Henry Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 footballhenry, Maybe what Bufford is trying to say here is, did you not see the thread posted just three hours before yours on this vey subject? http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103440 Couldn't you have posted your thoughts in that thread without starting a new one? It helps keep the clutter down and makes our job a bit easier. Anyway, threads are merging now, so the point is moot I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Originally posted by Henry footballhenry, Maybe what Bufford is trying to say here is, did you not see the thread posted just three hours before yours on this vey subject? http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=103440 Couldn't you have posted your thoughts in that thread without starting a new one? It helps keep the clutter down and makes our job a bit easier. Anyway, threads are merging now, so the point is moot I guess. actually to answer your question, no i did not see this thread, mustve overlooked it. but of course, bufford is correct of course?? im such a flamer, i start all these offensive threads and try to incite people. i mean my aim isnt to start debate, no way...its to flame!!! sorry, but i understand fully well what buffords aim was but no, he was just trying to tell me to merge this topic:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Originally posted by visionary I always say that they need to have an exception for the life of the mother...but where it gets really tricky is the health of the mother...because that is a huge loophole.... The loophole is called Doe vs. Bolton...which essentially allows a claim of 'health' for almost any situation. Making an exception for the life of the mother, OK. But 'health...you may as well not draw up the ban in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Originally posted by chomerics To keep the mothers health before the fetus'. Lets save the person who is actually living, instead of a group of cells. I think you are confusing health an life by your statement above - and clearly have a leg up on the scientific community on the existence of life. Congratulations. Perhaps someone can tell me of a 'health' issue where partial birth abortions should be allowed.... anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Originally posted by Phat Hog I think you are confusing health an life by your statement above - and clearly have a leg up on the scientific community on the existence of life. Congratulations. Perhaps someone can tell me of a 'health' issue where partial birth abortions should be allowed.... anyone? nyskins fan and gbear had very emotional stories to tell....while i do not agree with pb abortion at all, i can understand in very extreme cases why it may be needed....but my question is in those situations why would it have taken so long to discover the risk??? My biggest problem (besides the heinous act itself) is the fact that thousands of people abuse the 'health' clause and murder a baby just because....again i dont see how anyone could look at those pictures and support an act like this (but I do fully understand and sympathize if a mothers life/serious health is in question) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 footballhenry, the kids (now kids by anyones defiition) started to pull away from the lining. This didn't happen in the first few months of the pregnancy. What was a risk became an extremely high risk. On the good news side, the kids are alive, and the mother has against all odds come out of the coma. Her rough odds seem to be about 50/50 ( a huge improvement over yesterday). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Originally posted by gbear footballhenry, the kids (now kids by anyones defiition) started to pull away from the lining. This didn't happen in the first few months of the pregnancy. What was a risk became an extremely high risk. On the good news side, the kids are alive, and the mother has against all odds come out of the coma. Her rough odds seem to be about 50/50 ( a huge improvement over yesterday). well thats good to hear gbear, i wish her a full and speedy recovery. i suppose i can try to understand the need for the procedure due to the above circumstances however it still seems to me that something more humane could be done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Originally posted by footballhenry nyskins fan and gbear had very emotional stories to tell....while i do not agree with pb abortion at all, i can understand in very extreme cases why it may be needed.... I believe that both of these cases deal with the life of the mother, or at least a high probability of sevear health issues (unlike those defined in Doe vs. Bolton). I agree that abortion should be kept legal in these cases. But those types of cases don't represent even 2% of abortions today - kind of like not seeing the forst for a few branches. Regarding nyskins fan's situation (which I am not disputing at all), I'm not sure why the would need to do a D&E (partial birth) procedure on a 4 month old fetus when more common abortion procedures would have been just as effective. The size of the baby's head at 4 months is not at a size where you would need to jab it in the back of the head with a pair of scissors, and suck the brains out to get it down the birth canal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.