Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on February 23, 2006, 08:28:23 AM
-
This is good news IMO. Other than special circumstances, no late term abortions should be allowed, again, IMO.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060221/D8FTPU2GA.html
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it would consider reinstating a federal ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortion, pulling the contentious issue back to the high court on conservative Justice Samuel Alito's first day.
Alito could well be the tie-breaking vote when the court decides if doctors can be barred from performing the abortion procedure.
It is the first time the court has considered a federal restriction on abortion, and conservatives said they expect the membership change to affect the outcome.
"This is the frontline abortion case in the country," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, who represents members of Congress in the case.
(AP) The U. S. Supreme Court, depicted in an artist's rendering in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2006,...
Full Image
Justices split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law barring the same procedure because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Alito.
Abortion was a major focus in the fight over Alito's nomination, and that of new Chief Justice John Roberts. Neither divulged how he would vote.
Even with O'Connor's retirement, there are five votes to uphold Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark ruling that established a woman's right to an abortion.
Abortion rights groups were worried, however, that the new court could make it easier for legislators to limit women's access to abortions.
"Today's action means the core principle of protecting women's health as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade is in clear and present danger," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Justices will hear arguments this fall, as voters are preparing for midterm elections, with a ruling likely next year as presidential campaigns are gearing up.
Congress had voted in 2003 to prohibit the type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb and its skull punctured or crushed.
Justices were told that 31 states also barred so-called "partial-birth" abortions over the past eight years.
Doctors who perform the procedure contend that it is the safest method of abortion when the mother's health is threatened by heart disease, high blood pressure or cancer.
The 2003 passage followed nearly a decade of attempts by Republican leaders and two vetoes by former President Clinton.
The law was never put in effect. It was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York because it had no exception to protect the women's health. Those three decisions were upheld by appeals courts.
Defenders of the law maintain that the procedure is never medically necessary to protect a woman's health.
The Supreme Court recently dealt with an abortion case from New Hampshire. Justices on a 9-0 vote reaffirmed in January that states can require parental involvement in abortion decisions and that state restrictions must have an exception to protect the mother's health.
The case that will be heard this fall comes to the Supreme Court from Nebraska, where the federal law was challenged on behalf of physicians.
A judge in Lincoln, Neb., ruled that the law was unconstitutional, and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis agreed last summer, prompting the Supreme Court appeal. Federal judges in New York and San Francisco also declared the law unconstitutional, and appeals courts agreed.
Fifteen states urged justices to review the case: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia.
The case was one of four that justices agreed to hear on Tuesday, Alito's first day on the bench. The others involve more routine issues: patents, prison sentences and lawsuits over pay phone charges.
The case is Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
This is good news IMO. Other than special circumstances, no late term abortions should be allowed, again, IMO.
What exactly do you think a "late term" abortion is?
-
I'd say it is a third trimester abortion, or any partial birth abortion.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
What exactly do you think a "late term" abortion is?
Illegal after fetal viability. Removal of fetus should be allowed after this point, however all means to protect it's survival should be required.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Illegal after fetal viability. Removal of fetus should be allowed after this point, however all means to protect it's survival should be required.
You didn't answer the question.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You didn't answer the question.
Yes I did. You just don't understand the term. Viable to mean capable of prolonged life outside the mother's womb. Since medicine and law do not always fit neat and prompt with timelines like we'd prefer, sometimes you have to go by definition of the medical condition rather than timeline.
-
The definition of "late term abortion" is "illegal after viability"?
-
You're just busting rip's balls (/'balled' head).
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The definition of "late term abortion" is "illegal after viability"?
That is my definition. You asked for my definition.
Originally posted by Sandman
What exactly do you think a "late term" abortion is?
I don't think they can put a timeline on it, though they probably will. I think they considering late term "2nd or 3rd trimester". I'd rather see them consider "illegal after viability".
-
I wonder if they'll take the mother's health into account this time.
-
reality check...
If you don't own your own body and it's contents, who does?
Why on earth would anybody wish to allow the governemnt into any decison that deals with your personal corpulent corpus?
unless of course yer a brown shirt neo-nazi that figures what everbody else is doing with their own bodies is any freakin business of yours?
-
Sandman: What's a late term abortion?
Ripsnort: It's illegal.
Sandman: But, what is it?
Ripsnort: It's illegal.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Sandman: What's a late term abortion?
Ripsnort: It's illegal.
Sandman: But, what is it?
Ripsnort: It's illegal.
:aok
Did I say its? :huh You asked for a definition. I gave it to you.
Typical liberal tactic, when you can't argue the point, argue the arguement.:huh
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I wonder if they'll take the mother's health into account this time.
I certainly hope so.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
reality check...
If you don't own your own body and it's contents, who does?
Why on earth would anybody wish to allow the governemnt into any decison that deals with your personal corpulent corpus?
unless of course yer a brown shirt neo-nazi that figures what everbody else is doing with their own bodies is any freakin business of yours?
Why not let them kill children immediately after they're born? I guess Gov't has no business what happens then too? :huh I mean, we're only talking a womb that is paper thin....
-
Exactly spot on Hang.
Your rights are easy to lose and difficult to regain. The people taking them away aren't going to be overt about it....
"As of today.... no more free speech!!"
That would never fly and we all know it. But, if the people who want to control you whittle away at those rights... attacking the fringes first... then they can succeed.
Freedoms praticed by the mainstream never need defeding. They are accepted without question. When the freedoms are difficult they become endangered. This is why the ACLU is reviled by some folks. They never have to protect aunt Sally for speaking her mind at a town meeting. They need to protect Mustafa Mohammed for speaking his mind near an Airport.
Funny thing is, Mustafa's rights may be taken away by law.... but that just makes it a little easier to go after Aunt Sally later on.
Partial birth abortion is one of those fringe items.... welcome to the whittling bee.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Did I say its? :huh You asked for a definition. I gave it to you.
"Illegal after viability."
Your definition makes no sense.
I asked you what it is. Not whether it should be legal or not.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
"Illegal after viability."
Your definition makes no sense.
I asked you what it is. Not whether it should be legal or not.
You asked me what I think it is. Now continue attacking the poster and not the subject. :rofl
-
A question is now an attack.
Alrighty then. :aok
-
look Rip.. here's the deal. regardless of how I PERSONALLY feel about abortion I'm not willing to give up my right of ownership of my body. It's mine, not the governments. Period. And, if I want MY rights to MY body preserved I cannot condone ANY governemnt meddeling in anybody elses rights to THIER bodies.
So.. I want to preserve the chain of custody for my person. My Body. My very existence. I'm NOT about to give governemnet.. any governement, local, state, federal, ANY precedent to interrupt my rights to my own ****ing body. And lemme give yah another clue... just WHAT has the goverments meddeling improved... anything? anybody? You TRUST those dumb corrupt pinheads to 'do the right thing'? In spite of overwhelming evidence that just about anything and everything the government touches becomes by default corrupt and untrustworty? You give the government courts carte blanche to 'decide' for women, your also giving them carte blance to decide for YOU.
Your against abortion? Great. Sponsor education programs. Adoption Programs. Sexual Education Programs. Church programs. Develop and pass legislation ending government sponsorship of abortion doctors and clinics.
Get their noses outta our womens crotches. Get 'em outta the abortion clinic buisness. get em outta the damn hospitals, get 'em outta the welfare business, get 'em outta my gawdamned day to day life. I'll take care of MY women, and I expect everybody else to take care of theirs.
-
Mid, you speak of Abortion like it is a basic human right to begin with. Yet I see it no where in the Declaration or Constitution. As it stands right now, abortion is only allowed nationwide because of activist judges stepping outside of their constitutional boundaries. This isn't a right.
Therefor, taking it away is not taking away a right and should stop being spoken of like it is.
Hang, while it is your body, does that justify taking the life of another human being only because it is attached to you? Does this mean I can surgically attach myself to people I want to kill?
And since sandman is having trouble understanding 5 syllable words, I'll explain more clearly. If the baby can live outside of the mother, it would be illegal to kill it (barring mother's health and those concerns). Most of the time, a baby just entering the third trimester has a decent chance to live should sudden labor come on. And the further along you go the better chance it has to live.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
And since sandman is having trouble understanding 5 syllable words, I'll explain more clearly. If the baby can live outside of the mother, it would be illegal to kill it (barring mother's health and those concerns). Most of the time, a baby just entering the third trimester has a decent chance to live should sudden labor come on. And the further along you go the better chance it has to live.
Nice. You didn't answer either.
-
All of our basic human rights are not defined in our constitution nor in our bill of rights.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
...and here's the clue: "special circumstances"
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Mid, you speak of Abortion like it is a basic human right to begin with. Yet I see it no where in the Declaration or Constitution. As it stands right now, abortion is only allowed nationwide because of activist judges stepping outside of their constitutional boundaries. This isn't a right.
Therefor, taking it away is not taking away a right and should stop being spoken of like it is.
Hang, while it is your body, does that justify taking the life of another human being only because it is attached to you? Does this mean I can surgically attach myself to people I want to kill?
And since sandman is having trouble understanding 5 syllable words, I'll explain more clearly. If the baby can live outside of the mother, it would be illegal to kill it (barring mother's health and those concerns). Most of the time, a baby just entering the third trimester has a decent chance to live should sudden labor come on. And the further along you go the better chance it has to live.
Its not? What part of
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
do you not understand?? Why should our homes or our cars be protected from intrusion by the govornment but your BODY isnt?
I dont like the thought of Abortion. It personally makes me ill. But I have to agree with Hangtime here, my body is MINE. I'll do as I wish with it, and anyone else can go to .......... well you get the picture. The argument over abortion started because religious groups had a problem with what they see as govornment funded murder when low income patients were getting abortions and the govt. was footing the bill. It became bigger than that.
As to this current piece of trash thats being considered (again), has anyone even read it, or the case that brought it about? There's a reason why there is no provision for protecting the health of the mother. Because the only time this procedure is ever necessary is to PROTECT the mother. In cases where the fetus itself is a danger to the mother and requires it be removed immediately or SHE WOULD DIE. Otherwise current law already covers third trimester abortion (illegal). Doctors sought an EXEMPTION from Roe V Wade to do late term abortions to protect the mother, and some pinhead politician introduced this garbage. Its politics, pure and simple. They are playing on people's fears about the worst possibilities in abortions rather than mourning the fact that there are times when a doctor has to make a choice between the life of the mother and the life of an unborn child. The fact that we can save even one of them these days says great things about the advances in medical technology. Hopefully someday this will not be an issue, and both can be saved.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Hang, while it is your body, does that justify taking the life of another human being only because it is attached to you? Does this mean I can surgically attach myself to people I want to kill?
I call Shenanigans. That's a classic 'strawman' argument, and has no place or meaning here.
-
Hang, just because you don't like the argument doesn't translate into it being meanless.
The value of human life and whether or not a fetus is a person is the sole point of this entire argument. It's not personal rights, it's not state rights, it's not federal rights.
Just because you refuse to acknowledge this, does not change the fact that it is so. No amount of arguing on your part will change this, ever.
I personally view that ammendment as the decision to allow abortions is a state's right to choose and can only be done so via popular vote.
-
Rip let me make this perfectly clear to you:
Your rights end at my daughters skin.........................
-
Originally posted by Silat
Rip let me make this perfectly clear to you:
Your rights end at my daughters skin.........................
The living or the aborted daughter? Do you believe a baby has the right to life when it can grasp, suck its thumb, have eyelashes, nails and sleeps alot? Thats at 2nd term Silat. How would you feel if you were a father where your wife decided to leave you, and not only that, she's decided to abort the 6 month old fetus inside her by letting a doctor puncture the childs' brain and suck out it out, then dismember the child and remove it piece by piece. How would you feel then? Still "her" right?
1st term abortions, I have no problems with. I don't agree with them, but I do think its a womans right. Once that fetus is developed and could potentially live outside the womb (with medical help) I think its murder except in special circumstances where the health of the baby, or the health of the mother is in jepordy.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Exactly spot on Hang.
Your rights are easy to lose and difficult to regain. The people taking them away aren't going to be overt about it....
That's quite right MT, so can you answer me this one simple question? Who protects the right of a eight month old child to not have his life taken from him? Or does he not have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?"
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
That's quite right MT, so can you answer me this one simple question? Who protects the right of a eight month old child to not have his life taken from him? Or does he not have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?"
- SEAGOON
In the liberals mind, its a "Fetus", you see, that 3cm of skin makes it have no rights! :rofl
-
I think we all agree that it is not our right to throw a 2 week old baby into a dumpster because it is inconvienient for us to take care of it.
We might all agree that we can't bash it in the head the second the head emerges from the womb...
we might all agree that a "morning after pill" is an abortion we can all live with...
We need to figure out when we got one persons rights to think of (mother with fetus) or... we have two people in one body.
I do agree that the government should not have anything to do with abortion or any medical proceedure tho.
lazs
-
Silat,
Originally posted by Silat
Rip let me make this perfectly clear to you:
Your rights end at my daughters skin.........................
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
-
8 month old baby?
Did you celebrate your kid's 1st birthday 3 months after it was born?
-
Much like the gun laws in the UK and drug laws in the US, a law against abortion wouldn't stop it from happening. It would just make it...illegal. Anyone who thinks that if the government bans abortions it will magically go away should be slapped upside the head.
What if the government bans abortions, then somewhere a woman and her unborn child dies of complications while in labor? What if the doctors knew this and could have saved the woman's life by aborting the baby? Who takes the blame for the deaths? Medical accident?
Let the woman do whatever the hell she wants with her body and whatever's attached to it. The government needs to quit wasting time and money trying to find ways of protecting us from ourselves...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
8 month old baby?
Did you celebrate your kid's 1st birthday 3 months after it was born?
My kids were born upon conception. Their live birth was 9 months later...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
In the liberals mind, its a "Fetus", you see, that 3cm of skin makes it have no rights! :rofl
Um, actually that's the scientific term. From the latin "fetus", strangely enough. I can understand how you would want to appeal to the emotional implications of the term baby though. Rational debate has never really been your strong suit, but you certainly have rhetoric pinned down.
I'm glad you find the this topic so humourous though.
-
Never understood why someone can be tried for a double murder of a pregant woman, but abortion is still illegal... on this premise, I imagine a viable fetus abortion will remain illegal.
I'm actually all for abortion in cases where rape or health problems are a direct link but I don't like abortion used as a form of birth control, not only for the mother's health but also for the cost on the health care system.
Lastly, abortion in any manner would have to be, and remain legal. Unfortunately, too many deaths were caused by the poor girls doing it themselves in the past and would revert to that type of behavior if was made illegal in the future.
Aborting a fetus at 2 months is far easier than aborting one at 6+ months, most women have to have a DnC done at this point, and even at 2 months it is recommended for the mother's health.
-
Much like the gun laws in the UK and drug laws in the US, a law against abortion wouldn't stop it from happening. It would just make it...illegal. Anyone who thinks that if the government bans abortions it will magically go away should be slapped upside the head.
Are you serious? Are you really that stupid?
Guns are items. Abortions are services.
If guns are banned, they can be hidden and still distributed because they are actual items.
If abortions are banned, those who were trained to perform them would not perform them. You'd still have back alley abortions, but the proportion of this happening to what we have now is incredibly insignificant.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If abortions are banned, those who were trained to perform them would not perform them. You'd still have back alley abortions, but the proportion of this happening to what we have now is incredibly insignificant.
Not true... in the past abortions were done at home with coathangers and other home-made devices. This is dangerous and caused many women to bleed to death... it was common, many times they termed the cause of death as 'abruptio placentae' in last term home grown abortions.
I'd rather have a professional do the DnCs than have some confused 17 year old mother doing it herself.
-
You don't agree with it, but you would allow it because you believe some handsomehunk is going to try to do it and hurt themselves?
Btw, people are throwing around terms like "lots" or "many" (mostly me). How many girls died doing an abortion on themselves?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
How many girls died doing an abortion on themselves?
Like I posted above, accidents were usually termed as 'abruptio placentae' to save the family the embarassment, so it is impossible to really know.
Suffice to say, we all have heard stories of coathangers and pushing a mother down the stairs on purpose. However, I'd rather see it all legalized than see a mother hemorrhage doing it herself.
Here is a graph, but I'd imagine this is a very conservative estimate. Note, it is hosted by a pro-abortion site, but is labeled 'National Center for Health Statistics'.
(http://www.abortionfacts.com/image/lovethemboth/chapter27_1.gif)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
My kids were born upon conception. Their live birth was 9 months later...
They are both probably a year behind in school then.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Not true... in the past abortions were done at home with coathangers and other home-made devices. This is dangerous and caused many women to bleed to death... it was common, many times they termed the cause of death as 'abruptio placentae' in last term home grown abortions.
I'd rather have a professional do the DnCs than have some confused 17 year old mother doing it herself.
I really doubt it was common.
I bet thats just planned parenthood propaganda. But I could be wrong, anyone ever seen any real statistics on this?
( I am pro right to murder unborn children by the way, its none of my buisness and if there is a god, they will pay the price and if there isnt it doesnt matter anyway, if they want to live with the choice more power to them I just want the hole ****ing issue to go away. )
Edit Delirium you post was not up when I was typing this but if your chart is right, planned parenthood propaganda is right on target.
I am sure more people drown in bathtubs in 1960 then died from ilegal abortions.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You don't agree with it, but you would allow it because you believe some handsomehunk is going to try to do it and hurt themselves?
Exactly... even today, I've seen too many women (ages as young as 14 to a woman 38 years old who was cheating on her husband) have complications from a home-grown abortion that almost cost them their lives.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The living or the aborted daughter? Do you believe a baby has the right to life when it can grasp, suck its thumb, have eyelashes, nails and sleeps alot? Thats at 2nd term Silat. How would you feel if you were a father where your wife decided to leave you, and not only that, she's decided to abort the 6 month old fetus inside her by letting a doctor puncture the childs' brain and suck out it out, then dismember the child and remove it piece by piece. How would you feel then? Still "her" right?
1st term abortions, I have no problems with. I don't agree with them, but I do think its a womans right. Once that fetus is developed and could potentially live outside the womb (with medical help) I think its murder except in special circumstances where the health of the baby, or the health of the mother is in jepordy.
Rip you feel very strongly and that is ok. But your feelings on the matter shouldnt have anything to do with my LIVING WALKING TALKING daughters decisions about HER body.. If you dont want an abortion then dont get one.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Why not let them kill children immediately after they're born? I guess Gov't has no business what happens then too? :huh I mean, we're only talking a womb that is paper thin....
Your close...late term abortion allows for killing the baby all the way to the day of delivery. The reason there was no provision for the health of the mother is because congress heard testimony from many doctors that stated it would not be necessary to save the mothers life.
-
From the site that chart came from
But what about coat hanger abortions?
Your authors have lectured nationwide on abortion on an average of one city a week for almost three decades. We frequently ask the audience to provide documented proof of a self-induced coat hanger abortion. In all this time no one has given us a single case. It may well be — there never were any coat hanger abortions.
I find that very interesting. Anyone ever seen proof?
-
In regards to that graph above-
Btw, that HUGE drop in abortion complications in 1950 was a direct result of the oral contraceptive being developed.
-
Still 1300 a year is nothing.
I bet more people die from plastic surgery complications.
-
Interesting. Which brings up the next topic.
If it's a heinous act, and it's illegallized, but you know it's going to be done anyway, should it then be legalized?
-
The best argument in favor of criminalizing abortion (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760).
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The best argument in favor of criminalizing abortion (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760).
Best argument for abortion: These boards:)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
How would you feel if you were a father where your wife decided to leave you, and not only that, she's decided to abort the 6 month old fetus inside her by letting a doctor puncture the childs' brain and suck out it out, then dismember the child and remove it piece by piece. How would you feel then? Still "her" right?
Well Rip according to your scary scenario I guess I could catch her before she has the abortion then take her to the fanatical Chrisitian Center for Life and they could put her in a cell. Then strap her down and feed her intravenously till she had the baby.
Actually Rip its her body. Being married to me doesnt give me the right to control her body.. Get it?
-
Hi Sandy,
Originally posted by Sandman
What exactly do you think a "late term" abortion is?
You know, no one really ever did give you an answer to your question, and actually establishing what we are discussing might be worthwhile.
A late term abortion or a partial-birth abortion is usually referred to in the Medical community as a ID&X or "Intact Dilation and Extraction". The jury is out on how many of these are actually performed in the USA yearly, but in NJ well over a thousand are performed annually - the majority being (in that state) illegal late term elective abortions. There are actually very few medical circumstances (other than the psychological assessment that the mother is suicidal) where an ID&X is required. In the case of late term fetal death, it is usally preferable to induce a miscarriage as ID&X can cause significant cervical problems (including an incompetent cervix).
Here is a description of the full proceedure given by Abortion doctor, Martin Haskell in a paper entitled "Second Trimester Abortion from Every Angle" presented by the National Abortion Foundation. An accurate rollover drawing of the procedure (medically accurate but not as graphic as the real event of course) follows.
Introduction
The surgical method described in this paper differs from classic D&E in that it does not rely upon dismemberment to remove the fetus. Nor are inductions or infusions used to expel the intact fetus.
Rather, the surgeon grasps and removes a nearly intact fetus through an adequately dilated cervix. The author has coined the term Dilation and Extraction or D&X to distinguish it from dismemberment-type D&E's.
This procedure can be performed in a properly equipped physician's office under local anesthesia. It can be used successfully in patients 20-26 weeks in pregnancy.
The author has performed over 700 of these procedures with a low rate of complications.
Background
D&E evolved as an alternative to induction or instillation methods for second trimester abortion in the mid 1970's. This happened in part because of lack of hospital facilities allowing second trimester abortions in some geographic areas, in part because surgeons needed a `right now' solution to complete suction abortions inadvertently started in the second trimester and in part to provide a means of early second trimester abortion to avoid necessary delays for instillation methods. 1
The North Carolina Conference in 1978 established D&E as the preferred method for early second trimester abortions in the U.S. 2 , 3 , 4
Footnotes at end of article.
Classic D&E is accomplished by dismembering the fetus inside the uterus with instruments and removing the pieces through an adequately dilated cervix. 5
However, most surgeons find dismemberment at twenty weeks and beyond to be difficult due to the toughness of fetal tissues at this stage of development. Consequently, most late second trimester abortions are performed by an induction method. 6 , 7 , 8
Two techniques of late second trimester D&E's have been described at previous NAF meetings. The first relies on sterile urea intra-amniotic infusion to cause fetal demise and lysis (or softening) of fetal tissues prior to surgery. 9
The second technique is to rupture the membranes 24 hours prior to surgery and cut the umbilical cord. Fetal death and ensuing autolysis soften the tissues. There are attendant risks of infection with this method.
In summary, approaches to late second trimester D&E's rely upon some means to induce early fetal demise to soften the fetal tissues making dismemberment easier.
Patient Selection
The author routinely performs this procedure on all patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP with certain exceptions. The author performs the procedure on selected patients 25 through 26 weeks LMP.
The author refers for induction patients falling into the following categories: previous C-section over 22 weeks; obese patients (more than 20 pounds over large frame ideal weight); twin pregnancy over 21 weeks; patients 26 weeks and over.
Description of Dilation and Extraction Method
Dilation and extraction takes over three days. In a nutshell, D&X can be described as follows: dilation; more dilation; real-time ultrasound visualization; version (as needed); intact extraction; fetal skull decompression; removal; clean-up; recovery.
Day 1--Dilation
The patient is evaluated with an ultrasound, hemoglobin and Rh. Hadlock scales are used to interpret all ultrasound measurements.
In the operating room, the cervix is prepped, anesthetized and dilated to 9-11 mm. Five, six or seven large Dilapan hydroscopic dilators are placed in the cervix. The patient goes home or to a motel overnight.
Day 2--Dilation
The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's Dilapan are removed. The cervix is scrubbed and anesthetized. Between 15 and 25 Dilapan are placed in the cervical canal. The patient returns home or to a motel overnight.
Day 3--The Operation
The patient returns to the operating room where the previous day's Dilapan are removed. The surgical assistant administers 10 IU Pitocin intramuscularly. The cervix is scrubbed, anesthetized and grasped with a tenaculum. The membranes are ruptured, if they are not already.
The surgical assistant places an ultrasound probe on the patient's abdomen and scans the fetus, locating the lower extremities. This scan provides the surgeon information about the orientation of the fetus and approximate location of the lower extremities. The transducer is then held in position over the lower extremities.
The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep, such as a Bierer or Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal orientation, he moves the tip of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities. When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity. The surgeon then applies firm traction to the instrument causing a version of the fetus (if necessary) and pulls the extremity into the vagina.
By observing the movement of the lower extremity and version of the fetus on the ultrasound screen, the surgeon is assured that his instrument has not inappropriately grasped a maternal structure.
With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities.
The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or spine up.
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.
The surgeon finally removes the placenta with forceps and scrapes the uterine walls with a large Evans and a 14 mm suction curette. The procedure ends.
The following illustrations have been certified as an accurate portrayal of the above proceedure here (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/Levatino_on_illustrations.pdf)& Here (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/Bowes_letter_PBA_illustration.pdf)
(http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/rollovers/animationpbaa.gif)
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
The jury is out on how many of these are actually performed in the USA yearly, but in NJ well over a thousand are performed annually - the majority being (in that state) illegal late term elective abortions.
The latest tactic of the far right has been to bring attention to what they label the "partial birth abortion." The term "partial birth abortion" is not a term that has been used by anyone other than the people who opposed abortion. It was created to inflame and draw attention to their cause. It is not a medical term. The correct term is an Intact D&E or Intact Dilation & Evacuation (or D&X for Dilation and Extraction). These fanatics (Mostly men) have lobbied Congress and the state legislators to ban this procedure from being performed. They use inflammatory descriptions of a procedure and gruesome pictures. They have said that the fetus is yanked out of the mother and stabbed with scissors which is an incorrect description. The pro-choice side disagrees almost entirely.
According to the abortion industry’s own figures, partial birth abortions number between 2,000 and 5,000 per year.
This is the first time legislators have been confronted with a demand from laypeople to ban a specific medical procedure.\\
The Bible
Abortion, infanticide and child abandonment were permitted under Roman law at the time of Jesus. Abortion is never mentioned in the Bible, despite the fact that it has been practiced throughout recorded human history. However, a number of Bible passages may be relevant. These verses and others are often cited as evidence that a fetus is truly a living human being, and deserving the same protection:
At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. (NIV, Luke 1:39-44)
Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." (NAS, Jeremiah 1:4-5)
I will say to God: ... "Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? (NIV, Job 10:2, 8-9)
Several other verses are cited as evidence that a fetus is not a living being. Life is equated with breath throughout the Bible, and this passage seems to suggest that a person is not living until he or she takes a first breath after birth:
The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (NIV, Genesis 2:7)
This passage from Exodus seems to say that causing death to a fetus is not as serious a crime as causing death to a person:
"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (NAS, Exodus 21:22-24)
A literal translation of the Hebrew of this passage would be "cause her offspring to be brought forth." It is commonly thought that a miscarriage was meant, but it could mean an early birth where the child survived. Thus, this passage is cited both for and against abortion.
The Bible gives direct guidance on many, many topics, but not on abortion. None of the passages above (nor the many others often cited) were originally intended as statements about abortion, so any conclusions drawn from them represent opinions rather than Biblical evidence.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Interesting. Which brings up the next topic.
If it's a heinous act, and it's illegallized, but you know it's going to be done anyway, should it then be legalized?
If rape of a child is a heinous act, and its illegal, but you know its gonna be done, should it be legalized?
With all due respect, silly straw horse, Sailor.
-
Originally posted by Silat
The latest tactic of the far right has been to bring attention to what they label the "partial birth abortion." The term "partial birth abortion" is not a term that has been used by anyone other than the people who opposed abortion.
B.S. Its a legal term.
The bill bans "partial-birth abortion," and it legally defines a partial-birth abortion as any abortion in which the baby is delivered "past the [baby's] navel . . . outside the body of the mother," OR "in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," BEFORE being terminated.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
B.S. Its a legal term.
The bill bans "partial-birth abortion," and it legally defines a partial-birth abortion as any abortion in which the baby is delivered "past the [baby's] navel . . . outside the body of the mother," OR "in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," BEFORE being terminated.
Outstandingly circular.
Pro-life movement coins a term and gets it stuck in a legal document, now it is a legal term. For crying at loud Rip, at least pretend you want an honest, rational debate on the topic.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Outstandingly circular.
Pro-life movement coins a term and gets it stuck in a legal document, now it is a legal term. For crying at loud Rip, at least pretend you want an honest, rational debate on the topic.
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?
-
sandie... I read that article and agree with it. Do you?
lazs
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sandie... I read that article and agree with it. Do you?
lazs
Quite a bit, actually.
-
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. ;)
-
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
-
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.
-
With all due respect, silly straw horse, Sailor.
That was the point I was making.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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! .... :rofl ...but wrong
-
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.
-
Originally posted by 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.
...note to self...never leave Santa alone with needy kids :)
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
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.
And, of course, the only time you had sex was to procreate :aok
-
Originally posted by 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.
Damn, if only your mother had the same mindset.
Like it or not you are talking about human life.
-
Cripes, 9 a year?
-
Red,
I had sex for the same reason as anybody else who engages in it...when the opportunity presented itself I was afraid my brain would blow a gasket if I didn't.
Whether I did or did not avail myself of the gift presented...the sun still came up the next day.
Aborting the consequences of my actions never crossed my mind.
The point is I consider human life to be sacred...especially that of the unborn. In fact, I grant extra worth to that form of life because it cannot speak for itself, and since it is unseen many in our society refuse to acknowledge it as human. Convenience takes precedence over life.
The arguments presented by abortion proponents are shallow and childish.
So few women die in childbirth these days that the argument that abortion is necessary to save lives is specious at best. One-and-a-half million abortions a year is FAR beyond necessity.
-
Originally posted by 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.
THis is the slippery slope Santa..
-
http://www.drtiller.com/elect.html
"At Women's Health Care Services, we specialize in "late" abortion care. We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable. Viability is not a set point in time. Viability is determined by the attending physician and is based on sonogram results, physical examination and last menstrual period date (if known). Our telephone counselors will ask you a number of medical questions to determine if you are eligible for an elective abortion. If you have visited another clinic or physician, we will ask for the results from a recent ultrasound.
Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health. Each person's circumstances are reviewed on a case-by-base basis. Please call so that we can discuss admission criteria with you."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Late term abortions are not rare. They are well hidden in abortion surgical centers across the country because these things are not necessarily done in hospitals. ID&E or any other terms are used to mask the procedures and make them sound scientific so the staff can function in an efficient way without dwelling on thier actions, and so the patient's can cope with their actions.
As far as viability. My experience is that 24-26 weeks gestation is about the earliest a "fetus" is viable. Its not a prefect and exact science to get the dates right. A good doc can be pretty close though. Regardless, someone is deciding who shall live and who shall die in all of this. Shall it be the mother, govt., doctor, or father to decide? Someone is going to limit someone elses "rights". The question is who will prevail and who will succumb to the final outcome. Shall it be the mother (and her health) or the "fetus". Who has the right to decide?
I tend to fall on the side of nature on this one. Is it natural for a doctor to pull the entire contents of the fetus minus the head and suck the brains out of an infant in the third trimester to deliver the empty skull. Who here besides me has delivered a third trimester infant breech. Delivering the head is no more dangerous to the mother than the rest of the body. Is it not more natural to have the mother complete her gestation and deliver her child as intended by the Creator. And is it not possible in this day of medical advances to provide surgical support in the event it is needed to deliver an intact child. I don't buy the aurgument that this is a needed procedure to protect the mother's health. I don't see the need. I have never been in this situation because this situation is a farce.
I want to know who here has seen an abortion? Who here has delivered or intubated the trachea of a 750gm infant? Here is you chance to speak up and identify yourself. Let the experts of you speak. I am sick of the monday morning quarterback abortionist talk. You know the one's who have the loudest opinions yet don't know of what they speak.
It come down to this. Selfish motovation. Look at all the players involved in an abortion decision and tell me who is the one individual involved without a selfish motive.
And for the thick headed out there, yes I am a physician.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Like I posted above, accidents were usually termed as 'abruptio placentae' to save the family the embarassment, so it is impossible to really know.
Suffice to say, we all have heard stories of coathangers and pushing a mother down the stairs on purpose. However, I'd rather see it all legalized than see a mother hemorrhage doing it herself.
Here is a graph, but I'd imagine this is a very conservative estimate. Note, it is hosted by a pro-abortion site, but is labeled 'National Center for Health Statistics'.
(http://www.abortionfacts.com/image/lovethemboth/chapter27_1.gif)
I love the scale on this graph. Give me the data on the number of women that have died or been injured due to legal abortions. Oh thats right, no one knows because the govt. doesn't require this data to be collected.
-
THis is the slippery slope Santa..
What kind of footwear do you have Silat?
Mine are Stomping Boots. Good grip on 'em too. I suspect you ave something similar.
-
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?
MT you are very niave to believe that doctors are not motivated in selfish ways. Docs are human beings and abortion is very lucrative. Cash up front like the plastic surgeons get. It is very easy for a less than perfectly honest doc to make a buck. And in the process proclaim its in the best intrest of the patient. Unfortunately the abortionist don't deal with the depression that develops a decade later (not as lucrative).
-
I was banned for posting that very same animated gif
wtg sir
this argument would be funny if it were not so pathetic
one day we will view abortion as we think of ppl being fed to lions in front of thousands or stoning someone to death or just straight up pre-mediated murder ... one day
-
Eagler would you support abortion any time up until 3 months, but not after?
-
Chasing the googly-eyed kool-aid freaks outta here is too easy. As it damned well should be.
-
I have decided that a womans access to abortion should be protected, but I hate the reality of killing innocent defenseless human beings in the wombs of their mothers just because the mother does not want to be pregnant. There are justified reason for abortion, and their are selfish unjustified reasons too. Maybe women who abuse abortion should have their tubes tied.
-
Sounds reasonable enough, Yeager.
I'm afraid we're gonna have to differ on your prose: "killing innocent defenseless human beings in the wombs of their mothers."
But that's okay. If there's common ground, I'm glad to see it. Perhaps chip away at the margins and come up with something agreeable to both.
-
Originally posted by Scatcat
http://www.drtiller.com/elect.html
"At Women's Health Care Services, we specialize in "late" abortion care. We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable. Viability is not a set point in time. Viability is determined by the attending physician and is based on sonogram results, physical examination and last menstrual period date (if known). Our telephone counselors will ask you a number of medical questions to determine if you are eligible for an elective abortion. If you have visited another clinic or physician, we will ask for the results from a recent ultrasound.
Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health. Each person's circumstances are reviewed on a case-by-base basis. Please call so that we can discuss admission criteria with you."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Late term abortions are not rare. They are well hidden in abortion surgical centers across the country because these things are not necessarily done in hospitals. ID&E or any other terms are used to mask the procedures and make them sound scientific so the staff can function in an efficient way without dwelling on thier actions, and so the patient's can cope with their actions.
As far as viability. My experience is that 24-26 weeks gestation is about the earliest a "fetus" is viable. Its not a prefect and exact science to get the dates right. A good doc can be pretty close though. Regardless, someone is deciding who shall live and who shall die in all of this. Shall it be the mother, govt., doctor, or father to decide? Someone is going to limit someone elses "rights". The question is who will prevail and who will succumb to the final outcome. Shall it be the mother (and her health) or the "fetus". Who has the right to decide?
I tend to fall on the side of nature on this one. Is it natural for a doctor to pull the entire contents of the fetus minus the head and suck the brains out of an infant in the third trimester to deliver the empty skull. Who here besides me has delivered a third trimester infant breech. Delivering the head is no more dangerous to the mother than the rest of the body. Is it not more natural to have the mother complete her gestation and deliver her child as intended by the Creator. And is it not possible in this day of medical advances to provide surgical support in the event it is needed to deliver an intact child. I don't buy the aurgument that this is a needed procedure to protect the mother's health. I don't see the need. I have never been in this situation because this situation is a farce.
I want to know who here has seen an abortion? Who here has delivered or intubated the trachea of a 750gm infant? Here is you chance to speak up and identify yourself. Let the experts of you speak. I am sick of the monday morning quarterback abortionist talk. You know the one's who have the loudest opinions yet don't know of what they speak.
It come down to this. Selfish motovation. Look at all the players involved in an abortion decision and tell me who is the one individual involved without a selfish motive.
And for the thick headed out there, yes I am a physician.
Physician heal thyself...
Your opinion and personal faith is just your opinion..
No matter what your opinion is the fact remains that it is the womens body and her choice.
All the scare tactics and religious outrage will not change the fact that it is up to the individual to control their body.
If you dont like the procedure then dont get one. If you think the procedure can be done in a different way then please write a paper and show the medical community how to do it .
-
Originally posted by Nash
Eagler would you support abortion any time up until 3 months, but not after?
"any time"? as in birth control as it is used mainly today?
nope
I believe the miracle of life begins at conception
-
Great find, Sandy.
Anyway, the get-me-to-the-mosque-on-time fever died down, but it set the tone for our general approach to these atrocities. The old definition of a nanosecond was the gap between the traffic light changing in New York and the first honk from a car behind. The new definition is the gap between a terrorist bombing and the press release from an Islamic lobby group warning of a backlash against Muslims. In most circumstances, it would be considered appallingly bad taste to deflect attention from an actual "hate crime" by scaremongering about a purely hypothetical one. Needless to say, there is no campaign of Islamophobic hate crimes. If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes. A commenter on Tim Blair's Web site in Australia summed it up in a note-perfect parody of a Guardian headline: "Muslim Community Leaders Warn of Backlash from Tomorrow Morning's Terrorist Attack." Those community leaders have the measure of us.
-
silat... you are being ridiculous. You are telling a doctor that his thinking and observations are not valid based on your belief of a ....
a frigging soundbite! a crazy and wrong one at that! "a womans right to choose" that is insane... At some point a pregnant woman is two people... she has no right to kill either or both.
you are also hypocritical if you see "only" 9 partial birth abortions a year of say an average of a dozen or so as insignificant.... I could see you defending killing 12 retarded kids a year because they were too much trouble to the parents eh?
The scale is interesting too... How many viable humans are killed in abortions a year? How would that scale look compared to the worst "women dieing in illegal abortions" year if put to scale?
I am afraid that you come off as a selfish liberal with no real experiance and a soundbite for a sense of morality compared to scatcat who comes off as a person who has examined the issue at close range and with years of experiance.... his observations carry a lot more weight than your lefty soundbites and platitudes.
He asked you if you had attended an abortion... I ask you if you have ever talked to women who had abortions... Go ahead.... congradulate them for "making the right decision" and see how they take it... You seem to be accusing men of not understanding a womans right to choose... I would put it too you that you can not understand the feelings a woman goes through after an abortion. maybe not even so much at first but at some point.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Silat
Physician heal thyself...
Your opinion and personal faith is just your opinion..
No matter what your opinion is the fact remains that it is the womens body and her choice.
All the scare tactics and religious outrage will not change the fact that it is up to the individual to control their body.
If you dont like the procedure then dont get one. If you think the procedure can be done in a different way then please write a paper and show the medical community how to do it .
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Scatcat
MT you are very niave to believe that doctors are not motivated in selfish ways. Docs are human beings and abortion is very lucrative. Cash up front like the plastic surgeons get. It is very easy for a less than perfectly honest doc to make a buck. And in the process proclaim its in the best intrest of the patient. Unfortunately the abortionist don't deal with the depression that develops a decade later (not as lucrative).
Are you motivated in selfish ways?
Do you want the government telling you which procedures you can and cannot perform?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Are you motivated in selfish ways?
Do you want the government telling you which procedures you can and cannot perform?
Yes, I am motivated by selfish ways. We all are, I'm big enough to admit it though. No human being is completely without selfish desires except the One I consider both human and divine. No where have I pushed my faith on to anyone here. I am specifically talking about a medical procedure that really has no place due to alternatives.
The govt and my peers (doctors/hospitals/insurance) already dictates by market forces and turf battles what procedures I can and can not perform. Please pull your fangs back in and think about what you are going to say. And don't bother saying it if you have no idea what your talking about. I give plenty of deference to those of you who know what your talking about. I don't pop off about network connections, overclocking, or how to fly the F-15 (leave that to some of our experts on this forum) but for some reason most people think they are the experts on medicine or medical procedures they have never experienced or have first hand knowledge.
-
MP4, Why don't you just leave out the part where I called him and idiot and leave the rest of the post. The rest of the post in no way was inflammatory or unreasoned. Besides, how is Silat gonna collect on his half priced three finger rectal.
-
Does anyone know when this proceedure is performed? Under what circumstances?
Seagoon, I know you indicate that "most" of the time it is purely elective. Do you have some data to back that? The only data I've seen has been given by physicians testifying before Congress and was anacdotal or very limited in population scope. I'm not sure there is any independent data collection going on.
I certainly agree that a healthy mother electing to abort a healthy 3rd trimester fetus should not be allowed....7+ months in is a little late to be changing your mind. But I would not want to see legislation outlawing other circumstances. And I would want to see safeguards for mothers who wanted an abortion earlier, but litigation forced delays (the 13 year old raped by a foster care sibling comes to mind).
It seems to me, that when to use this proceedure should be left up to the patient and the phyician.
For those that say that it is never medically necessary...I agree...there are frequently alternative proceedure for many medical issues. However, it is again up to the patient and the doctor to decide what alternative is best for each unique situation. And I don't think it is government's place to step in and arrogantly make that decision for it's constituents.
-
It seems to me, that when to use this proceedure should be left up to the patient and the phyician.
Or the parent. Do you think it's right for a 14 year old to hop state and get an abortion without the parents ever being told?
-
Originally posted by Scatcat
Yes, I am motivated by selfish ways. We all are, I'm big enough to admit it though. No human being is completely without selfish desires except the One I consider both human and divine. No where have I pushed my faith on to anyone here. I am specifically talking about a medical procedure that really has no place due to alternatives.
The govt and my peers (doctors/hospitals/insurance) already dictates by market forces and turf battles what procedures I can and can not perform. Please pull your fangs back in and think about what you are going to say. And don't bother saying it if you have no idea what your talking about. I give plenty of deference to those of you who know what your talking about. I don't pop off about network connections, overclocking, or how to fly the F-15 (leave that to some of our experts on this forum) but for some reason most people think they are the experts on medicine or medical procedures they have never experienced or have first hand knowledge.
Ignoring your low rent attack mode rhetoric I will press on. Assuming you are a physician and that you have read the studies and statistics, you must know that incredibly small number of abortions would be affected by a ban on late term ID&E or X. So let's talk about those few women.
Are you honestly saying that there is NEVER a reason to perform such a procedure. That it was invented solely for the purpose of killing late term babies? Were you taught that in med school or is that your opinion?
And one more thing.... we are discussing abortion and a woman's right to choose. A medical degree is not required to weigh in on the discussion. Nice try scaring off the opposition though.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Or the parent. Do you think it's right for a 14 year old to hop state and get an abortion without the parents ever being told?
Do you think it is right for a 14 year old to be forced to have a baby if she was raped? Should she be forced to get parental consent if her father is the father of her baby?
Or even better...should a child who asks for medical attention be denied treatment if the parents refuse to consent because their religous views do not permit interferrence by doctors?
-
I never said consent. You did.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I never said consent. You did.
I apologize if I read more into what you said than you meant.
I originally said:
Originally posted by crowMAW
It seems to me, that when to use this proceedure should be left up to the patient and the phyician.
You responded:
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Or the parent. Do you think it's right for a 14 year old to hop state and get an abortion without the parents ever being told?
Since I was talking about whose decision it is to perform the proceedure, it seems your response adds the parents as one of the decsion makers.
But if you are saying that all that is required is that parents be informed, ie, the doctor's office calls moments before the proceedure and informs the parent. And if the parent tells the doctor that they don't consent, the doctor informs the parent that their consent is not required. If that is the case...then sure...I have no problem with parental notification. Seems kinda useless though...but if it make you feel better, great.
Although...should the parent be notified if the parent is the father of the baby? Wouldn't that give the father time to skip town?
-
Hello Silat,
Originally posted by Silat
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..
Let's try to reason together.
You call me the one trying to make "my faith and beliefs" law, yet all of your responses to date (with the exception of the the clipped thread) have consisted of visceral emotive reactions where you simply attempt to pound the opposition with your own unsupported belief that abortion must be entirely unrestricted and that all people in the USA must be forced, by supreme court dictat to accept that. On the other hand, I have not been arguing for the return of the right to choose whether or not abortion should be legal to the states from scripture. You were the one who raised the issue of the Biblical witness with the quote from the two paths site.
You accuse everyone who opposes abortion of being a religious fanatic, including a doctor who spoke from experience and never indicated what his religious beliefs were. Silat, the first time I heard extended arguments against abortion it was at the University of St. Andrews in a Moral Philosophy class from an atheist professor. He argued against abortion on the grounds of what he called the universal rights of man, and the need for the rights of the weak to be protected from the strong. His primary argument was drawn from Locke and Hume. He also argued from philosophical principles that the fetus was undeniably a human being, and that if human beings have any rights at all, then the most fundamental right must be the right to live. You on the other hand to date, have asserted that until that child takes a breath outside of a woman's body it is a non-person and she has absolute power over it. This means that up until the very moment of delivery when the last milimeter clears the birth canal, a baby is a non-person with no rights. Are rights then something arbitrarily granted by legal consensus? Do preborn women have no rights?
As far as making my beliefs law. Actually, I'm entirely uninvolved in politics, I don't even have the right to vote in any country. The only place I discuss politics is at the dinner table and here frankly. I'm guessing that you are much more active in politics than I am. The contact our family has had with abortion (aside from one or two sermons that have addressed it) is via my wife who was a crisis pregnancy counselor for several years in D.C., from dealing with nearly identical procedures because three of our kids died in the womb (ID&E and D&C) and as I have had to counsel women grieving over past choices to abort their children, and that of course is something you seem supremely unmoved by, the fact that abortion psychologically devastates many women:
"A 2005 study added academic weight to anecdotal claims. University of Oslo researchers compared the mental distress of women who had miscarried with those who had voluntarily aborted their pregnancies. While women who miscarried suffered more initially, those who aborted carried lasting emotional scars. After five years, fewer than three in 100 women who had miscarried still experienced mental distress. But one in five post-abortive women still suffered mentally and emotionally and said they had to make an effort to avoid thinking about the event."
Quote from: What women want (http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11447) by Lynn Vincent
So I'm willing to discuss this, as long as we are actually discussing it, but that will require dialogue, not repeating bumper sticker slogans and accusing everyone of being a religious fanatic out to destroy ephemeral and penumbric "rights." For the record, I'm actually concerned about the rights of the 47 million or so people whose most fundamental right was nullified by nine men in 1973.
- SEAGOON
-
Hello Crow,
Originally posted by crowMAW
Does anyone know when this proceedure is performed? Under what circumstances?
Seagoon, I know you indicate that "most" of the time it is purely elective. Do you have some data to back that? The only data I've seen has been given by physicians testifying before Congress and was anacdotal or very limited in population scope. I'm not sure there is any independent data collection going on.
Most of the data is anecdotal, but when physicians who perform them are interviewed, the answers are that the number is the thousands nationwide and that the majority are performed for elective reasons. For instance:
For example, the Record of Bergen County, New Jersey on September 15 published an investigative report by "women's issues" staff writer (and Columbia journalism professor) Ruth Padawer, who found that at a single abortion clinic in Englewood, New Jersey-- only a few miles away from the homes of the young couple in question- doctors acknowledged that they perform over 1,500 partial-birth abortions a year. Moreover, the story quotes doctors at the clinic as stating that "only a 'minuscule amount' are for medical reasons." The Record reported:
"We have an occasional amnio abnormality, but it's a minuscule amount," said one of the doctors at Metropolitan Medical, an assessment confirmed by another doctor there. "Most are Medicaid patients, black and white, and most are for elective, not medical, reasons: people who didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were. Most are teenagers."
The September 17 edition of the Washington Post contained the results of an investigation conducted by staff writers Barbara Vobejda and David M. Brown, M.D., who interviewed several abortionists (not those in New Jersey), and concluded:
It is possible-- and maybe even likely-- that the majority of these [partial-birth] abortions are performed on normal fetuses, not on fetuses suffering genetic or other developmental abnormalities. Furthermore, in most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy.... Instead, the "typical" patients tend to be young, low-income women, often poorly educated or naive, whose reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical.
Dr. Martin Haskell of Dayton, Ohio, has performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions. In a tape-recorded interview, Dr. Haskell told American Medical News, "I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective."
Dr. Haskell also wrote a paper in which he said he uses the method "routinely" in his walk-in abortion clinic, adding, "Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia."
From: Why Are Partial-Birth Abortions Performed?
The physicians I've spoken to with OB/GYN experience have confirmed that.
- SEAGOON
-
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?
One question.
If the life living the the mother's womb is viable, why terminate it? If the mother's life of health is at risk, why not deliver the baby and let it live. Why does it have to be terminated when viable if the mother's life or health is at risk?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
One question.
If the life living the the mother's womb is viable, why terminate it? If the mother's life of health is at risk, why not deliver the baby and let it live. Why does it have to be terminated when viable if the mother's life or health is at risk?
Silly question. If both lives can be saved they should be saved. If by delivering the live baby you endanger the health of the Mother the choice should be made by the mother with help from her physician. NOT decided by the government.
And Seagoon I already posted the stats. You didn't read them or decided to ignore them. Late term PBE's are very rare and "elective" surgery is anything that is not an emergency.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Mid, you speak of Abortion like it is a basic human right to begin with. Yet I see it no where in the Declaration or Constitution.
Actually, it is a right protected under the Constitution.
ack-ack
-
Hi MT,
Originally posted by midnight Target
And Seagoon I already posted the stats. You didn't read them or decided to ignore them. Late term PBE's are very rare and "elective" surgery is anything that is not an emergency.
Sorry MT, the stats of 9 per year are utterly impossible.
If Haskell, who has worked to popularize the procedure and wrote the detailed description I posted states that he has performed over a thousand himself that would mean that he has been performing partial birth abortions for the past 111 years. Also, the single abortion clinic in NJ that reported they perform over 1,500 a year had no reason to lie. If you want to maintain that it's only that one clinic in NJ that is performing them nationwide (along with Dr. "Methuselah" Haskell's 9 a year of course) then I'll be happy to accept a massively under-inflated figure of 1,509 a year.
Also, please note, that the DOCTORS PERFORMING THEM report that they are usually carried out on teens and low income women who have carried their healthy children beyond the limits for a D&E. They "elect" to terminate their pregnancies late term.
In any event MT, I'm not trying to be contentious, but does it really matter to you how many are "ID&X" abortions are performed and why? Would you be willing to accept any state imposed restrictions on abortion?
Also, from the pro-abortion standpoint, surely if there were more ID&X abortions, then it would be more important to protect the procedure not less. An argument that more of them makes it worse inherently assumes that the procedure itself is bad, after all, more of a good thing isn't worse than less of a good thing, and surely you don't believe that ID&X abortion is bad do you? After all, how can a right derived from the constitution be bad when it is legally exercised? Surely more of a good thing is good, isn't it?
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Most of the data is anecdotal, but when physicians who perform them are interviewed, the answers are that the number is the thousands nationwide and that the majority are performed for elective reasons. For instance:
The physicians I've spoken to with OB/GYN experience have confirmed that.
Thanks Seagoon...I read that same excerpt on another website before posting originally. It does seem that all we have is anecdotal evidence...even the doctors performing the proceedure are not keeping records on the frequency or reasons. Since I'm a car enthusiast, I'll use a automotive cliche': The butt dyno is frequently wrong.
Before legislating a blanket ban, I think some actual non-biased data should be collected. There are legitimate reasons for the proceedure to exist as an option for the the physician to offer and the mother to consider. And in those cases the law should not prohibit it.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Ignoring your low rent attack mode rhetoric I will press on. Assuming you are a physician and that you have read the studies and statistics, you must know that incredibly small number of abortions would be affected by a ban on late term ID&E or X. So let's talk about those few women.
Are you honestly saying that there is NEVER a reason to perform such a procedure. That it was invented solely for the purpose of killing late term babies? Were you taught that in med school or is that your opinion?
And one more thing.... we are discussing abortion and a woman's right to choose. A medical degree is not required to weigh in on the discussion. Nice try scaring off the opposition though.
No we are not talking about a woman's right to choose. Quit hijacking this thread. It's about one procedure, go back and read the original post. I have not posted my opinion about abortion, I have spoken on "partial birth abortion" the procedure.
I am saying in my opinion, a medical opinion, that this procedure is unneeded. The argument for the procedure is for the health of the mother. This procedure is no more safer then delivering the entire infant. I am flat out saying the only reason this procedure is done past the point of viability is to kill an infant before delivery and call it {place your lable of choice here} before delivery of a living infant.
The only thing I've seen here is smoke screens by some of you who have an axe to grind about your personal abortion opinions.
Oh, and by the way, just because there is only a small number of these procedures vs. other sugical procedures doesn't change the reason why this procedure is performed.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Silly question. If both lives can be saved they should be saved. If by delivering the live baby you endanger the health of the Mother the choice should be made by the mother with help from her physician. NOT decided by the government.
And Seagoon I already posted the stats. You didn't read them or decided to ignore them. Late term PBE's are very rare and "elective" surgery is anything that is not an emergency.
You are wrong on all counts.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Thanks Seagoon...I read that same excerpt on another website before posting originally. It does seem that all we have is anecdotal evidence...even the doctors performing the proceedure are not keeping records on the frequency or reasons. Since I'm a car enthusiast, I'll use a automotive cliche': The butt dyno is frequently wrong.
Before legislating a blanket ban, I think some actual non-biased data should be collected. There are legitimate reasons for the proceedure to exist as an option for the the physician to offer and the mother to consider. And in those cases the law should not prohibit it.
This procedure is not required to be reported or data to be collected. No one really knows the true numbers. Only those that perform the procedures can really tell how many are being performed.
-
Ok... so now... partial birth abortions (in all their horror) are done maybe hundreds of times a year or more?
How is roe v wade stopping this nightmare? How is r v w protecting these kids/citizens? seems we need to revisit the whole thing if r v w allows for such a horror.
lazs
-
Seagoon, sorry to hear about your unborn kids... one of my aunts miscarried a couple times, it is not a happy business.
I don't really have anything to add to the debate, although all the people who are wondering why they perform this procedure on "viable" infants.. I don't think they do. I only remember seeing 18-24 weeks for the ages, so 4.5 to 6 months. I don't think a baby can live on its own that early.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Seagoon, sorry to hear about your unborn kids... one of my aunts miscarried a couple times, it is not a happy business.
I don't really have anything to add to the debate, although all the people who are wondering why they perform this procedure on "viable" infants.. I don't think they do. I only remember seeing 18-24 weeks for the ages, so 4.5 to 6 months. I don't think a baby can live on its own that early.
Some of these cases are performed beyond 24-26 weeks.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi MT,
Sorry MT, the stats of 9 per year are utterly impossible.
If Haskell, who has worked to popularize the procedure and wrote the detailed description I posted states that he has performed over a thousand himself that would mean that he has been performing partial birth abortions for the past 111 years. Also, the single abortion clinic in NJ that reported they perform over 1,500 a year had no reason to lie. If you want to maintain that it's only that one clinic in NJ that is performing them nationwide (along with Dr. "Methuselah" Haskell's 9 a year of course) then I'll be happy to accept a massively under-inflated figure of 1,509 a year.
Also, please note, that the DOCTORS PERFORMING THEM report that they are usually carried out on teens and low income women who have carried their healthy children beyond the limits for a D&E. They "elect" to terminate their pregnancies late term.
In any event MT, I'm not trying to be contentious, but does it really matter to you how many are "ID&X" abortions are performed and why? Would you be willing to accept any state imposed restrictions on abortion?
Also, from the pro-abortion standpoint, surely if there were more ID&X abortions, then it would be more important to protect the procedure not less. An argument that more of them makes it worse inherently assumes that the procedure itself is bad, after all, more of a good thing isn't worse than less of a good thing, and surely you don't believe that ID&X abortion is bad do you? After all, how can a right derived from the constitution be bad when it is legally exercised? Surely more of a good thing is good, isn't it?
- SEAGOON
You are comparing apples to oranges. Late term ID&X (after 26 weeks) is nowhere near the same as the total ID&X abortions performed.
And yes it does matter how many. The reason it matters is that the opponents of choice are using the extreme to outlaw the necessary. All based on a religious agenda. Sad that peopple would stoop to such lows.
And BTW Scatcat ... no I'm not.
Elective surgery: Surgery that is subject to choice (election). The choice may be made by the patient or doctor.
For example, the time when a surgical procedure is performed may be elective. The procedure is beneficial to the patient but does not need be done at a particular time.
As opposed to urgent or emergency surgery.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=14367
Maybe you need to read up.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You are comparing apples to oranges. Late term ID&X (after 26 weeks) is nowhere near the same as the total ID&X abortions performed.
And yes it does matter how many. The reason it matters is that the opponents of choice are using the extreme to outlaw the necessary. All based on a religious agenda. Sad that peopple would stoop to such lows.
And BTW Scatcat ... no I'm not.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=14367
Maybe you need to read up.
HEHE, my bad. I misread your original comment regarding what elective ment.
However, this whole thread was about "partial birth abortions" not "total ID&X (ie standard surgical abortions).