Supreme court to re-visit late term abortion ban

[midnight Target]

What a load of crap!

There are thousands of medical procedures that could be described here that would curl your toes... doesn't make them wrong.

Women getting a very late term abortion aren't doing it for fun. There is invariably a medical reason for the procedure. Like saving the mother's life or maintaining her health. Any other reason should get a doctor thrown out of his profession.

Do you really want to take this decision out of the hands of the physician and give it to the government? I thought conservatives were against socialized medicine?

[Toad]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Do you really want to take this decision out of the hands of the physician and give it to the government?  

I actually can't believe the argument so far.

Wrangling over definitions and legal terms; it's not like anyone in this thread fails to understand the procedure under discussion.

As for taking it "out of the hands of doctors"... as if they're somehow more sacrosanct than the government. There's money-hungry docs just like money-hungry lawyers, just like money-hungry gangsters, just like money-hungry "men of god"... I could go on, but I think we all get the idea.

Further, the whole point of that law was to bring the issue to the Supreme Court.

Any of you against that?

Do you prefer it be settled in the streets with fisticuffs?

I thought the idea of a Supreme Court is to decide these questions as necessary.

FWIW, I don't think this new law will be upheld at the SC level. Thus it will continue to define the issue and set the boundaries more permanently. So be it.

[Seagoon]

Hello Silat,

Fascinating. The first part of your post, from "The latest tactic of the far right..." to "ban a specific medical procedure" is clipped directly from Camille Matern at http://www.fwhc.org/camille.htm

The second part onwards is clipped from "What does the bible say about abortion" at http://www.twopaths.com/faq_abortion.htm

I'm assuming the cites got dropped accidently, and I mean that seriously.

In any event, you'll note above that I noted all three names, and the medical name for the procedure. Matern actually, gets it wrong in that a D&E is not "intact" - in a D&E the doctor cuts up the living Fetus into little pieces using scissors prior to removing the pieces and then counting them to make sure he has removed all the parts. Matern says that the description of the procedure by Pro-life advocates as "that the fetus is yanked out of the mother and stabbed with scissors" is an "incorrect description" and yet The description above is from an abortion doctor advising other abortion doctors on the correct way of doing the procedure. He says:

"At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left had along the back of the fetus and `hooks' the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). Next he slides the tip of the middle finger along the spine towards the skull while applying traction to the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way.

While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.

Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient."

So, I guess she's right, the fetus is yanked mostly out of the mother and stabbed in the back of the head with scissors and then it's brain is sucked out through the opening thus created. All of which is done without the benefit of anaesthesia for the child. Heck if we did this to condemned murderers and concluded it was our right, people would respond in absolute outrage at such "cruel and unusual punishment".

There's also the unsubstantiated "most of whom are men" comment, which actually goes against the statistical data that there are more women opposed to abortion than men, and far more female than male workers in crisis pregnancy and pro-life groups. Think about it, who has more to gain from abortion than men. After all, they are the ones who want the ability to have sex without having to be dogged for the rest of our lives by the issues of paternity.

Regarding the biblical data (interestingly enough you raised the issue of the bible, not I), actually orthodox commentators on the Word back to the church fathers have been opposed to abortion, drawing exactly the opposite conclusions from the two paths site, for instance, John Calvin, perhaps the most influential Protestant theologian of the late 16th century wrote:

"Exodus 21:22. If men strive, and hurt a woman. This passage at first sight is ambiguous, for if the word death only applies to the pregnant woman, it would not have been a capital crime to put an end to the foetus, which would be a great absurdity; for the foetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, (homo,) and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a foetus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that
the words, “if death should follow,” must be applied to the foetus as well as to the mother. Besides, it would be by no means reasonable that a father should sell for a set sum the life of his son or daughter. Wherefore this, in my opinion, is the meaning of the law, that it would be a crime punishable with death, not only when the mother died from the effects of the abortion, but also if the infant should be killed; whether it should die from the wound abortively, or soon after its birth. "

- SEAGOON

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lazs2
sandie... I read that article and agree with it.  Do you?

lazs

Quite a bit, actually.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Sandy,

You know, no one really ever did give you an answer to your question, and actually establishing what we are discussing might be worthwhile.

Count on the English guy to actually.. you know... understand English.

[Seagoon]

Hi MT,

Originally posted by midnight Target
What a load of crap!

There are thousands of medical procedures that could be described here that would curl your toes... doesn't make them wrong.

Women getting a very late term abortion aren't doing it for fun. There is invariably a medical reason for the procedure. Like saving the mother's life or maintaining her health. Any other reason should get a doctor thrown out of his profession.

Do you really want to take this decision out of the hands of the physician and give it to the government? I thought conservatives were against socialized medicine?

I don't personally know of any other "medical procedure" that involves killing a human being by stabbing him in the head and then vacuuming out his brains all without anaesthesia, could you give me another toe curler like that? But what's to be gained by using emotive language to describe the current culture of death? I'll cease and desist.

Statistical data indicates that the majority of IDX's are actually still performed electively (illegal or not) and the vast majority of the rest are medical in the sense that they are performed for the benefit of the mother's psychological well being. Personally, I don't believe "the life of the mother" is what is intended when the issue is that she is suicidal because she is still carrying a child she doesn't want. Having spoken to an OB/GYN about this, he indicated that he has never seen a situation where it was safer to remove a dead fetus via an ID&X than another procedure. You generally do an ID&X specifically on a live fetus because you want a dead baby to be delivered, not a live one and chopping them up late term becomes very difficult. The pressure required to sever the leg of a 6 or 7 month old baby in the womb with scissors would often create the danger of an accidental perforation.

Politically though, what this is about is whether the right to determine whether ID&X's should be lawful will be decided by the citizens of the state, or nine black robed individuals. The reason it is so contentious is that nationwide, the debate has turned and outside of the bluest states most citizens would vote to ban procedures like this.

Anyway, here's a simple question for the pro-ID&X crowd, if during the proceedure the doctor applies too much traction and yanks the baby entirely out of the birth canal thus inadvertantly delivering it (which has happened), should it be illegal for him to complete the ID&X proceedure?

If not, why not?
If so, can a parent elect to have the same proceedure done after the normal delivery of their child if they change their mind?

- SEAGOON

[Silat]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello Silat,

Fascinating. The first part of your post, from "The latest tactic of the far right..." to "ban a specific medical procedure" is clipped directly from Camille Matern at http://www.fwhc.org/camille.htm

The second part onwards is clipped from "What does the bible say about abortion" at http://www.twopaths.com/faq_abortion.htm

I'm assuming the cites got dropped accidently, and I mean that seriously.

In any event, you'll note above that I noted all three names, and the medical name for the procedure. Matern actually, gets it wrong in that a D&E is not "intact" - in a D&E the doctor cuts up the living Fetus into little pieces using scissors prior to removing the pieces and then counting them to make sure he has removed all the parts. Matern says that the description of the procedure by Pro-life advocates as "that the fetus is yanked out of the mother and stabbed with scissors" is an "incorrect description" and yet The description above is from an abortion doctor advising other abortion doctors on the correct way of doing the procedure. He says:

"At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left had along the back of the fetus and `hooks' the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). Next he slides the tip of the middle finger along the spine towards the skull while applying traction to the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way.

While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.

Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient."

So, I guess she's right, the fetus is yanked mostly out of the mother and stabbed in the back of the head with scissors and then it's brain is sucked out through the opening thus created. All of which is done without the benefit of anaesthesia for the child. Heck if we did this to condemned murderers and concluded it was our right, people would respond in absolute outrage at such "cruel and unusual punishment".

There's also the unsubstantiated "most of whom are men" comment, which actually goes against the statistical data that there are more women opposed to abortion than men, and far more female than male workers in crisis pregnancy and pro-life groups. Think about it, who has more to gain from abortion than men. After all, they are the ones who want the ability to have sex without having to be dogged for the rest of our lives by the issues of paternity.

Regarding the biblical data (interestingly enough you raised the issue of the bible, not I), actually orthodox commentators on the Word back to the church fathers have been opposed to abortion, drawing exactly the opposite conclusions from the two paths site, for instance, John Calvin, perhaps the most influential Protestant theologian of the late 16th century wrote:

"Exodus 21:22. If men strive, and hurt a woman. This passage at first sight is ambiguous, for if the word death only applies to the pregnant woman, it would not have been a capital crime to put an end to the foetus, which would be a great absurdity; for the foetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, (homo,) and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a foetus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that
the words, “if death should follow,” must be applied to the foetus as well as to the mother. Besides, it would be by no means reasonable that a father should sell for a set sum the life of his son or daughter. Wherefore this, in my opinion, is the meaning of the law, that it would be a crime punishable with death, not only when the mother died from the effects of the abortion, but also if the infant should be killed; whether it should die from the wound abortively, or soon after its birth. "

- SEAGOON

Seagoon what is your point?
I assume all your references to the bible are pulled from a site? But I see no links.
Are you actually trying to imply that the term isnt an invention of the Christian Fanatics that wanted to get the base up in arms over abortion?
Or maybe you think describing a medical procedure in graphic detail will energize us to want it banned?
Fear tactics no matter how nicely stated are still fear tactics. I dont succumb to them.
My body, your body, her body is private.

[lasersailor184]

With all due respect, silly straw horse, Sailor.

That was the point I was making.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Are you argueing that the baby is not outside the womb when this procedure is performed? Do you want to call it something that makes it seem like an object rather than a breathing, living human being?  How about "Not Alive Yet Fetus"? WIll that help your conscious?

What does any of this have to do with my conscious.  Generally speaking I am against late term abortions.  But that doesn't mean I'm for rhetoric.

[GtoRA2]

Sea
 That is one of the most digusting and inhumane things I have ever read..........


I had no idea thats how it is done.




I am not for banning abortion, but I would like to see a limit put on it being done past a certian point. The point were the baby has to be chopped up to get it out of the women would be a good start.

Always with the exception for the life or health of the mother.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi MT,

 

I don't personally know of any other "medical procedure" that involves killing a human being by stabbing him in the head and then vacuuming out his brains all without anaesthesia, could you give me another toe curler like that? But what's to be gained by using emotive language to describe the current culture of death? I'll cease and desist.

Statistical data indicates that the majority of IDX's are actually still performed electively (illegal or not) and the vast majority of the rest are medical in the sense that they are performed for the benefit of the mother's psychological well being. Personally, I don't believe "the life of the mother" is what is intended when the issue is that she is suicidal because she is still carrying a child she doesn't want. Having spoken to an OB/GYN about this, he indicated that he has never seen a situation where it was safer to remove a dead fetus via an ID&X than another procedure. You generally do an ID&X specifically on a live fetus because you want a dead baby to be delivered, not a live one and chopping them up late term becomes very difficult. The pressure required to sever the leg of a 6 or 7 month old baby in the womb with scissors would often create the danger of an accidental perforation.

Politically though, what this is about is whether the right to determine whether ID&X's should be lawful will be decided by the citizens of the state, or nine black robed individuals. The reason it is so contentious is that nationwide, the debate has turned and outside of the bluest states most citizens would vote to ban procedures like this.

Anyway, here's a simple question for the pro-ID&X crowd, if during the proceedure the doctor applies too much traction and yanks the baby entirely out of the birth canal thus inadvertantly delivering it (which has happened), should it be illegal for him to complete the ID&X proceedure?

If not, why not?
If so, can a parent elect to have the same proceedure done after the normal delivery of their child if they change their mind?

- SEAGOON

I think everyone ought to read this analysis of the statistics of "Partial Birth Abortion".

http://eileen.250x.com/Main/PBAinfo/PBA_NUM2.htm

The number perfomed as late as week 26 may be as low as 9 per year.

 Nationwide.

So why is this a huge issue to the Christian Right wingers?

Because it is a foothold on your rights. On your daughter's rights and on the rights of all those daughters to come.

I call foul. And shame on you all for stretching the truth.

Here are a few excerpts from the link for the mousally impaired.

Elective means 'not performed on an emergency basis". Elective, on demand abortions, ARE illegal after viability (approximately) in 40 states.

The Phantom Procedure AKA the so called 'partial birth abortion' IF it is supposed to be the ID&X, is performed as early as 18 weeks and on rare occasions slightly earlier. Most such abortions,  99.6% according to AGI,  are performed prior to viability.

[Silat]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Silat,

 

There are countless examples where that isn't the case. For instance, people don't have the right to swallow a considerable quantity of highly radioactive material and walk around in public, or continue to have unprotected sex with unknowing partners once they have been diagnosed with HIV, or smuggle illegal drugs internally and so on. Skin is not an absolute barrier to the laws of the state.

But, here I'm just curious, why do you feel more attachment to allowing your daughter to do what she wants than to preserving the life of your grandchildren?

- SEAGOON

Ludrious examples Seagoon. A pregnant woman isnt a communicable disease Sea.
Sea your faith and beliefs are yours. Quit trying to make them law. My daughters body is her own. Until the baby takes a breath outside of my daughters body she is in charge..

[StSanta]

Right now she is Silat.

Soon she is not.

I say this: I reserve the right to use violence against any unwarranted parasite that may, against my will, sustain itself through me, even if my actions lead to conditions where it could do so.

Of course, I'm a dude and won't get preggie. But if a little vampire parasite kid sucked on to my leg and started bleeding me dry, it'd be clobbering time, laws against it or not.

[Red Tail 444]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
My kids were born upon conception. Their live birth was 9 months later...

"Quoting Col. Cathcart: "That's the stupidest Gawdd-dammed thing I ever heard him say."

Originally posted by midnight Target
They are both probably a year behind in school then.

...and MT...that's just wrong! ....  ...but wrong

[Shuckins]

In a strict natural or scientific sense this is not really an issue of a woman's "right" to do what she wants with her own body...for the body being disposed of is not her own.

The double-helix of our dna, found in every cell of our body, is unique to us as individuals.  There is no one else exactly like us anywhere in the world.

A fetus' dna is unique to it, and is as fully developed as that of the dna of any adult.  Thus, the only difference between a fetus and an adult human is merely that of physical development.

I consider all arguments in favor of abortion as nothing but self-serving tripe designed to liberate free spirits from the consequences of the sexual revolution.  As a society we need to stop worshiping our nads and practice a little restraint...or use one of many readily available contraceptives.