Oh Golly laughing again at the haters.GET OVER IT!!!!

Rudy Guiliani:

You're a NY Italian and I am a NY Italian. We both know what snow is? We all know what job means.

Did ya fuggeda bout wat ya said yesterday?

You should stick to bakin' that flaky Italian bread your mother makes. Ah, but they say you are what you eat.....

Or wur yer fer aburtcean befer you wur agin' it?

Perhaps we should change your name to Kerriani? That's got a nice ring. You could play both sides of the fence too.

His Man,I knew I'd just read that Rudy was all for abortion yesterday.Why the sudden change?

PS I can't help but to think of what Dan said. About people who will say anything to remain popular. Sound like Rudy?

He might be trying to play both sides of the conservative fence.

Think Planned Parenthood ain't sweating? Go to their web site. The headline screams SAVE ROE!!! Didn't they know that even Roe is pro-life? Talk about asleep at the wheel!

I know, I just checked out their website. They are pretty hysterical. They have an online pledge going as well.

Obama's got it, and I've said as much.

While the actual case itself is toothless, there's an ultimate cost and effect of all this which means increasingly inane attempts at legislation, and a burden on society in general, all for the purposes of claiming you're trying to save cute lil' pre-babies.

Another place going nuts....

http://www.now.org/press/04-07/04-18.html

Ya SH. I saw that. More pathetic attempts to help their dying cause.They have had their way long enough. They have abused their choice.It is going!

http://www.naral.org/news/press-releases/2007/pr04182007_scotus.html

The ACLU and NAF have a joint statement on this

http://www.prochoice.org/news/releases/20070418.html

Not a big deal at all? Then why are so many people using so much man power because of this? Because it means nothing?

Get this Valerie,PP wants $$$$.NOW wants $$$$.They are so panicked that they cut right through the cr-- and ask for $$$$.What a bunch of rude self-absorbed vultures.

Mom, exactly. This may not be a huge step, but you can tell we hit em' where it hurts!

Posted by: SH at April 18, 2007 03:15 PM

"Mom, exactly. This may not be a huge step, but you can tell we hit em' where it hurts!"

Gotta love it, don't ya?

I so do.Now maybe they can feel a bit of what we feel. Which pro-choicer asked earlier if we wanted cheese with our wine?

Heck yeah! : )
It is amazing what one step in the right direction can do.

Hey Mom -

Look what the heading is for the PP article...

"Law Threatens Women's Health; Criminalizes Safe, Early Abortions"

It criminalized safe, early abortions? PP never lies do they?

"Mom, exactly. This may not be a huge step, but you can tell we hit em' where it hurts!"

Awesome awesome awesome...and what a beautiful day to celebrate!!

It is funny that so many are trying to convince us that it means nothing when it so obviously DOES!

They say that revenge is a dish best served cold. I've got the frozen pizza in the oven-oven's off.

This is a great day for the pro-life movement. We have Senator Sam Brownback to thank for rejecting the Miers nomination and getting Justice Alito on the court.

Psycheout,I was at the pro-life march in DC in January. I saw lots of people with signs for Brownback. Thank you Senator!

Why do you hate Miers? She is a Bush cronie after all, you guys should have supported her.

Miers would have ruled the same as Alito on this. She would have been a reliable supporter of Scalia, just like Clarence Thomas.

Hey Val,

would you to direct us to this supposed bit of missrepresentation so we can see it for ourselves? I can't find it, and I suspect you're the one actually lying.

"Law Threatens Women's Health; Criminalizes Safe, Early Abortions"

Yeah, Val, link please.

I wonder how Scalia gets anything done when he has to constantly puppeteer both Thomas and Alito?

Wait I thought you guys said it did have an exception for life of the mother. Why are the senators saying different?

OK... it's actually the subheading on the "U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Federal Abortion Ban"
press release today.

It appears to hinge on whether or not you'd consider second trimester "early"..... an arguable point, a stretch, but not exactly lying.

I think the ruling is a big deal -- Any step towards preserving human life is a big deal.

This is very encouraging to me.

The reactions of various politicians listed above is about what I expected. I think Rudy is trying to build a pro-life image for himself for '08.

Also, I heard someone refer to the "constitutional right" women have to abort. Someone please tell me where in the U.S. Constitution a woman's "right" to abort is protected?

as opposed to calling a second trimester abortion "late-term" and "partial birth" which is aslo just a bit of stretch.

Cameron and SOMG -

Sorry - since I said it was on the planned parenthood website, I thought you would be able to their website yourself. Here is the help you require.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/supreme-court-14047.htm

Cameron -

"U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Federal Abortion Ban"

This is called a title of the article.

"Law Threatens Women's Health; Criminalizes Safe, Early Abortions"

This is called the heading of the article.

Cameron -
"U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Federal Abortion Ban"
This is called a title of the article.

"Law Threatens Women's Health; Criminalizes Safe, Early Abortions"
This is called the heading of the article.

LOL

"I think the ruling is a big deal -- Any step towards preserving human life is a big deal.'

You guys seem to forget that this is really just up holding the status quo. Nothing is really changing. Except now you guys cant use late term abortion in you arguments since they are...not allowed...so I am not sure how this is a victory for anyone. Its just about the same

Aww come on, Mars, now you're happy for the babies, and you know it! :) >>>>>>>>smooooooooooooch

I am sooooooooo thankful that things are looking up! We're one step closer to the next step!

Valerie, it's so funny...we prove them wrong time and time again...they ask for links, we give it to them. They ask for sources, we give them biased ones from THEIR end even (! Can they do that for us?), and yet they still keep coming back and saying ,"oh yeah, but you're still wrong, duh, you know, cause I just don't think you're right, uh, ya know?"

They just don't get it, but you know what? I just don't care, cause they don't have a say in this one and I'm just going to be happy today!

I'm so happy ....

I think the ruling is a step in the right direction. Finally the courts are saying that this nation is NOT going to kill as it so chooses. Your side of CHOICE will allow the killing of a child for any reason at any time.You can get an abortion if you have a headache for cripes sake. It's going to show a little more respect for life in a culture of death. Death is not the answer. You want a late term abortion? PROVE you need one!! No more pathetic excuses.

Did anyone answer my question...?

Who said that, Pink?

I asked why the senators were complaining about "life of the mother" when several people here said that life of the mother is in fact included in the bill.

Where is the discrepancy?

I still want to know how any woman could feel her child kick in her womb as if to say "hi mom" and then a heartless mother lying down on some table telling a ruthless abortionist "Ya,let's do it."

Ninety percent of abortions in 2000 occurred during the first trimester. That means that 900,000 procedures, by the most recent figures available, will be completely unaffected by today's ruling.

The first trimester abortions are abused too.

I can't believe you think that women treat this decision as a lighthearted one Momof3. Furthermore, all of you arguments against choice are simply emotional pleas.

"I still want to know how any woman could feel her child kick in her womb as if to say "hi mom" and then a heartless mother lying down on some table telling a ruthless abortionist "Ya,let's do it.""

Yes, that would be tragic wouldn't it? But at the time when most women obtain abortions, there are no muscles to kick, there is not CNS to feel. It is simply expeling cells from her body.
And doctors performing abortions are not "ruthless" they are previding a service for the women. I assure you, they do not delight in performing that operation.

Youre worldview is only your own. And it seems to be a very distorted worldview to me.

PIP -

In case of mother's life is not an issue here because there are other options. I think that was one of our first debates wasn't it.

When a Mother's life is in danger, she will go to a HOSPITAL, Not a clinic, and every effort is made to save the mother. Mary just posted this on one of the other posts.. Give me a sec and I'll try to get it for ya...

I can't believe you think that women treat this decision as a lighthearted one Momof3. Furthermore, all of you arguments against choice are simply emotional pleas.

What kind of plea is the one saying we need an exception for women's "health"? Is that non-emotional?
What about the ones the pro-abortion side uses for cases of rape and incest? Are those unemotional pleas?

And I posted before I could include...does their being emotional please make them less valid, in your opinion?

*pleas, not please

Posted by: Mary at April 18, 2007 03:52 PM On the "take a moment post"

For the past 37 years I have worked in religious and non religious hospitals, pre and post Roe. I have never seen any situation where any pregnant woman has ever been allowed to die or where everything necessary wasn't done to save a pregnant woman's life. Yes, this included everything from early abortion to inducing early labor or delivering by early Cesarean section. We managed very well without partial birth abortion to save women's lives and certainly did so far more humanely to both the mother and when possible the child. Women could receive the necessary care at the local hospital, which had every legal right to do what was necessary to protect her life, both pre and post Roe. Roe v Wade was never necessary to save pregnant women who's lives were at risk. This was just a huge emotional appeal on the part of abortion advocates.
Any woman who's health or life is at risk should immediately be put under the care of a specialist. She may require a high risk maternal care unit. If her life is truly endangered, everything necessary to preserve her life can be safely and legally done at the nearest hospital. No need to travel hundreds of miles to Tiller where her "care" will be supervised by untrained and unlicensed staff in a hotel room.
As for ectopic pregnancy, the overwhelming majority are tubal and immediate surgery is indicated when a diagnosis is made. Nowadays, its possible to save the Fallopian tube in some cases and every effort will be made to do so.

I think what PP may be getting at is this: the law does not specify that only late-term abortions are prohibited. It criminalizes a particular method throughout all nine months of pregnancy, even in the first trimester. (Not that anyone would use it in the first trimester--the fetus is too small and too delicate. But hypothetically, if you did, you'd be guilty of violating the law, even if it were a first-trimester abortion.)

Posted by: Mary at April 18, 2007 05:20 PM On the Take a moment post...

There is absolutely no medical reason for partial birth abortion. It was invented to make certain a late term aborted baby was good and dead at delivery. Babies born alive and not dying like they were supposed to was becoming an embarassing nuisance. I remember all too well. Please give an example of where it would be necessary to save a woman's life or health. As I stated in my post, women who's lives or health are in anyway endangered can seek safe and legal care at the nearest hospital. If inducing a premature birth or an early C-section is necessary, it can and will be done. I personally know of a young woman who's life was endangered if she went full term because of severe fetal and placental anomalies. She went to the local hospital and early labor was induced at 5 months. I also know of a woman who's severe uterine infection necessitated inducing an early labor as well. This posed less risk of trauma, bleeding and infection to the women and best preserved their ability to have children in the future, as well as being a very tragic necessity to save their lives.

Valerie, you wrote: "As for ectopic pregnancy, the overwhelming majority are tubal and immediate surgery is indicated when a diagnosis is made. Nowadays, its possible to save the Fallopian tube in some cases and every effort will be made to do so."

Tubal pregnancy can be treated with a shot of methotrexate if you catch it before it bursts the tube. No surgery, AND you don't lose the tube.

PIP -

The one baby that was born at 21 weeks recently, I think she was born that early because the mothers life was in danger. The pregnancy was induced to save the Mother and all efforts were taken to save the baby. Partial Birth Abortion was not needed.

I will say again - I 'think' that is right, but I might be wrong on that...

Erin Jane,FYI.I do know of MANY women personally who have had abortions. The excuses they gave were totally selfish and self absorbed. I used to consider myself pro-choice,but after listening to some of these nauseating tales I could never be again.

SOMG -

try reading everything in the post and not just the sections you want.

Look at the top of what I posted....go ahead...do it...

The matter of the woman health is not emotional, it is biological. It is a matter of the fetus affecting the physical wellbeing of the mother.

And rape and incest are emotional, but they are harm to a living, breathing, thinking, feeling, human being. Women who suffer through either of the aforementioned horrors ought not to have to suffer through an emotionally crippling pregnancy if they choose not to. Emotions has a basis. But considering the fact that babies aborted in the first term can neither kick nor think "hi, mom" your point is invalid. Emotion can either include science, or it can defy it. Your reasoning used emotion and defied science.

ErinJane,I know of plenty of women who've had multiple abortions. You say that doctors don't like performing them and women don't like having them, so what gives? What is this lady doing back for abortion #10?

It doesnt matter if it is "selfish" in your eyes. It is HER body. Not yours. All that matters is that she made the choice will all the facts. Who are you to comdemn someones else actions because they are selfish. Most of what humans do is self-serving.

I am not saying that people do not use the right in a way which I do not agree with, I am saying that it is not my right to condemn them or interfere with the right being granted to others.

"There is absolutely no medical reason for partial birth abortion."

Now there's a load of BS. In addition to unwanted pregnancies, the procedure D&X is often used to remove an already dead misscarried fetus. The alternative is D&E.

I'm not condemning them,but I also don't have to agree with them. What if I told a rapist that I thought it would be okay for him to rape someone because it was his body and his choice.You would be outraged.The same concept applies here. Abortion is murder.

It is not acceptable for you,me or anyone to murder anybody!

"You say that doctors don't like performing them and women don't like having them, so what gives?"

Oh.. gestator of three... there you go again, suggesting people like such unsavory things.

More so than the abortion, they absolutely don't want to be pregnant or have a child. Where you trying to make a point, or are you just talking out of your $&@

Hey CAMMY,Explain 10 abortions to me.You avoided me all day. Tell me Sup Sug?

"I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."

At least Senator Obama has some sense.

Cam,who loves abortion? Irresponsible men. Remember that.

"What if I told a rapist that I thought it would be okay for him to rape someone because it was his body and his choice."

Oh goody... another stupid analogy. So in this case... conception is attempted rape??? Is misscarriage consensual rape??? I know... the fetus was "asking for it." LOL

"Abortion is murder."

You seem to hold on to this notion long after I dismantled it from about three different angles last night.

Just an FYI~

IDX is specifically used to refer to the "partial birth abortion." DX is less specific and may refer to the procedure also known as DE, which occurs typically during the second trimester but which is also a term used to refer to the first trimester method of vacuum aspiration.

"You seem to hold on to this notion long after I dismantled it from about three different angles last night."

It's kind of like the wizzard of oz... just keep saying it... and click your heels together.

"I'm not condemning them,but I also don't have to agree with them. What if I told a rapist that I thought it would be okay for him to rape someone because it was his body and his choice.You would be outraged.The same concept applies here. Abortion is murder."

No, because he is infriging on another PERSONS right to their body. He is harming them malicously. He seeks gratifaction by way of their pain and suffering, a woman obtaining an aborition does not do it malicously. SHe does not derive enjoyment from the suffering of another. Because 1. There is not suffering on the part of the fetus because they have no CNS 2. She isn't having an abortion because she enjoys the experience.

The matter of the woman health is not emotional, it is biological.

Uh, so is the fact that human life begins at conception and from that point there is a tiny human organism, complete and distinct from it's mother with it's own DNA.

It is a matter of the fetus affecting the physical wellbeing of the mother.

Our standpoint is about the abortion affecting the life of the unborn baby, and physically and emotionally scaring a woman for life.

And rape and incest are emotional, but they are harm to a living, breathing, thinking, feeling, human being.

Again, same thing. Abortion affects a living human being. Actually, it affects two.

Go back to previous posts and you can see we have already discussed these points ad nauseum, using plenty of references and links. I'm in too good of a mood to be going into all the details right now. :)

Have a happy one-more-step-to-baby-justice-day!

Cam,Cam,Cam Go stick your head in the sand.

Cam,you are laughable.You better take your blood pressure pill.You are getting very angry.

Cameron,I was just having a little fun.You do realize that you're arguing with a screen don't you? Maybe I'm not a mother at all. Perhaps I'm a man. You just never know.I am choosing to ignore you now cuz you are not here for debate.You are here seeking attention. BYE!

"I am choosing to ignore you now cuz you are not here for debate.You are here seeking attention. BYE!"

LMOA... now if that aint the pot calling the kettle black. "Hey CAMMY,Explain 10 abortions to me.You avoided me all day."

Whatever... I was just trying not to ignore.

bye

Hi Mom of 3:

Sorry I don't ever seem to address your questions, however, no need to debate someone that I agree with. No fun in that.

To answer your question about Rudy. Well, I think it's a character flawitis. Clinton has it, Hillary has it, Al Gore has it, the Kennedys invented it (Joe that is). It's not confined to Democrats as many two faced Republicans suffer from it as well. I think McCain is fighting it. As much as I like Terminator movies (don't worry, I'm not jumping to the other side), Arnold's got a case of it too. His is understandable as I think the disease is contagious and poor guy, he get's reinfected every time he get's into bed.

So, that's my short answer.

You're awesome TriMom. Thank's for the breather.

SOMG,

It's a shame you are on the wrong side.
You have a brilliant mind.
No conscience, a pitch black soul...
But a BRILLIANT mind.

Sure you don't want to use all that genius to fight in the light?

mk

ErinJane,

All that matters is that she made the choice will all the facts. Who are you to comdemn someones else actions because they are selfish. Most of what humans do is self-serving.
Posted by: ErinJane at April 18, 2007 06:06 PM

Why ErinJane, I do believe you just answered your own post...and a brilliant answer it was too.

Youre worldview is only your own. And it seems to be a very distorted worldview to me.

Yes His Man. I couldn't help what I saw in writing. One day Rudy is telling us to "get over" the abortion issue. Now he says the court made the best decision ever! I'll say that Kerry is the worst. He won't even address the fetus as a human. I understand that they have to try to make everyone happy,and if being 2 faced is the way,I guess they will do whatever it takes to be elected.

I can't help noticing that you all have very conventional taste in movies. HALLOWEEN before, and now THE TERMINATOR?!

How many of you have seen CITIZEN RUTH? That's a family comedy for everyone who cares about abortion.

The only disappointing thing about it is that Laura Dern keeps her shirt on the whole time.

SOMG,Who hasen't seen Halloween? I'd be willing to rent Citizen RUTH though.

ErinJane:

Of all the posts on this site yours are the most devious, the most cunning, and the most deceptive since they are wrapped in false compassion and the premeditated conspiracy to decieve. You don't fool me for a minute.

Unbelievably you spouted this distilled puke:
"The matter of the woman health is not emotional, it is biological. It is a matter of the fetus affecting the physical wellbeing of the mother.

And rape and incest are emotional, but they are harm to a living, breathing, thinking, feeling, human being. Women who suffer through either of the aforementioned horrors ought not to have to suffer through an emotionally crippling pregnancy if they choose not to. Emotions has a basis. But considering the fact that babies aborted in the first term can neither kick nor think "hi, mom" your point is invalid. Emotion can either include science, or it can defy it. Your reasoning used emotion and defied science."

So is that a heart beating in that chest of yours or a sanguine, nutrient rich, immuno-fluid pump?

These words came from you too: "Yes, that would be tragic wouldn't it? But at the time when most women obtain abortions, there are no muscles to kick, there is not CNS to feel. It is simply expeling cells from her body.
And doctors performing abortions are not "ruthless" they are previding a service for the women. I assure you, they do not delight in performing that operation."

No CNS to feel? Does that mean babies in the womb are dead before you kill them or after you abort them? Are you saying that trees don't fall in the woods because no one hears them?

You demonstrate a troubling condition so commonly found in today's young ones.

It's called lackofmoralsitis (LACKI). Or, Misplaced Compassion Syndrome (MCS). Not your fault, they took God out of schools in 1969, you're just a victim.

Expanding on this very sanitized point you make about there being no CNS, let's just acronymize all these notions so that well, we can all just become pro-choice and get along, shall we?

And the body invasion thing....how about Fetally Induced Autonomy Theft (FIAT)?

And let's start calling mothers who abort their babies; Without A Conscience Cell Expellers (WACCE) or wacky.

and abortioninsts.....

Reluctant But Minimally Invasive Baby Killers (RBMIBK).

how about....

Pro-bono Pro-choice Care Carnivores (PPCaCa)

And for the finale you posted this, "No, because he is infriging on another PERSONS right to their body. He is harming them malicously. He seeks gratifaction by way of their pain and suffering, a woman obtaining an aborition does not do it malicously. SHe does not derive enjoyment from the suffering of another. Because 1. There is not suffering on the part of the fetus because they have no CNS 2. She isn't having an abortion because she enjoys the experience."

Since when did the condition for feeling or enjoying something make it right or wrong? Abortion is wrong simply because it's murder, no matter the context.

My dearest His Man-

I have no desire to decieve. I am not a good liar. My last post was simply arguing that one could not compare a rapist to a woman obtaining an abortion, as momof3 did. Had you actually read my posts in context you would have known this. You simply have made up your mind about me and I can assure you that you couldnt be further from the truth.

I love the Lord. You do not get to negate that. Or challenge that. While you may know my opinion on this issue, you do not know my heart. So, please, hun, do not assume that you do.

Peace.Erin

His Man: Actually, with removing God from school we have allowed children to actually learn about things that actually exist. It's quite amazing really.

Look at the European and Asian schools...they get higher test scores and generally perform better on acheivement tests and they haven't had God in their schools far longer than we have.

His Man: Spouting random metaphors, acronyms, and analogies since 2007.

HisMan, you can't be seriously upset they took god out of schools. It is only fair. If we talked about christianity in schools then we would have to talk about EVERY religion. trust me there isn't time for that. I student teach a third grade classroom and there is hardly time to deal with math, science, reading, writing and history.
We are better off to leave Religion to parents.

Yeah, states cannot endorse any certain religion as per the Constitution, using God endorses a religion, and as such shouldnt legally be in the school system.

Thank-you HisMan for the correctly diagnosing ErinJane (Misplaced Compassion Syndrome (MCS)). This is a fairly new but common phenomena.

what is MCS? HisMan and Jasper are you psychiatrists? Do you have the credentials to diagnose someone?
NO you do not. Please it is common practice that any student in any medical class knows. Just because you know about it doesnt mean you can diagnose it until you actually have a degree...

HIS Man,great post!!

and if either of you have a degree in psychiatry or psychology then you are a shame to your field. Every good psychiatrist knows you cannot diagnose someone from 20 minutes on the internet

HELLLLOOOOOO I ASKED A QUESTION
what is MCS?
and how are you certified to be able to diagnose her with it?

pssst, its cuz he thinks he knows what God does, and since he talks to God he can know these things in an instant

psst, its called a sense of humor with a touch of sarcasm. Ever heard of it before?

Valerie, I AM sarcasm, my mom gets annoyed with me because I use it too often.

Thoguh I wouldnt be surprised if HM believed that to be true based on some of the stuff hes said/insinuated

I never found Michael Meyers to be a convincing slasher.

If you want to see a really creepy serial killer watch DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE starring genius character actor Nicholas Worth.

Valerie, thanks for the update. I'm still a little confused. Why are politicians concerned with health of the mother if the health of the mother is protective?

So I just looked up Misplaced Compassion Syndrome and guess what? its nowhere to be found. The american medical association and the american psychiatric association said nothing about it...i think it is something that HisMan might have made up.
HisMan if you can find it some where and provide me with real scientific journals that say its real then i will believe it

*protected. sorry. now that makes sense.

Mars,
MCS...
C'mon in, the waters fine...

Duh? He made it up. Sarcasm. Valerie tried to tell you.

Personally I think it should be a real diagnosis, but until then I think we'll just use it among ourselves...

mk

Speaking of making things up....I liked FIAT.[see above] His Man's post.

haha
Yesterday, Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying this:
“I know I speak for my sisters across the nation,” said Sen. Clinton, “when I say that I feel like someone grabbed me by the ankles, and jammed a pair of scissors into the base of my skull and then just sucked my brains out. This is devastating to our freedoms and our sense who we are as the largest minority group in America.”

Yes, she sounds like she is totally unaffected by this decision.

More:

Mrs. Clinton derided the justices who comprised the majority in the 5-4 ruling as “a gang of callous right-wingers who slaughtered the civil rights of women just as we are about to experience a new birth of freedom with the election of the first female president.”

“All that potential, all that hope is now tossed down the garbage chute,” she said, “and all because five selfish judges decided that their so-called ‘right to choose’ supersedes the life of the women’s movement. It’s despicable.”

Oh Bethany,Now that's pathetic! Ginsberg is having a coronary too.I wasn't aware that Hilarious Clinton was taking things so badly.I always knew that Bill was all for abortion because he impregnated his mistress,Gennifer Flowers. She aborted,of course.

PS Ya,I'd say it's down the hill allright.Hillary,you can't keep killing babies as you see it fit anymore. God is taking over. You lose! Get it??

Mars and Dan -

I will help you out here.

From HisMan: lackofmoralsitis (LACKI)

lack of morals itis

Definition of Lackey: 1 a : FOOTMAN 2, : SERVANT b : someone who does menial tasks or runs errands for another
2 : a servile follower : TOADY

Does that help you with the rest of the joke?

Of course you won't find it in the AMA. It is a joke. A funny. HAHAHAHA

see, this is the problem. Sometimes we all take things too seriously and we miss the point of life sometimes.

PIP -

The politicians arte trying to stir up the emotions of democrates. That's all.

See, when it comes to abortion life of the Mother has actually never been an issue. Even when abortion was illegal, if a pregnant woman went to the hospital everything is done to save her life. No doctor in No hospital is going to let a woman die just because she is pregnant.

Now, the reason it became a big issue is because of the definition of life of Mother.

An example. In Poland there was a woman who wanted an abortion because she was told that she would lose her eyesight if she had another child. Poland has an abortion clause for life of Mother. She tried to get an abortion based on this. The Polish Govt said that the abortion wasn't necessary. After the baby was born she took this to court (something with the British courts, not sure why) and they said she should have gotten an abortion based on eyesight. So, I believe, she got some sort of compensation.

The question: was this really life of the mother? or was eyesight more imortant than life?

This is why life of mother is an issue for some. It depends on your definition of 'life'.

I will get you the article(s) on this. Gotta dig it up.

PIP -

This is an article that has a Pro-Life view

http://www.lifenews.com/int224.html

This is an article that has a Pro-Choice view

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6470403.stm

Now, while reading this I want you to think of all the blind women in this world that have no problems raising their children.

(For those don't want to read the articles: It wasn't a British court it was the European Court of Human rights.)

So, did she have to go to court to get disability payment?

It seems fair that if the doctors wouldn't sign off on an abortion and her eyesight was indeed worsened greatly, since she is a single mother, she deserves some kind of compensation to help raise the child.

I'm not sure if this was the settlement or already offered...it was hard to tell by the articles.

Yes, there was a settlement. She was awarded the equivalent of $33,000 (one of the articles said $52,000 but most articles I read said the 33,000) and $167 a month in disability.

BUT the question is: Should this be under "health of the Mother". And what about all the other single mothers who are blind? Do they now deserve compensation from the govt? Also, she is not 100% blind right now (she fears she may go blind) so she has time to adjust.

Now - what is the definition of life in health of the mother. Does it meant life or death or does it mean quality of life?

In this case, I don't understand why this would be a health of mother situation. (disability payments to help, of course!) Many women are single and blind and still go to work, and raise their children. Anyway, where are the father(s) to help financially? That's what get me. Men are there to make a baby, they need to stick around for the rest!

"BUT the question is: Should this be under "health of the Mother"."
That's difficult. I'm sure it's harder for someone who became blind than for someone who alaready IS blind. And since the blindness came out BECAUSE of the pregnancy I think it is cause for disability compensation. I'd have to think on the general question some more.

"Anyway, where are the father(s) to help financially? "
They are jerks..
Some guys just don't want to take responsibility for their kid. And many times they won't have to unless they are required to pay child support. I guess if he doesn't want to be there the woman can't stop him, it just saddens me that things like that happen. Men need to learn to take responsibility! Half if it is their's!

Well now PIP,

You sound just like us. Except we keep saying the fathers and the mothers need to take responsibility. For having sex and creating a baby to begin with.

Why should the father stick around when the message being sent to men these days is "Don't worry, I'm on the pill" and "If that fails, I'll just get an abortion". No wonder men don't take responsibility.

Women have let them off the hook. And when we cry "Hey, this is your kid too!" their reply is "You said you were on the pill, why didn't you just have an abortion. Hey you made your choice, now live with it. Not my problem."

I mean if a mother isn't going to take responsibility for her child, why should the father.

Even if a women decides to take that responsibility, the men have still gotten the message. Life is expendable. Not my problem!

mk

Good point MK.

Snap.