PunditLisa wrote, re the Line Item Veto:
Got news for ya, Lisa, they already HAVE struck it down. Many months ago, as a matter of fact.
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
Mea Culpa. Tracer, you’re right. The SC struck down the line item veto over a year ago. Where was I? Must have had my head up my ass. Sorry.
Clarification re PBA’s: A PBA is a procedure where a doctor partially delivers a live baby, cuts a hole in the back of his/her head and suctions his/her brains out. It is performed after 20 weeks of gestation. It is not synonymous with third trimester abortions, but it is the method most often used in the third trimester.
I’m personally opposed to ALL third trimester abortions and ALL PBA’s. Basically, my feelings are that if the baby has to be delivered, it’s too big to be aborted.
Clinton, however, has vetoed the legislation banning PBA’s and it’s very doubtful that they’ll come up with enough votes to override future vetoes.
I was skimming along towards the end of this thread when I read this thing about third-trimester abortions. The only problem is that I misread, in both Lisa’s post and Ruadh’s correction, the acronym as MBA.
:: off to get more coffee before I misread something else :::
This comes from Planned Parenthood’s Abortion FAQ at http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/abortquestions.html#after 24 weeks:
From what I understand, “induction” is the clinical name given to the procedure, and “partial-birth abortion” is the name given to it by its opponents.
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
Huh. It looks like the {URL} tags don’t work if the address has spaces in it. But I swear that section tag is “after 24 months”, with spaces between the words and everything.
Try this here:
[http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/abortquestions.html#after 24 months](http://www.plannedparenthood.org/abortion/abortquestions.html#after 24 months)
Please allow me to lengthen this post by two additional lines with a content-free sig.
Both sides skew the facts their way. I personally know one girl who had two abortions after becoming pregnant by the same guy. The first abortion she had at 15 weeks, and the second at 24 weeks. That’s right, 24 weeks. She was 6 months pregnant and clearly showing. She kept holding out, thinking the guy (a catholic, btw) would marry her. He didn’t, so she ended the pregnancy. She had to be admitted into the hospital as if she was delivering a baby. Which, in fact, she was. She was in NO danger.
While that is a very good speculation about what Phaed. meant, but may I offer my own.
(This is a less logical assertion, but seems to be fought more vehemitly by self processed Clinton HATERS)
Many absolute Clinton haters seem to believe that Vince Foster were killed by the Clintons. Why? I dunno. Some say that Hillary had an affair with him. Some just mumble ‘bout how the “gov’mit” goin’ to march in and take thier guns an’ implant chips and stuff.
Clinton also has something to do with Ron Brown’s death, they claim. Why? I’m not too sure about that. I tried looking stuff up, but the tortured logic is giving me a headache.
For some “information” you can check this site out by a “concerned patriot.”
Bill Clinton is a Murder, a Rapist, and a Trator Home of the Clinton Body Count ®
(Motto: Now, almost 100% Fact-Free[SUP]TM[/SUP])
£ ↑
Don’t forget Waco Ridge, murder perpetrated on innocent civilians by Clinton and that congenital liar, George Bush.
Elect George W. Bush now! It’s the only way to save America!
Pundit, do you give any credence to the President’s reasons for not signing the bills? I think he makes a decent (not great, but decent) argument that the bills as presented did not offer enough protections to the women who would be affected.
-andros-
What?
They forgot WACO?
He should be immediately taken off the “Ring of Conservative Sites”!
Please allow me to lengthen this post by two additional lines with a content-free sig.
I brought up, earlier, the conflict between many Presidents’ personal lives and their public poisitons to make a point.
Most religious conservatives, the type who claim to stand for “Christian family values” supported Ronald Reagan (a divorced man who never goes to church and has never been close to his family) over Jimmy Carter, a devout Christian, a pillar of his church, and a model family man. Liberals are quick to point out the hypocrisy of this position.
Meanwhile, feminists eagerly embrace Bill Clinton (who treats women like dirt), the teachers’ unions embrace him (though he’s always sent his OWN child to expensive private schools). COnservatives have gleefully pointed out the liberals’ hypocrisy in this case.
Question is: in general, REGARDLESS of what you personally believe in, is it hypocritical to support candidates who don’t practice what they preach?
Do you pro-abortion folks think it’s wrong for a devout family-values Catholic to vote for a philandering anti-abortion Congressman like Henry Hyde? Do you conservatives neighborhood-preservation types think it’s hypocritical for black America to embrace thge Kennedys (who have always lived in lily-white neighborhoods, and regularly signed contracts promising NEVER to sell their homes to blacks or Jews)?
Don’t get bogged down on THESE or ANY particular issues. I’m asking you to consider a GENERAL point. Do YOU sometimes hold your nose and vote for a candidate you know is a fraud, but who (at least) supports the same causes you do? Is that hypocrisy or merely intelligent pragmatism?
And if you’re prepared to rationalize and forgive your OWN inconcistencies, can you not at least be more understanding when your ideological opponents do the same?
In other words, can we ALL accept that our ideological enemies aren’t necessaily immoral hypocrites, when they try to make the best of a bad set of choices?
Those are excellent questions. In general, I’m much more concerned with what a candidate preaches. Faced with the choice of someone who fathered children out of wedlock but supports tough enforcement of child support laws, or a good family person who I consider soft on deadbeat dads, I’d vote for the former.
If I could get inside Jesse Helms’ head, and discovered he had never had a racist thought in his life but was merely a shrewd political calculator … and I could get inside some civil rights campaigner’s head and discovered that person had secret racist thoughts … I’d still vote against Helms and for almost anyone who ran against him.
There are many breeds of hypocrisy - for someone to tell a kid to quit being immature is in a sense hypocritical, since that person was probably immature as well. Still, it’s often necessary to fight for mutual improvement. If only perfect people fought to make the world better, the world would be much worse.
Still, I don’t think politicians should be treated any differently from any other person in the eyes of the law.
I’d go even farther.
If I were vehemently opposed to, say, baby-eating (what with the epidemic of infant cannibalism sweeping the country 
), I’d want to elect a president or congressperson who campaigned against baby-eating but secretly indulged in eating babies. Why? Because such a person would go out of his/her way to pass the toughest anti-baby-eating legislation the U.S. has ever seen, just to draw people away from his dirty little secret.
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
tracer:
It’s not the whole baby that gets eaten, usually they just eat the placenta. Oh, and if they can’t afford the five grand to cryogenically store the umbilical cord against any future need for stem cells, sometimes they make jerky out of it.
kaylasdad
God in Heaven how do these Urban Legends get started?
The bill that is on the table now is worded to protect against cases where the mother’s life would be in jeopardy, but Clinton has vowed to veto it anyway. I think he’d veto any legislation that restricted abortion in any way, no matter how it was worded. Why? Think about it. The argument pro-choicers use is that the “fetus” isn’t a person until BIRTH. To push back the date of legalized abortion is to admit that a 6 month old “fetus” IS indeed a person, with rights as guaranteed by the constitution. And I don’t think pro-choicers are ready to say that.