The Genius of Pro-Life Messaging

"Is it a lack of time or brains...or shame?"
.
Most likely shame ... and I sure am glad that enough people still have enough of that when talking about ending a life. There's a reason why Michelle Obama refers to a teenage pregnancy as a distraction that could end a child's hope of a normal life ... it is because like many liberals, she truly believes. But there's also a reason why she would rather not be caught saying it loud .... yes, you guessed right, shame.
.
You guys should get over it, you will never get abortion on demand in the U.S., at least not in the next 25 years or so ... and I sure am glad it is that way. I'm still wondering how legalizing the ending of a life has become a sign of progress in a society ... it was illegal when we were backward and lived in the dark ages, now it is legal in many "enlightened" societies .... what a shame.
.
BTW, I'm quite liberal on most things, and would have voted for Obama if I could (only a permanent resident, not a citizen yet), but I draw the line when people think abortion on demand is the way to go .... exceptional cases like incest and rape, that can be discussed, but a life should not be ended just because it may cause some in inconvenience...
.
And please, no drivel about how people like me say no abortion but support killing in a war .... first, I don't support either war ... more importantly, that argument is really juvenile ..... you know, something about two wrongs not making a right ...

walkingfunny:

I draw the line when people think abortion on demand is the way to go .... exceptional cases like incest and rape, that can be discussed, but a life should not be ended just because it may cause some in inconvenience...

You draw the line?
.
LOL.
.
Makes sense that you'd rather change the subject from the rank dishonesty of the people who do the dirty work for your beliefs in Washington...dishonesty like "you will never get abortion on demand in the U.S.":

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion, is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history.
.
The Court held that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable.'" The Court defined viability as the potential "to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2] The Court said that, after viability, abortion must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, as defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton.[3] The Court rested these conclusions on a constitutional right to privacy emanating from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as substantive due process.

"Abortion on demand" is one of those genius "messages" from the professional liars in the Pro-Life lobby; it means nothing in the United States, where the law of the land is Roe v Wade, which restricts lawful abortion to being within the control of individuals' consciences until late in term, unless (of course, in a civilized country) there are health concerns for women in dangerous pregnancies.
.
You're free to have your own opinion of things, of course. The beauty of our country is that it was founded with the preservation of individuals' privacy and conscience as a primary goal.
.
But if you righteously smirk "people think abortion on demand is the way to go", you're lying...not just about the law as it is, but about what others besides yourself actually think, and why others make the decisions that they must make.
.
Try not to be so dishonest next time, if you can help it, walkingfunny.

Staurt~

PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION: 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; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)
.
Have you considered that it is Amy that is being disingenuous? She says, "In reality, vanishingly few of the targeted abortions took place in the third trimester, but the messaging allowed pro-life groups to rally support for banning a procedure used much earlier in pregnancy." Where does she mention that the goal of banning partial birth abortions was not aimed at curbing its practice in the third trimester, but more specifically anytime after viability, which is generally in the second trimester? The act itself, called "intact dilation and extraction" consists of executing the fetus (if after viability) once it is extracted. The goal was to ban the practice, not prevent its implementation in the third trimester.
.
According to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act:
(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. As a result, at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.
.
According to the US Supreme Court in Gonzales v Carhart:
Considerations of marginal safety, including the balance of risks, are within the legislative competence when the regulation is rational and in pursuit of legitimate ends.When standard medical options are available, mere convenience does not suffice to displace them; and if some procedures have different risks than others, it does not follow that the State is altogether barred from imposing reasonable regulations. The Act is not invalid on its face where there is uncertainty over whether the barred procedure is ever necessary to preserve a woman's health, given the availability of other abortion procedures that are considered to be safe alternatives.

neorationalist86:
.
In the interest of clarity, "Partial Birth Abortion" isn't a medical term, as far as I am aware. The bill's authors don't cite sources for their claims of consensus, of course. Legislation, as you must know, isn't science.
.
That said, of course I have "considered that it is Amy that is being disingenuous", which is why I wrote:
"If that's true."

Staurt-
"Abortion on demand" is one of those genius "messages" from the professional liars in the Pro-Life lobby...
~~
Seems to me that you have made up your mind on the issue. Clearly, you are in agreement with Amy in that the Pro-Life lobby is disingenuous. No need to add the "If that's true" qualifier.
~~
As for your claim that legislation is not science, I agree. However, both the legislation and the Supreme Court decision clearly define what is considered to be the practice of Partial-Birth Abortion, or technically, "intact dilation and extraction." Furthermore, they both cite extensive medical research and opinion, including expert medical testimony given during the judicial proceedings. It's rather lengthy, but if you are interested in clarification you may want to read the official opinion of the court:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf

"You draw the line?
.
LOL."
.
I'm glad you find it funny ... at least you still have a sense of humor even if your conscience is a tad short ...
.
Laugh all you want ... abortion is legal in the U.S., but there is a law that is higher than the courts ... morals and conscience, thank God enough people in the U.S. still have enough of both (yes, I used the G word, even starting with a capital letter). Thank God those who want to kill babies for convenience are still a minority in the U.S., that is why Pelosi and her type are looking for a compromise, they are faced with the obvious; the majority of Americans still wince at the thought of ending a life

neorationalist86:

Clearly, you are in agreement with Amy in that the Pro-Life lobby is disingenuous.

Unless this is trollery (this subject is an essential source for people who like to get arguments started for the fun of it), characterizing those who hold the position that this is a matter of individual conscience and personal, physical privacy and integrity for women as "those who want to kill babies for convenience" are liars, and their lobbyists are professional liars.
.
Whether Amy Sullivan has truthfully characterized this particular facet or not, there are some folks out there who make their living in the service of a political agenda by lying about the issue and their opponents.
.
Amy Sullivan has made some assertions about what the Pro-Life lobby said vs what it was doing with respect to late term abortion legislation, I honestly don't know if those assertions are true.
.
With respect to:

both the legislation and the Supreme Court decision clearly define what is considered to be the practice of Partial-Birth Abortion

,
these were some reactions from the medical community:

Some Medical groups expressed concern that the Court, in supporting the Partial Birth Abortion Act, endorsed the substitution of congressional legislation for medical judgment.
.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which had submitted an amicus brief opposing the Act, described the Court's decision as "shameful and incomprehensible", ignorant of medical consensus, and chilling for the medical profession.[22]
.
The New England Journal of Medicine criticized the intrusion of politicians into medical decision-making, writing:

Until this opinion, the Court recognized the importance of not interfering with medical judgments made by physicians to protect a patient's interest. For the first time, the Court permits congressional judgment to replace medical judgment.[5]

It's tough to discredit those opinions, although the Supreme Court is certainly supremely creditable with respect to what is or is not the constitutional law of the land.
.
Thanks for the link to the opinion, neorationalist86, much appreciated.
.
Don't you agree with me that we should try to avoid pointless and predictable rancor about this matter?

Stuart-
Certainly, both the "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" communities have extremists within their ranks who engage in disingenuous hyperbole. Calling those who support abortion rights "baby killers" is extreme and counterproductive. In that same vein, though, to call those who are shocked at the callous nature of abortion "religious fanatics" is to disregard completely that which you cannot see. It is an easy position to take that abortion is all about personal choice, for what you cannot visualize as a human being is easy to disregard without reservation. However, those on the other side, Staurt, including me, accept that once conceived, the fetus will in approximately 9 months emerge as a fully accepted human being. Therefore, it is impossible for me to accept the argument that until that point, or even up until the point where the fetus is fully viable, that we, as a society, can condone or legitimize the termination of that growing life. Especially under some misguided and disingenuous notion of unburdening women from the yokes of a male-oriented society. That is a frivolous legitimization of the immoral, Stuart, made under such pragmatic themes as women's equality, combating poverty, or population control.
.
This is a view, though, that I recognize you will probably not accept. However, as a starting point, can we not, as a society, seek to purge the more barbaric of abortion measures? The Partial-Birth Abortion, or Intact Dilation and Extraction, whatever you may call it, was noted by the legislation and judicial decision as a procedure that constitutes a minute proportion of actual abortions. It is a ghastly procedure which shocks, or at least should shock, the conscience. It warrants removing the fetus, and killing him/her externally from the womb. Is this not something we could do without, Stuart? Regardless of whether some medical professionals find it to be more convenient and as such they stamp their feet and bemoan government intrusion in their practices, I think we, Stuart, as a society are better than that. I think we have a right, no an obligation, to demand that abortions align with a common sense of compassion and humanity, yes? Proponents of abortion may see that as a slippery slope towards further regulation (which I would adoringly welcome!), however, is that a justifiable reason to stand in defiance of righteousness? Is that reason enough to stand firmly in support of a perversely convenient procedure that has superior alternatives?

neorationalist86:
.
If I have time today, I'd like to respond to those arguments, but it might not be available.

I'm laughing at your self-righteousness.
.
You'll have a tough time persuading folks to accept your extreme views --basically that everybody should be forced to accept your beliefs-- with that sort of obvious personality flaw.
.
...Unless you resort to lying, that is, but we'll sort that out eventually, too.

Laugh if you want to, but the vast majority of abortions are purely elective, that is a matter of convenience, no health danger at all for the supposed to be mother.

Now a Health plan without maternity care, you would really scream about, why? Because it endangers the health of the mother and the Fetus.

No tell me why you would scream about the health of the Fetus in one case and not the other?

Tell me what is the difference between say an elective procedure for a face lift and an elective surgery for an abortion? Would you pay for some else's face lift? Do you really want to pay for someones unnecessary elective abortion that endangers the health of the Fetus, the same Fetus that you fight for in the case of Maternity Care?

allthings: great point ... don't expect an answer though .... I guess it is only a life when stuart and the likes say it is.
.
stuart: "You'll have a tough time persuading folks to accept your extreme views --basically that everybody should be forced to accept your beliefs-- with that sort of obvious personality flaw."
.
you think banning the use of federal funds for elective abortion is extreme? You are really living in crazy land .... the truth is that is the mainstream american position today, this is obvious by the majority of reps voting for it. I don't need to convince anybody, the majority is already on my side, it is you who has to convince more americans that it is right to end a life just because I want to .... good luck with that.

LOL.
.
Good luck with that bitterness...seriously, try to work on that --it's good for you.

either you just learnt the use of "LOL" or you really get tickled really easily.
.
I'm against people being able to kill babies just because they want to and that makes me bitter, you want full federal support for ending a life whenever people want it, and I am the bitter one??? talk of projection .... there may be some link to your mindset and your many LOLs, you need to stop skipping your psych consults, hopefully, the HC reform will ensure that you can always afford them.

Unwanted by whom? Want is of little importance when discussing a human life. Who is the "you" that thinks babies should be born, yet cares not for their well-being after? Could you clarify who you think you are calling out on this? Thanks.

"unwanted babies"
.
does anything else need to be said?? what are we talking about here?, a used car, an annoying job, a dog ?? ... or a baby, also known as a human being. This wicked attitude to a defenseless life is really appalling. It is people like you that give credence to the likes of Sarah Palin when they say that you will treat old folks the same way you treat "unwanted babies". Pray, tell me, what will you do with a very old relative who you don't really "want" any longer?, pull the plug?, like you do with an unborn child when it is not wanted? This mindset is just so scary ...
.
See what you've done now, you made me quote sarah Palin to counter your extreme and deranged mindset ... now I have to go and take a long shower.