|
|
|
| Tue, Dec. 01 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
FLS stand on partial-birth abortion is really far right
Date published: 6/18/2007
The Free Lance-Star has changed, mainly improved, over the years. However, lately the editorial page has turned so biased and has become ultra-conservative on many issues. It argued in favor of the recent Supreme Court's decision to ban all late abortions. This greatly endangers the health and life of women and babies and keeps doctors from saving the lives of both women and babies. This procedure is rare and used wisely when done only as a vital necessity, in most cases. Not only does it often save lives, but also sometimes lets a woman remain able to have more children and carry on with a healthy life. I am greatly disappointed in The Free Lance-Star
Date published: 6/18/2007
Here's a thought
(posted by
gmbowling
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
Why don't we advocate the use of contraception and help to prevent abortions (other than medical neccessity) from the begining. Parents/people are so afraid that educating kids about contraception is the same as giving them permission - it's not! IT'S EDUCATION. Abstinence while great in theory, is apparently not widely practiced in today's society. Take the stigma off contraception - make it easy & less expensive to obtain. Giving someone a condom isn't a permission slip, it's a reality check!
Modern technology
(posted by
Mickey10
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
means a baby is viable in the third trimester. I don't think this argument holds up any longer--why abort a baby to save the life of the mother rather than deliver a baby to save the life of the mother?
THE PROCEDURE IS NOT RARE
(posted by
Seadragon
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
The “procedure is rare” statement can not be substantiated by facts. In the state of Kansas, a doctor named Tiller has ended hundreds of late term pregnancies and not because of medical necessity. In one case, the mom wanted to attend a concert and the pregnancy was an inconvenience to her having fun.
Writer confuses the issue
(posted by
savedbygracealone
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
OK, for all those "drive by" commentators, let me help clear up a misconception. The ban on late term abortions will NOT, repeat NOT endanger the life of any expectant mother. The law does not prevent a doctor from saving a mother's life. The folks that want unfetttered abortions want you to believe that so they can continue to allow the practice of killing a baby out of convenience. Their agenda is clear. My advice is to look up the letter of the law and how it interacts with the medical community.
The Supreme Crt decision only allows the ending of one type of abortion.
(posted by
GOUSA
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
It does not end all forms of late term abortion. The procedure in question was a particularly disgusting method as was expressed in Kennedy's majority decision, but other forms are still allowed. Many anti-abortion groups have mixed feelings about the decision since they raised so much money attacking this specific method. They now fear losing that money base because they won that argument. Therefore, pro choice may have won in the long run.
|
 |
|||
|
|||
