Partial Birth Abortion Ban Headed To Court
Pro-abortion lawyers are challenging the federal ban on partial-birth abortions today in three separate courts.
From Yahoo News:
First off, let me say that I am four-square against abortions. Frankly, I think far too many people are using them as a form of birth control and its not right. When the sperm fertilizes the mother's egg a life is created that is deserving of separate and equal rights under the law as the mother.
That being said, I have to say that I somewhat agree with the pro-abortion crowd on this issue. In my opinion there should be only three reasons a woman can get an abortion. The first two, in the case of rape or incest, are obvious. For the third instance, I believe that should medical circumstances arise that pit the babies' health directly against the health of the mother abortion may be considered by the mother and father.
Now I realize that this type of loophole creates a gigantic opportunity for the law to be abused and discarded. Pro-abortion doctors could simply declare the mother's health at risk and proceed with he abortion. It would be costly and time consuming for officials to review each one of these cases and determine that the doctor was wrong.
So what do we do about it? I'm not exactly sure. While I believe that a mother's rights shouldn't eclipse the baby's rights I'm not sure what should be done in a situation where the pregnancy could be detrimental to the mother or baby's health.
To be honest, I don't think situations like these are happening a lot, but when it does happen it'd be nice to give the mothers and fathers some options.
From Yahoo News:
Abortion providers will argue at federal trials in New York, San Francisco and Lincoln, Nebraska, that the law wrongfully ignores a U.S. Supreme Court requirement that abortion bans contain exceptions that allow the procedure if a woman's health is in danger.
The ban targeted in these three cases stems from a congressional finding that the procedure, called a "partial birth abortion" by critics, is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health. The law, signed by President Bush on Nov. 5, 2003, applies to the destruction of a fetus after part of it is outside of the mother's body.
First off, let me say that I am four-square against abortions. Frankly, I think far too many people are using them as a form of birth control and its not right. When the sperm fertilizes the mother's egg a life is created that is deserving of separate and equal rights under the law as the mother.
That being said, I have to say that I somewhat agree with the pro-abortion crowd on this issue. In my opinion there should be only three reasons a woman can get an abortion. The first two, in the case of rape or incest, are obvious. For the third instance, I believe that should medical circumstances arise that pit the babies' health directly against the health of the mother abortion may be considered by the mother and father.
Now I realize that this type of loophole creates a gigantic opportunity for the law to be abused and discarded. Pro-abortion doctors could simply declare the mother's health at risk and proceed with he abortion. It would be costly and time consuming for officials to review each one of these cases and determine that the doctor was wrong.
So what do we do about it? I'm not exactly sure. While I believe that a mother's rights shouldn't eclipse the baby's rights I'm not sure what should be done in a situation where the pregnancy could be detrimental to the mother or baby's health.
To be honest, I don't think situations like these are happening a lot, but when it does happen it'd be nice to give the mothers and fathers some options.
Bat One
ellinas
pparets
Kenny
The Whistler
docdave
likwidshoe
Proof
Bike Bubba
