Jump to content

Home

Why is the left wing supportive of partial birth abortion?


Good Sir Knight
 Share

Recommended Posts

There was a ban passed by congress and signed by the President.

 

It really peaved the left and now it's mired in lawsuits and court battles.

 

Which is why I'm asking the patrons of this forum.

 

I'm classified as being on the left wing and I certainly don't support partial-birth abortion.

 

But have you done anything about it?

 

I've seen that the left either directly supports or does nothing about it fearing that if they join the ranks of conservatives they may be outcasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to know.

 

IMO it's not as bad as the Jewish Question thread.
You're still of the impression Nance want the Jews exterminated?

 

Partial birth abortion is still practiced in the United States, I'd just like to find out how a fully grown baby isn't a human so long as it's head is still in the vagina.
I'm reading about it right now at Wikipedia (yes, I've finally adopted it), and I see nothing about partial-birth abortion being... Partial-birth abortion. You seem to be of the impression that the doctors wait until the mother is giving birth and then kill the baby when it's half-way out. Wikipedia tells a different story [my emphasis]:

Intact D&X Surgery

 

Preliminary procedures are performed over a period of 2-3 days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents, sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell. Sometimes hormones such as pitocin are used to induce the process of labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed which causes the skull to collapse, allowing the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a suction curette.

So am I really wrong, or is this operation performed before the baby's really born?
I wasn't aware that the entire left wing supported that.
Me neither.

 

But have you done anything about it?
I, for one, didn't even know about it. And I'm busy with the Red Cross and school, and so I wouldn't have time to do anything about it, even if I was against it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did you do?

 

There's a protest every Friday at the Abortion clinic near my work. I was repeatedly warned by the security guard for, 'Standing too close to the building'. (I was nowhere near the entrance)

 

But that doesn't really matter, my point is that people here seem to be more concerned with detainees in Gitmo than state sponsored infanticide.

 

For the record I don't oppose abortion, just late term/partial birth.

 

I do despise the culture around abortions though. Amazing how the left can be so ticked off at animal cruelty while treating a human fetus like a piece of feces.

 

I do wish people would exercise abortions under the most dire of circumstances though it's a rather pedestrian act for many people across the country.

 

So am I really wrong, or is this operation performed before the baby's really born?

 

The child is fully developed and obviously hasn't been born yet.

 

As you can see by the description in wikipedia, the child is pulled out by it's legs and murdered while it's head is still in the vagina.

 

Are you playing devils advocate or do you actually support this barbaric practice?

 

Oh and yes the left wing by and large supports this or is too shy to stand against it.

 

John Kerry was one of many Democratic senators that voted against the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Sir Knight, there is an edit button. There is no need to double post.

 

 

In the past, I've said it's a woman's fetus, let them do whatever the heck they want to. These days, I'm more "in certain circumstances." Rape, age, ect. Abortion should not be treated as a contraceptive. And abortions should only be performed early, not in the later stages of development.

 

 

As for the actual question in the topic, I have no idea who or what this "left wing" is. I hate all this left right liberal conservative political classifications. And I'm sure not every "left wing" person supports abortions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a protest every Friday at the Abortion clinic near my work.
Yeah, go ahead and make the doctors more insecure and the mothers even more guilty. It has such a huge impact on the abortion "industry", too! Wonderful idea!

 

I was repeatedly warned by the security guard for, 'Standing too close to the building'. (I was nowhere near the entrance)
Isn't private property a pain:D?

 

But that doesn't really matter, my point is that people here seem to be more concerned with detainees in Gitmo than state sponsored infanticide.
Off-topic and not subject to reply.

 

I do despise the culture around abortions though. Amazing how the left can be so ticked off at animal cruelty while treating a human fetus like a piece of feces.
Er, didn't you just say you don't oppose abortion:confused:?

 

The fetus is fully developed (...)
Funny how it's not being born, then.

 

As you can see by the description in wikipedia, the child is pulled out by it's legs and murdered while its head is still in the vagina.
Here you again seem to be under the impression that the doctors believe that "since the head's still in, it's OK, while otherwise it'd not be". Not so. They suck the brain out of the fetus's head in order for the skull to collapse and pass easier through the vaginal opening. That's why they do it while the head is still inside the mother. Not because they feel it justifies what they do. If it was easy to pull the whole baby through the vagina, they'd do it and then kill it, no sweat.

 

Oh and yes the left wing by and large supports this or is too shy to stand against it.
That's a big leap from saying that "the entire left" supports it. Good change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I get the feeling you posted this just to start an argument?

 

Because he didn't provide any information, or links, or background and so none of us have the faintest idea what the heck we are talking about?

 

I'm not willing to comment unless i know what i'm talking about, but i don'thave time to go off and research what exactly they are and the reasons why they have been felt necessary.

 

I DID think there was a time limit on abortions in the USA.. and unless these have an "except partial birth abortions exception" I would assume that these would have to be carried out within the same time limit as normal abortions.

 

OR that it is an emergency procedure for if something goes wrong during birth.

 

But I really don't have enough information. GSK's mission, should he choose to accept it, is to provide links to 2 or more articles explaining the issue. One against it and one supporting it.

 

NOBODY wants abortion for abortion's sake.. so i'd have to assume that there are reasons it was considered an option.

 

Oh actually, hang on, I just looked through my Official Liberal Handbook and it specifically states "our goal is to kill as many children as possible, just for the fun of it, so we must all support abortion for any reason, at any time and in any manner. Failure to do so will result in your Liberal membership being withdrawn. We are currently looking into ways to make post-birth abortion a reality in the USA.". My Mistake.. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I get the feeling you posted this just to start an argument?
No, I think it was just as much an impulse thing. Not that he knows much about it either:
Their excuse it that since the head is still in the vagina, it isn't a human being.
Have you ever actually heard an abortion doctor or -supporter say that?

 

But I really don't have enough information. GSK's mission, should he choose to accept it, is to provide links to 2 or more articles explaining the issue. One against it and one supporting it.
Here:

 

Wikipedia

Abortion Facts

Natural Right to Life [Against]

Religious Tolerance [For and Against/"Explores both sides of the Issue"]

 

We are currently looking into ways to make post-birth abortion a reality in the USA.
You want to know something frightening? Some people do.

 

It's called "utilitarian bio-ethics", and it's basically this idea that the weak should be killed rather than cared for. One of the ideas is that you don't become an actual human being before the age of one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I love about american conservatives is how they like to jump one daft bloke in the liberal party and expand on it as if that's what all left wingers think like. In that case we could just point a finger at Bush and then this whole little contest would be over.

 

There isn't really an american left wing party anyway. John Kerry would in Sweden probably be considered strongly right wing. And also íf you think liberals are wrong why do you then support conservatives who's actually often opposed to all what abortion stands for. This thread makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure it does.

 

For all you lefties out there, please explain why Gitmo prisoners deserve your attention more than state sanctioned murder, right down the street.

 

You're so concerned about detainees...what about the truly innocent?

 

I don't need to explain partial-birth abortion, you know what it is now come out with it.

 

Why do you feel more for detainees than innocent babies?

 

 

Er, didn't you just say you don't oppose abortion

 

I'm not about doing away with abortion in general, just abhorent practices like partial-birth.

 

I do, in fact despise the pedestrian nature of which some members of society go about them.

 

I would never support any one I know in getting an abortion unless they really needed to. Does that mean I want to make it illegal? No, it needs to be there for the right circumstances.

 

People just abuse it.

 

 

What I love about american conservatives is how they like to jump one daft bloke in the liberal party and expand on it as if that's what all left wingers think like.

 

Now isn't that the same type of harsh generalization you're denouncing?

 

I'm just wondering why Liberals turn a blind eye to it.. thats all. I've never seen a liberal speak up about partial-birth abortion...please point to one that has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't need to explain partial-birth abortion, you know what it is now come out with it.

????? :(

 

Abortion Facts - this seems highly biased, one of those sites that pretends to be neutral but is actually just propoganda.

 

Guess i'll read up on it if i can find anything useful.

 

[edit]

Ok, now i've only been reading about it for 5 minutes, but already I can understand reasons why people MIGHT oppose a ban on it. eg:

 

1 - Its basically a politically charged term made up by anti-abortion advocates.

 

2 - It is simply one of several "late-term abortion" techniques.. and has several pros and cons over other techniques. (eg: much less invasive for the mother, therefore less risk to her)

 

3 - Judges in a number of states have ruled it unconstitutional.. so i guess at least some of them have some idea what they are talking about.

 

4 - The bill only allows medical exceptions when the life of the mother is in danger.. not for more minor medical consequences to her.

 

5 - Both sides view it as a stepping stone on a slippery slope.. with conservatives hoping that it is, and liberals hoping that it isn't.

 

6 - (me) It seems hypocritical to ban "partial birth abortion" because it seems "icky" and yet allow other methods of late term abotion. Both result in the exact same thing.. its just that one takes place in the body and the other outside.. making it somehow more emotive and upsetting.

 

Myself, i feel that in a sensible climate it probably wouldn't be used very often anyway, and noone would care in those rare instances where it needed to be used.. but in the ever politicised climate of amaerican abortion debate neither side is ever willing to concede the smallest ground.. because they know the other side will use it to push harder.

 

Personally I'm not a big fan of ANY late term abortions, unless medically necessary for the wellbeing of the mother.. but one of the problems of having a constitution is that it tends to make everything black and white - either a woman has the right to decide what goes on in her body or not.

I think that there are more shades of grey - but if i have to pick between NO abortions, or abortions INCLUDING late term ones I'd have to go for the second choice.

 

See.. wasn't too hard to find reasons WHY.. even if you don't have to agree with them. Try imagning thigs from another point of view..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

????? :(

 

Abortion Facts - this seems highly biased, one of those sites that pretends to be neutral but is actually just propoganda.

 

Guess i'll read up on it if i can find anything useful.

 

 

I'm not here to hand out course curriculum. If you don't know what partial-birth abortion is then I suggest you do a little research.

 

Liberals and the left wing are at least indifferent to this issue out of fear of being branded as pro-life.

 

If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Toms, partial-birth abortion is just another name for late-term abortions, I believe.

 

I'm gonna have to agree with GSK's post on all accounts... he makes some fair points. Late-term abortions essentially are infanticide. As bad as I see GITMO is... infanticide is the worst.

 

Left-wingers are not and should not be supportive of late-term abortions. In even the most ultra-liberal countries, late-term abortion is illegal. It's not "progressive" by any means.

 

Perhaps the reason why, on this forum, more attention is given to GITMO topics than late-term abortion topics because all people agree on this forum that late-term abortions are bad. But people disagree on issues of GITMO. There's nothing to really debate when it comes to late-term abortion. It's bad. We all know it. It's like how we aren't all posting about how bad Hezbollah is... we all know they are. But there's a disagreement on Israel's actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, when did I start getting grief merely for suggesting that if you start a politically charged topic you do it in a slightly less inflamatory way, and actually try and give some information so people have a clue what they heck you are trying to start an argument about??

 

The reason people have been talking about torture in guantanamo and the situation in palestine is because they are current issues, recieving a lot of press. As far as i know partial birth abortion (which seems to actually be a small SUBSET of late term abortion) is illegal in the US anyway, isn't a pressing issue, and is hardly a cutting edge topic.

 

Plus, there is a difference between the government allowing or preventing others from doing something (as they do every day) and the government ITSELF actively doing something (such as torture in guantanamo).

 

There are a number of reasons people defend late term abortions (as i mentioned in my edited post), some more valid than others. But considering that late term abortions make up a tiny percentage of all abortions, and then partial birth ones make up a tiny percentage of those, i'm not surprised people would rather talk about other things.

 

A lot of people see banning partial birth abortions as the first step towards banning ALL abortions.. and as Good Sir Knight has stated that he supports the right to an abortion I'd think he'd be a little more wary of such possible consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all you lefties out there, please explain why Gitmo prisoners deserve your attention more than state-sanctioned murder, right down the street.
As for late-term abortion, I don't really have a stance on it. However, I have to say I don't really like it. The fetus can, after all, think, remember, and so on at that stage, if I recall correctly. But yes, in medical emergencies, I say allow it.

 

You're so concerned about detainees...what about the truly innocent?
Many of the detainees are truly innocent.

 

As far as i know partial birth abortion
Partial-birth abortion. With a dash ("-"). Nit-picking, I know, but I just wanted to point it out.

 

Perhaps the reason why, on this forum, more attention is given to GITMO topics than late-term abortion topics because all people agree on this forum that late-term abortions are bad. But people disagree on issues of GITMO.
Which is also why Guantanamo Bay is getting more attention than Red China's torture of dissenters. If I started a thread on Chinese torture, would it lead to a debate? Nope. Everyone would be 100% against it, and that'd be that. Dead topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Now isn't that the same type of harsh generalization you're denouncing?

 

I'm just wondering why Liberals turn a blind eye to it.. thats all. I've never seen a liberal speak up about partial-birth abortion...please point to one that has.

 

 

No, if that was the way you took it then i'm sorry.

 

What i mean when i say this thread is weird is that you make it sound as if this is a problem that can be blamed on every single leftwinger/liberal in the US when in fact it's just one political party that's made a screw up.

 

If what you wanted was the opinion of leftwingers (such as myself) then i can personally say i'm 100% against this and think it's horrible. Of course no one likes the idea of killing a new born baby liberal or conservative. I'm by the way seriously in doubt this is even true and maybe some sort of a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...