The legislation includes an exemption in cases in which the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, moron!? LOLer cnn.com

To: Land Shark who wrote (416292)	6/18/2003 1:14:52 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 769667

woman who is "suicidally depressed", huh?? LOLOLOL---what a moron you are.... Misinformation has been continually aired on partial birth abortion, including the following: 1.It may be necessary to save a woman's life. Not true. In fact, H.R. 1122 allows partial birth abortion to save a mother's life. In any event, "There are absolutely no obsetrical situations...which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother."1 2.President Clinton argued that it is necessary to prevent "serious adverse health consequences" to the mother. Not true. The mainstream medical community agrees: There is NO medical necessity for such a procedure. Even the leading authority on late-term abortion in the United States says that the procedure is never necessary to preserve a woman's health.2 Furthermore, "health", as defined by law in the abortion context includes all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial and social.3 This is a loophole large enough to justify any abortion. So, adding any health exception would effectivly negate the ban. Addition to the modifiers "serious" and "adverse" will not change the way the law defines health. 3.It may be necessary to preserve a woman's future fertility. Not true. Medical experts say it does the opposite. Forecefully dilating a woman's cervix for three days and turning a baby in utero to a breech position can make it more difficult to carry a subsequent baby to term.4 4.The procedure is not as brutal as it looks. The anesthesia given to the mother kills the unborn baby. Not true. Leading anesthesiologists in the United States testified before Congress that this is simply not true.5 5.It is rarely done, and only for the most serious of reasons. Not true. It was testified before Congress that 1500 of these were done in New Jersey alone! And 80% of them were done on healthy mothers and babies. We do not know the total number of these abortions... but even if it were only 500 per state (500x50) it would be at least 25,000 babies per year. Practitioners report that the vast majority of these abortions are elective and the some are done to prevent the live birth of a child with handicaps.6 1 Testimony of Pamela Smith, MD in U.S. Senate Hearing Report 104-260 (Testimony of Nov. 17, 1995) p. 82. 2Dr. Warren Hern, in American Medical News, Nov. 20, 1995 p.3. 3Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973). 4Dr. Warren Hern, in American Medical News, Nov. 20, 1995 p.3. 5U.S. Senate Hearing Report 104-260 p.108. 6U.S. Senate Hearing Report 104-260 p.23. ********* The American Medical Association has endorsed the ban. The American Medical Association's board of trustees released a report in May 1997, saying there are no situations in which "intact dilation and extraction [known as partial-birth abortion] is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion." ******** from a nurse: " I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen." ************* "Doctors typically resist regulation, but this is one time when society must step in to protect its fundamental values of human life and compassion.... The counterfeit compromises being offered by pro-abortion forces would simply fuel the financial self-interest of abortionists. Allowing the abortionist to determine whether or not the mother should get a partial-birth abortion is putting the fox in charge of the hen house." "The American people are overwhelmingly opposed to this barbaric procedure. That's because a partial-birth abortion strikes at the core of who we are as a nation. Our values call for the protection of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. Sadly, today the most vulnerable members of our society are our own babies. It's time to stop the torture and end the tragedy of partial-birth abortion." -- David Stevens, MD, executive director, Christian Medical and Dental Society (10,000 members)