LOL, Condescending Katie has been scorned, OK, show me where I was wrong about your views, let's go.<quoted text>
OMG! You are as bad as NR with an inability to separate personal from factual. Here's a reality check for you.
"Partial Birth Abortion" was a term used to describe the D&X procedure which allowed the doctor to partially deliver the fetus, feet first, and then sucked the brain from the fetus. This also prevented the question of "person-hood" since the fetus was not a technically "born human". Congress and the over whelming majority of Americans supported the ban on this inhumane procedure, especially since there were other options."This from someone who argued for partial birth abortion?"
There is no "partial birth abortion". There was the D&X procedure which was safer for the woman AND allowed her a whole baby to hold and grieve.
So, as I said, you argued against the ban on "partial birth abortions (D&X Procedure).
Well Katie, since the discussion here is about abortion, and when constitutional rights apply, how is a born baby with the cord attached not born and worthy of constitutional rights? Or is this just an extention of your support of "partial birth abortions"?"The same person who contends that a born baby is not "born" until the cord is cut?"
I claimed the birth process separating fetus from baby included cutting the cord and baby breathing.
WTF? Are you lost? I dont give women having a temporary "emotional" crisis the same wieght as I do a phychiartic pataint. Again, it's your total disregard for the fetus that doesnt allow you to differentiate between the two, and which is a justified reason to terminate a "viable" fetus."And you've also argued that "emotional health" ( a woman not being able to deal emotionally with the fact that she is pregnant, such as too fat, not being able to go out with friends, or just not feeling attractive anymore) is a legitimate reason to abort a viable fetus!"
I just rewrote that old argument and it sure didn't look like what you wrote above. You don't give psych patients (such as schizophrenics) the seriousness deserved when you compare it with "too fat" or "not being able to go out". But you sure just verified my prior post. Thanks much!
Well, now you're babbling, I agree there are considerations that puts the woman's rights and considerations above the fetuses, I havent said differently. I just dont agree that a woman has an absolute right to kill a viable fetus without a justified, and very compelling reason."Come on Katie, your arguments are about the woman with no regard for the fetus at any point."
Yeah, there's a woman wrapped around that uterus holding an embryo/fetus. A woman seemingly forgotten by you and others like-minded. SHE has an established life, SHE has civil rights. I do not disregard the embryo/fetus, as you try to claim, but I realize if somebody else's pregnancy is unwanted, unhealthy, or potentially fatal, I have absolutely no say-so in their decisions regarding it. None. And if it was me, I wouldn't want anyone else (you, JM, Ink, Sue, NR, etc.) to make the decision for me, either.
To sum it up, you agree that you are in support of partial birth abortion, and that a baby isnt a baby, even after being born, until the cord is cut, and you also stand that a woman that is having a tempory emotional crisis, such as being too fat and unattractive, has just as much right to abort a viable fetus as a clinically dianiosed phycotic patient.
So, where is your problem? I describe your views perfectly.