Vote Kerry

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Abortion is always a grave sin and it is always a grave sin to participate in it in any way, including voting pro-choice in any way[/quote]

"in any way" I could see you thinking you can't vote "in any way" if you followed Catholic answers. Just from a bishop point of view I can not see that. I realize they said no other issue matches it. They have not addressed the fact that some think it will not change and with good reason. And then there's the proportionality thing too if you interpret it that way. [i]That said, I do realize that the bishops said no other issues match abortion.[/i]



Just to note. I did provide the entire link to proportionality of ratzinger in a previous post in this thread.


I do acknowledge that the moral weight of abortion is above every other issue. I don't think anyone has a grasp on my point I'm arguing that it's a null issue that it won't change even if Bush is elected. I say this because there's so many arguments you guys could be making and you're just repeating the same thing. I think you all are too far in on this one. I may have to bow out unless someone addresses my points.

Edited October 21, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]I realize they said no other issue matches it. [/quote]

that's by me. i just wanted to add. ...matches it in theory.


do we at least have the facts of the situation straight? I'd go on to give you a few cues of what you should be arguing, but I don't want you to be the ones to say it if you're not sure. i think you're on the right track. you just have to address your main point instead of letting people speculate. i say that cause right now i know you mean well but you have not really addressed my point and haven't really made any points other than abortion is an issue that has no other matches. (i say that only works on a theoretical level.. do you understand what i mean?) there's just so much more you could be arguing. i'll tell you soon if we hit a block in the road.

Edited October 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

It is very likely that Supreme Court Judges will be nominated by the next president. John Kerry specifically says he will only nominate those who support the right of a woman to murder. Bush says he won't have such a litmus test (all his nominations would be pro-life because he believes them to be most defensive of the constitution)

let's not forget about when issues such as partial birth abortion come up. clearly in the past 4 years and in the coming 4 years tons of issues regarding life in the womb have come up, the Laci Peterson Law and Partial Birth Abortion have come up, and in the next 4 years there will be supreme court judicial nominees and who knows what other types of legislation that will go to the senate. also, whether or not the American Government funds abortions at home and abroad continues to remain a hot issue.

To claim that abortion will not/ can not be affected in the coming four years is not based in reality.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I'm not saying will not or can not. I'm saying it probably will not. Don't create a strawman of me that's not me to knock me down and win the argument (instituting some logic principles I think we should post them locked with definitions and examples... I'm willing to get them if they would do it)

I do appreciate you actually using some form of argument though. You are expressing your point directly. Maybe this is what they meant too, but they sure didn't express it.

What I was going to say to you all and what me and you will eventually start arguing is: probability. What do you think the probability is? I think a good Catholic could say the probability is not good. You might insist it is good.

We might agree that we don't really know. Then, it seems if we don't know that you should vote for one who might overturn. I'm saying that it's not wrong to think that it won't be overturned.. I base this mostly one the fact that most americans are pro-choice.

I do understand how you would disagree. Considering the nature of the bishop letters, I don't think you can objectively (assuming objective of course) say that it is wrong to vote that way.

You'll say benefit of the doubt. I think I might personally even agree. But that doesn't mean you have to.

Edited October 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Cardinal Ratzinger came out and made a statement on it.[/quote]

I wanna see this from ironmonk though. I bet he's refering to the same thing I am.. the proportionality thing. The fact that it doesn't expressly say that you can't vote for kerry or the conditions of a kerry no vote, I think shows that he's warping his message.

You might say I'm warping the message? I don't think so because he could make the message clearer if you're going to argue that he actually made a statement about it.

To say that it is implied is not to say that it is true unless it can be implied with qualification. The fact that there is possibly not qualification means that you should not imply it.


But this is just a side thing sort of. I want to argue the last post mostly instead of just speculating what is meant blah blah blah.

Edited October 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

I am saying that something WILL DEFINITELY happen that will affect abortion. At the very least it is certain that John Kerry will reopen funding for abortions abroad (that Bush has cut). There is a very high probability that the next president will appoint a Supreme Court Judge (and everyone knows the Supreme Court would be the key/sole player in any type of overthrow of roe v wade <except for armed revolt >) and there is a distinct probability that laws that affect the baby in the womb will come up in congress (I can name at least 2 that have come up in the past 2 years that Bush supported and Kerry opposed )

proportionate reasons would be if the guy running against Kerry was a neo-Hitler who was proposing a new holocaust. That is proportionate (though Abortion definitely kills MORE people still, the proposition of a new holocaust, state sponsored murder, is proportionate to the state sponsored murder of abortion)

proportionate reasons would not be anything that is less morally reprehensible than state sponsored wide scale murder.

[thessalonian]

I am no prophet but I am going to say something now that may well seem raidcal but I want you to take a hard look at. What was the result of slavery in this country. Do you know that the US Council of Catholic Bishops did not take a stand on that one. Some say for good reason, as it was believed that if slavery was abolished that it would throw 4 million black on to a labor market that could not absorb them. And in fact it did and most blacks ended up in poverty. Now certain forms of slaver were allowed as moral by the Church. For instance indentured servitude or slavery due to capture of infedels in a just war. But race based slavery which was not hardly know to the world until 1400 was condemned at it's outset by Pope Eugene in 1463 I believe it was, thirty years before America was founded. And it was consistently condemned throughout the history of the Church (I can back this with quotes). Yet the Catholic Bishops in a council just before the cival war were silent on it. Do you think that the judgement of God was upon a nation steeped in immorality, having grown cold due to sin at that time. By the way, the Abolistionist movement started long before the cival war. Should they have said it was a okay to vote for against Lincoln because slavery had gone on since before the Revolution and was not going to change anyway?

What was the result of the Holocaust of the Jews in that began prior to WW II. Do you think that God was not a part of the judgement of a nation.

Now this country has grown cold to life via 30 years of abortions of over 50 million babies, not counting the millions lost through contraception and now the morning after pill called "plan B". Man's plan is what it should be called. Stem cell research and Euthenasia are at our doorstep. We cannot tell what is wrong with heather having two daddies or mommies. Pornography is rampant and we call it free speach. I dare not guess what the judgement of God on this nation will be. He does care about these things last I checked his holy word. And he does judge nations for them.

You can say nothing has happened and so nothing will. So likely did many abolitionists who I am sure saw reason to vote against Lincoln. The twisted arguements were around then also and people fell for them. But we know nothing will happen with kerry and in fact he has said he is in favor of you writing a check to the governement to pay for these abortoins in the second debate. Once again I shudder at the thought of God's judgement on this nation.

Blessings

[Anna]

[quote name='Balthazor' date='Oct 20 2004, 11:38 PM'] I am having moral issues with both candidates.

Sure Bush says that he is against abortion, but as many abortions are being performed as ever.

Kerry is not much better, he can't seem to take a strong stand on exactly where he stands on abortion. He doesn't condone it but he doesn't want to do anything to try and stop it because of the few cases that may endanger the mother. (so he says)

Every fiber of my being tells me that abortion is just plain wrong.

I don't think that either Bush or Kerry really support abortion.
However, I do not see a man before me that is planning on doing anything to efectively reduce abortions. [/quote]
Senator John Kerry has a twenty year long voting record on the issue of abortion. Don't listen to what is coming out of his mouth while he is trying to drum up votes: look at the real man and what he has done in office.
For twenty years, he has consistently voted pro-abortion.
He was one of only six representatives to reject the ban on Partial Birth Abortion. You can't get any more pro-abortion than John Kerry.
His abortion support is 100%, and that is why he is first presidential candidate ever to win the covetted Planned Parenthood Federation endorsement.
Let's not forget, Kerry promises to appoint only justices who believe the Roe v. Wade decision, legalizing abortion in all 9 months for any reason whatsoever, is Constitutional.
That will seal the fate of millions of American babies for years to come. Supreme Court Justices serve a life term.

The first thing George W. Bush did when he took office was to reverse Clinton's decicion of the Mexico City Policy, which provided aid for abortions in family planning clinics beyone the US borders. Under Clinton, we were even exporting abortion. Under Bush, the US no longer funded it.
Bush introduced the ban on Partial Birth Abortion.
He introduced the Defense of Marriage Act, which would guarantee that the legal definition of marriage would remain between a man and a woman.
Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act.
Doesn't matter whether you marry the opposite sex, or the same sex, as long you "marry up."
Bush is opposed to using embryonic stem cells. He supports stem cell research donated ethically, not taken from fetuses.
Kerry supports embryonic stem cell research.


Oh, btw, I am NOT even a Republican!
But I am Pro-Life.
And to save the babies, there is only one logical choice a voter can make.

Pax Christi. <><

[dairygirl4u2c]

I like your style alugi. So far. If I start to dispute we should finalize our discussion though. Don't walk away and you'll be a god to me. jk

I want ot also mention what I said about probabiliity. This is I'm pretty sure why Iron was talking about "perhaps" stuff that I was talking about. His argument I assume and yours will be I assume that yes perhaps nothing will happen, but that doesn't mean we shoudn't vote for a prochoice just in case. At the very least it's a principled dispute. You'd say at the very least it's bad to vote for him on principle. That's what most say when talkig in person. Andt these are hardcore catholics. You all are a lot more extreme than in person by the way. But then you haven't argued final that it is a sin to vote prochoice if all you're going to do is say that it is. I think at the least I'm going to be right that you can't say it's a sin. I suppose you could argue the ordinary magisterium has inclinations that wya and just because they haven't addressed kerry specifically or the problem of ucertainany doesn't mean you shouldn't follow their "spirit" of their letters. But he prob of uncertainty really does need adressed to say it is a mortal sin, much less a sin, Id insist. And "spirit" of letters is disputable.

[quote]At the very least it is certain that John Kerry will reopen funding for abortions abroad (that Bush has cut). [/quote]

I'm pretty sure that the abortions would happen anyway. If the family doesn't want the baby if they did not want the baby anyway, cause poor sick.. they'd find a way to do it. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think I am. You'd hae to say on principle we aren't going to be the ones to assist. But I could see someone arguing that saving eh starving is worth more than not assiting a murder that was goig to hapen anyway.

[quote]There is a very high probability that the next president will appoint a Supreme Court Judge (and everyone knows the Supreme Court would be the key/sole player in any type of overthrow of roe v wade <except for armed revolt >)[/quote]

Actually. That's what everyone thinks. And I woudn't be surprise if the a lot of repubs would want you to think that. As you later mention, the Congress can clarify its laws anytime it wants. The supreme court sisn't suppose to be legislating from the bench.

I could see a prob arising in the future. The states need lik 75 percent of states to over ride the consitution or something like that. That means if a decidion was made an the majority was against it, the court would win. I can see good rasons for the set up this way, because pepole are wishy washy, but then abortion can fall into those cracks whichs isn't good. If this was the csae voting for the justices would be a must.

[quote] and there is a distinct probability that laws that affect the baby in the womb will come up in congress (I can name at least 2 that have come up in the past 2 years that Bush supported and Kerry opposed [/quote]

Yes, but will they do anything? The one I know you're prob talking about just got vineefective right away by judicial review. People have misconceptions about partial birth. THe bill didn't allow for mother's health. People agree that health should be considred. People are against partial birth in general. So it looks good to have a bill that does away in theory with partial birth. It seems like a political maneuver because I doubt the politician actually are more conservative than the poulation and want all partial birth done away with when the pop wants it done away with except for moether health. Now, Mother's health" is abused and we politicians should be resolving that. Don't give so much credit to the policitians! I'm not sure of the other bill you're talking about. (you must be talking about the one in the last response to your quote) Now here maybe you'd argue that the demos and kerry are not allowing a reason use of the mother's health thing? Based on my observations they seem willing to say no partial births and do the mothers health thing. If thta's not the case and if you can show this I might reconsider.

[quote]legalizing abortion in all 9 months for any reason whatsoever, is Constitutional.[/quote]

Actually it's suppose to be only for the mother's health after the first trimestter and only if the state allows it. This is a notion that even most with prolife tendencies believe in.. mother's help then okay. That makes it even more less likely that the decision will b eoverturned. I bet most prolife judges might consider this good. In a certain sense you could look at it as a compromise. The first trimester is all allowable, but after that only mothers health. It doesn't appear that justices will want to go against a stalemate "compromise" like that. This is a major consideratino you need to realize. Even beyond the fact that a marginal yet formidable margin are gnerall prochoice.

[quote]Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. [/quote]
As for the marriage arguments arguing as if I was catholic. The Catholic Church does say all civil unions marriage etc is nt allowable. They say starvation etc is wrong. I might argue that if you think the nation needs the policies of Kerry that these might trump marriage things. You might disagree and say marriage foundation of society and way to save it. But I think you can take a moral absolute such as no starving and say that even though the way to no starving is disputed, if people ar estarving and need the policies.. then at that time it can trump marriage ideas. The bishops have n't really addressed this issue. That is essentially again for example what if I think helping the starving is worth more than saving marriage.

[quote]Bush is opposed to using embryonic stem cells. He supports stem cell research donated ethically, not taken from fetuses.[/quote]
Here's what you're saving that I think a Catholc could dispute with you. Invetro fertilization couples have many fetuses created. They only use one. The argument against that is that to use th ecells you have to kill the fetus. The counter argument is that it was going to die anyway. I could see someone saying that to save the starving is worth more than to save a baby that was goig to die anyway. You'd think Bush or whoever would start being against invetro. But you know how much peple do that, no one's even talked about it.

Edited October 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Winchester]

I'm sure it's been said, but Kerry's position regarding abortion: Personally opposed, but unable to dictate such morality is untenable for a Catholic. Moreover, it is patently absurd. It's pandering, and I don't think Mister Kerry is stupid enough to believe what he says, I believe it's merely politics.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]I'm sure it's been said, but Kerry's position regarding abortion: Personally opposed, but unable to dictate such morality is untenable for a Catholic. Moreover, it is patently absurd. It's pandering, and I don't think Mister Kerry is stupid enough to believe what he says, I believe it's merely politics.[/quote]

Who knows what he's thinking. But I will argue how it could be objectively possible to do that if you want to start a new thread.


[quote]Based on my observations they seem willing to say no partial births and do the mothers health thing. If thta's not the case and if you can show this I might reconsider.[/quote]

I want to expand on my quote. It seems that if the demos are willing to ban partial birth (which makes sense if the public wants it since they do what the public wants a lot) then the repubs are the ones causing the probs. As I've established you know they're being political: they're banning all abortions and not considering mother's health when that's what the population wants. A lot of prolife people make that distinction too. Therefore, they are doing something they know will not pass muster just to say they've banned partial birth which everyone doesn't like when it's abused. They are the ones being political. They need to make specific laws but that's hard to do. so maybe they can do something else (regulations, votes etc) but something other than being political.

[quote]
If thta's not the case and if you can show this I might reconsider.[/quote]

this is from me. make that will reconsider.

Edited October 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Anna]

Well, dairygirl, you are entitled to your opinions. Your opinions, however, do not refect the Teachings of the Catholic faith.

Here is what one bishop sent out to his flock just two days ago:

[quote]
NEWS

News Release
For Immediate Release
October 20, 2004

Bishop Calls Abortion 'Greatest Evil of Our Age'

WHEELING, W.Va.—

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

What is perhaps the saddest exchange between God and man occurred very early in Salvation History: “The LORD asked Cain, ‘Where is your brother Abel?’ He answered, ‘I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?’ The LORD then said, ‘What have you done! Listen: your brother’s blood calls out to me from the soil!’” (Gen 4: 9-10). Cain’s response to God is certainly meant to cover up his murderous action. But, Cain serves as a spokesman for much of humanity when he asks, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” From our earliest days, we are taught to take care of ourselves, to rely on ourselves first, and to not worry about what other people are doing. We learn, far too well, that each of us is his own keeper first and foremost. And so, Cain’s question becomes almost natural, especially in a society which teaches tolerance as its greatest virtue: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The answer is very simple: “yes, every man is his ‘brother’s keeper,’ because God entrusts us to one another” (Evangelium vitae, 19).

As a brother among you and a Bishop for you, I have been made the keeper of you, my brothers and sisters in Christ, in a very special way. It is my sacred duty to celebrate for you the Sacraments of Salvation and teach you the Truth of faith and morals. Where I fail to do these, I have failed to fulfill my God-given responsibility to you and to all those in the world who are searching for the Truth.

These thoughts have been on my mind since I read data that indicate that Catholics are no different than the general population in their opinion on abortion or in their voting behavior. At the same time, I discovered that most Catholic legislators are no different from others in their lack of support for Pro-Life legislation; in fact, some Catholic legislators vote against any attempt to limit abortion on demand, and the culture of death it has created, with such regularity as to have a perfect record of opposition to this most innocent of all human life. I began informally asking members of the laity whether their pastors regularly preach the Gospel of Life and the Church’s opposition to abortion. Many told me that even on Respect Life Sunday this year (October 3, 2004), they had not heard a single word from the pulpit.

As my brother’s keeper, I feel guilty that I have said nothing to the priests of our Diocese to encourage them to preach the Gospel of Life each Sunday and to make the defense of innocent human life a pastoral priority. I would hate to come before the Lord our God and say that I was a Shepherd but that I did nothing to teach the people about the evils of abortion. Because I am my brother’s keeper, I never want it to be said that I was willing to tolerate evil or any cooperation in it.

[b]Therefore, I want to say, clearly and distinctly, as your brother and your Bishop, that abortion is the greatest moral evil of our age. As the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, there is “no circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever” that can justify or excuse abortion. “It is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church”[/b] (Evangelium vitae, 62).

It is true that there are other evils which occupy our attention as a society, especially during an election. Euthanasia, the death penalty, war, genocide, hunger, abject poverty, discrimination, and unjust labor practices are all attacks on human dignity and the value of human life. As Christians, we must be committed to preaching the whole Gospel of Life and to being consistent in our defense of the inherent dignity and value of human life.

[b]All evils are not equal. Abortion, representing as it does an attack on the most innocent of all human life and the most sacred of all human relationships, is so grave and profound an evil that it calls all men and women of good will to action. Abortion is an evil we can do something about, not only by prohibiting this cruel practice once and for all but by assuring that each and every child is welcomed in life, protected in law, and cared for in society.[/b] As a nation, we are wealthy enough, blessed enough, and compassionate enough to achieve this goal and to achieve it right now. If, however, we choose to stand idly by while abortion continues, we risk the fate of the rich man who refused to lift a single finger to help the starving Lazarus.

[b]And so, I want to reiterate what I have said: abortion is the greatest moral evil of our age.[/b] In light of that truth, a Catholic who deliberately votes for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion is guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, such an action can only be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. I cannot think of a value to put on innocent human life and the right to life; others, in conscience, may be able to. However, I ask each of you to give serious consideration to the Truth that is Gospel of Life as you prepare to vote and I ask each of you to remember that we are, all of us, our brothers’ keepers.

With personal regards and prayerful best wishes, I am,

Sincerely in Christ,

Most Reverend Bernard W. Schmitt
Bishop of Wheeling-Charleston[/quote]

Health of the mother, btw, is a very vague term used precisely by the supporters of abortion to further their cause. Look for a definition of "health of the mother," and you'll see that they mean physical, emotional, or psychological health.

So, if a woman feels she may become depressed or experience post-partum depression, she can kill her baby. If she is going to be nauseaus during her first trimester, she can kill her baby. If she is going to get varicose veins, stretch marks, and other 'disfiguring' body changes, she can kill her baby.

Until you've been in the trenches fighting the baby killers, you have no idea how crafty they are in framing their arguments to keep all abortion legal and available!

[dairygirl4u2c]

I'm not even saying that the mother's health should be considered. I will even say for the sake of argument that the mother's health should not be considered as far as I'm concerned. The fact of the matter is that they're still doing something that won't pass and they don't believe in.


I've known that all along that the Catholic Church teaches that. I didn't make it clear in my last post that the repubs that are passing "no mother health" I'm sure think they should be doing it for the mother's health. Doesn't that seem like a political thing to do if you're not really even for it and if it's going to be vetoed anyway?

Are you sure that they're fighting the good fight or just being political? Either way, is anything happening?


So now let's actually address the point of the thread that a good catholic can vote for a pro-choice candidate given all that stuff in my last posts.

Edited October 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[toledo_jesus]

A good Catholic can only vote for an anti-life candidate with proportionate reason. The other candidate must exhibit a greater evil than abortion. There is currently no candidate who supports a greater evil than abortion. Guess which candidate supports abortion in all circumstances?

His name starts with a K.

There is simply no getting around this issue. Catholics who vote for Kerry are complicit in grave sin. In fact, anyone who does so is complicit in murder because it is common knowledge that Kerry is a supporter of abortion. There is no ambiguity here.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Thanks Toldedo.


Now would anyone like to addess my thread?

[yiannii]

If I was American I would vote for Bush.

I really can't stand the pollies getting actors and actresses involved - I mean this is politics we are talking about!

"Oh I'm going to vote for Kerry because ‘starsnamehere’ supports them"

Talk about lowest common denominator....

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Oct 20 2004, 10:58 PM'] Moreover noone's saying that any issue is above abortion, they're just saying that the it's very unlikely to change makes it a null issue.
[/quote]
Hi dairygirl4u2c,

What makes you think it's unlikely to change? Where is your evidence for that? As a matter of fact, groups like Planned Parenthood find that Bush is a huge threat to the pro-abortion movement. I wrote about this a few months back on my blog. You can check out what I wrote [url="http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=DaBeenaBobba&tab=weblogs&uid=110466952"]here[/url]. You might want to check out
[url="http://www.ppaction.org/ppvotes/choice_chick.html"]this cartoon[/url] Planned Parenthood has put out as well. If Bush wasn't and isn't a threat to the pro-"choice" movement, then why do you think these groups are making such a big deal about Bush's anti-"choice" actions? NARAL even[url="http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm14788_20030607.htm"] thinks Roe v. Wade could be overturned[/url] under Bush! What would it take to overturn Roe v. Wade? A pro-life majority in Congress, a pro-life president who wouldn't veto every pro-life bill that comes his way, and pro-life judges. You see, there could very possibly be openings in the Supreme Court (I've read that there could be anywhere from 2-9 openings) in a few years. It'll be up to whoever's in office to appoint new judges. Kerry has said that he's unwiling to appoint any judges who'd consider overturning Roe v. Wade. Bush, on the other hand, is open to appointing pro-life judges. This is a huge deal for the pro-life movement! In all due respect, if people like you say, "Well, abortion is never going to get overturned, so it's not really an issue with me, politically speaking," then of course abortion is never going to get overturned! If people don't do all in their power to end abortion (e.g., [b]by voting for pro-life candidates at every political level[/b]), then of course abortion will never be made illegal again. The bottom line is that we have no excuse to abdicate our moral and civic responsibilities. Besides, can we really know the future? How would you know that abortion will never be made illegal? You're not God, so I don't think that's something you could know.

God bless,

Jennifer

[Guest Aluigi]

The other law I was refering to was the Lacy Peterson Law, which would charge a person for double murder if they killed a pregnant woman (those who voted against it <like Kerry and Edwards> really show their non-pro-choice colors because it wouldn't even be the woman's choice in this case).

anyway, i'm just gonna reitirate that this election WILL effect abortion, everyone should be able to see that. Laws that show more and more respect for human life

as far as judges overturning the partial birth abortion ban and such, they are legislating from the bench! this law was passed by congress and these judges are disobeying it. They have no right. Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said the legislative branch would be the one to destroy the republic? Well I think he was right. In any case, refer to Beenabobba's post for the proof that this election [b]will[/b] affect the pro-life cause. not might, not probably, [B]will.[/]

When laws are made that 'don't allow for the health of the mother' that means nothing. they are not banning the OTHER PROCEDURES that will save the mother's life, endangering the baby but still giving it a slim possibility for life. DIRECT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION is always and everywhere evil. When the mother's life is in danger, emergency early c-sections could be performed and stuff, but there is absolutely no reason to turn to the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion.