Supreme Court OKs Abortion Procedure Ban

[Bronco_Beerslug]

With no exception for any kind of medical emergency. Another lasting legacy from the Bush administration. Amazing how "conservatives" preach freedom from government but demand they be able to tell you what you can do with your own body!

---------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court OKs abortion procedure ban (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion_25)
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions.

For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents.

The 5-4 decision written by Justice
Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and
President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.

Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison.

Kennedy's opinion, joined by Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice
Samuel Alito, was a long-awaited resounding win that abortion opponents expected from the more conservative bench.

The administration defended the law as drawing a bright line between abortion and infanticide.

Reacting to the ruling, Bush said that it affirms the progress his administration has made to defend the "sanctity of life."

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion," he said. "Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."

Justices
Clarence Thomas and
Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although Kennedy said alternate, more widely used procedures remain legal.

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.

"I applaud the Court for its ruling today, and my hope is that it sets the stage for further progress in the fight to ensure our nation's laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life," said Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, Republican leader in the House of Representatives.

Said Eve Gartner of the
Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety. ... This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them." She had argued that point before the justices.

CONT.

[yavoon]

small gov't doesn't win elections. the dems controlled congress for how long? 40 years? I think the other side just realized what they were doing wrong. the ppl wont vote for a passive policy.

[defenseman]

small gov't doesn't win elections. the dems controlled congress for how long? 40 years? I think the other side just realized what they were doing wrong. the ppl wont vote for a passive policy.

You are correct on that. Wishy washy won't wash with most americans..dman

[yavoon]

small gov't doesn't win elections. the dems controlled congress for how long? 40 years? I think the other side just realized what they were doing wrong. the ppl wont vote for a passive policy.

You are correct on that. Wishy washy won't wash with most americans..dman

I wouldn't call it wishy washy. ppl just wont vote for ppl who wont hand them something. promising to not do something simply doesn't win elections.

[Blueflame]

I wonder what they'll say when the first woman dies because of this no-exceptions law? It's only a small step from this type of legislation to the laws in El Salvador in which abortion is banned... no exceptions, even in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. A Salvadoran woman has to wait... in pain... until her fallopian tube bursts or the zygote dies... and by then it often is too late to save the mother's life.

Oppression is almost always the eventual result when religion becomes too influential in a government.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I wonder what they'll say when the first woman dies because of this no-exceptions law? It's only a small step from this type of legislation to the laws in El Salvador in which abortion is banned... no exceptions, even in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. A Salvadoran woman has to wait... in pain... until her fallopian tube bursts or the zygote dies... and by then it often is too late to save the mother's life.

Oppression is almost always the eventual result when religion becomes too influential in a government.Sickening what Bush has brought upon us in his short 6 years.

[Bronco Bob]

I wonder what they'll say when the first woman dies because of this no-exceptions law? It's only a small step from this type of legislation to the laws in El Salvador in which abortion is banned... no exceptions, even in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. A Salvadoran woman has to wait... in pain... until her fallopian tube bursts or the zygote dies... and by then it often is too late to save the mother's life.

Oppression is almost always the eventual result when religion becomes too influential in a government.

The religious types seem the be the ones pushing the hardest to ban abortions.
Yet ironically I can find you passages in the Bible where someone under
1 month of age isn't even counted as a person.
I would like someone to post any passagefrom the bible in which
abortion is forbidden.
And no, the generic though shall not kill doesn't apply to abortion,
because as I have already stated, anyone under 1 month old isn't
counted as a person in the Bible, so it isn't murder if you aren't killing
what counts as a person.

[Blueflame]

Sickening what Bush has brought upon us in his short 6 years.

Yes, it really is.... and what's truly sad is that there's a certainty that this law will eventually result in women's deaths because the law now says they can't have a medical treatment that could save their lives. Someone else's religion will trump their right to life.

[Blueflame]

The religious types seem the be the ones pushing the hardest to ban abortions.
Yet ironically I can find you passages in the Bible where someone under
1 month of age isn't even counted as a person.
I would like someone to post any passagefrom the bible in which
abortion is forbidden.
And no, the generic though shall not kill doesn't apply to abortion,
because as I have already stated, anyone under 1 month old isn't
counted as a person in the Bible, so it isn't murder if you aren't killing
what counts as a person.

It isn't just abortion that they want to end; it's really contraception that's their target. They want every sex act to have the possibility of resulting in a pregnancy. It's not about babies or "life"; it's about controlling other people's sexuality.

[Bronco Bob]

It isn't just abortion that they want to end; it's really contraception that's their target. They want every sex act to have the possibility of resulting in a pregnancy. It's not about babies or "life"; it's about controlling other people's sexuality.

Precisely. I posted this very thing several weeks back. Look at how
hard they fight sex education too, which would also reduce the
need for abortions if kids knew how to keep from getting pregnant.
And how hard they fight against distributing and even advertising condoms,
yet oddly enough have no problem with Viagra adds even during
the Super Bowl.
You almost have to wonder if this is also why they fight so hard against gay
marriage, even though a gay marriage almost never results in a pregnancy
which would lead to an abortion.

[TheDave]

Not happy with the "no-exception" portion of this law but in my opinion partial birth abortion is abnormally barbaric and i'm not the least upset by this ruling.

[Rascal]

Good.

[ant1999e]

You all are sick. You think it's o.k. to partialy give birth to a baby. Just enough to stick a pair of sissors through the back of it's head and suck it's brain out. Wow. But god forbid we "torture" a few terrorists.

[Stormontheplains]

You all are sick. You think it's o.k. to partialy give birth to a baby. Just enough to stick a pole through the back of it's head and suck it's brain out. Wow. But god forbid we "torture" a few terrorists.

You hit it right on the "head". The sicko in wichita that performs these abortions drills a hill into the baby's brian and then delivers. You have to be a sick piece of sh1t to find that accetable.

[ant1999e]

http://tinyurl.com/2mg24u

[Rascal]

Oh...and don't blame Bush. It was passed when Clinton was a President, and he vetoed it. Thankfully the Supreme Court got this one right.

[ant1999e]

It isn't just abortion that they want to end; it's really contraception that's their target. They want every sex act to have the possibility of resulting in a pregnancy. It's not about babies or "life"; it's about controlling other people's sexuality.

What does sexuality have to do with sucking a babies brain out of a hole you stabbed into the back of it's head?

[yavoon]

What does sexuality have to do with sucking a babies brain out of a hole you stabbed into the back of it's head?

blueflame has an inalienable right to kill her child before it pops outta her. if she wanted to coat hanger the thing while she was in labor I'm sure that'd be cool w/ her.

and if u disagree, or are somehow made queezy by such a brutal stance then u r obviously some psycho religious nut or otherwise oppressing her.

[Rascal]

It isn't just abortion that they want to end; it's really contraception that's their target. They want every sex act to have the possibility of resulting in a pregnancy. It's not about babies or "life"; it's about controlling other people's sexuality.

Who is they? If you mean the Christian right that is complete BS.

[ant1999e]

Who is they? If you mean the Christian right that is complete BS.

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with human decency. But if you do believe in GOD, you're a crazy radical nutcase.

[ant1999e]

I wonder what they'll say when the first woman dies because of this no-exceptions law? It's only a small step from this type of legislation to the laws in El Salvador in which abortion is banned... no exceptions, even in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. A Salvadoran woman has to wait... in pain... until her fallopian tube bursts or the zygote dies... and by then it often is too late to save the mother's life.

Oppression is almost always the eventual result when religion becomes too influential in a government.

I can tell you what I'll say. "Should have kept her legs closed. She had that choice."

It's not a small step away from banning all abortions. Far from it. Your little analogy is apples and oranges to what this ban does.

[Blueflame]

You all are sick. You think it's o.k. to partialy give birth to a baby. Just enough to stick a pair of sissors through the back of it's head and suck it's brain out. Wow. But god forbid we "torture" a few terrorists.

There is a real medical condition that can arise in a pregnancy that fortunately does not occur often... but it does happen... called hydrocephaly that can make such a (yes, barbaric) procedure necessary to save the life of the mother. With the procedure now against the law, women whose fetuses develop this malformation will die.

Do you really think the medical community just dreamed up such a procedure with no valid reasons behind it? No, in some cases, it's necessary.

[Blueflame]

blueflame has an inalienable right to kill her child before it pops outta her. if she wanted to coat hanger the thing while she was in labor I'm sure that'd be cool w/ her.

and if u disagree, or are somehow made queezy by such a brutal stance then u r obviously some psycho religious nut or otherwise oppressing her.

Blueflame has six children, so you might re-think your rhetoric, Yavoon.

[ant1999e]

There is a real medical condition that can arise in a pregnancy that fortunately does not occur often... but it does happen... called hydrocephaly that can make such a (yes, barbaric) procedure necessary to save the life of the mother. With the procedure now against the law, women whose fetuses develop this malformation will die.

Do you really think the medical community just dreamed up such a procedure with no valid reasons behind it? No, in some cases, it's necessary.

.5 to 1.8 percent of babies are born with hydrocephaly.

http://tinyurl.com/3bgar9

When Andrew Percival was born last Dec. 9, he was an eight-pound bundle of medical history. By all appearances, Andrew was a normal newborn, with the reflexes and level of alertness one expects in a nearly term baby (Andrew had been due to arrive on Christmas Day). But two months earlier, prenatal diagnosis had revealed that Andrew was suffering from a severe and probably life-threatening condition: fetal hydrocephalus, in which the fluid-filled regions of the brain, called the ventricles, expand monstrously and push so hard on the brain itself that nerve cells fail to develop. The result of fetal hydrocephalus is usually profound retardation, blindness, cerebral palsy or death. Andrew was saved from this fate by a team of doctors at Prentice Women's Hospital and Maternity Center in Chicago, who treated him when they hoped they had time to salvage some healthy brain tissue. They operated on Andrew while he was still in the womb. Andrew is one of the world's first travelers to cross the brave new frontier of fetal surgery; he and the handful of others who have had similar treatment represent medical advances that seemed unthinkable even 10 years ago. For doctors are discovering that not only can the fragile and previously inviolable environment of the womb be tapped and sounded to provide vital information about the progress of a pregnancy, but that the fetus itself can tolerate correctivesurgery while inside the uterus.

[Blueflame]

Who is they? If you mean the Christian right that is complete BS.
Yes, I do mean some who would qualify as "the Christian right"... and it's not BS. You know... the same ones who want to teach "abstinence only" in high schools.

[Blueflame]

I can tell you what I'll say. "Should have kept her legs closed. She had that choice."

It's not a small step away from banning all abortions. Far from it. Your little analogy is apples and oranges to what this ban does.

Some women aren't given that choice.... ::)

[yavoon]

Blueflame has six children, so you might re-think your rhetoric, Yavoon.

why would that make me rethink my rhetoric? are ur logical synapses firing especially slow today? u spent a lot of half intelligent posts telling me previously how until it pops outta the women the baby is not a human being. are u backtracking on that now?

or is this another really weird tangential attempt to associate ur number of children as a refutation of direct statements u've made multiple times in the past.

[ant1999e]

Yes, I do mean some who would qualify as "the Christian right"... and it's not BS. You know... the same ones who want to teach "abstinence only" in high schools.

The parents should decide what their children are taught in school. Not the christian right or anyone else.

[Rascal]

Yes, I do mean some who would qualify as "the Christian right"... and it's not BS. You know... the same ones who want to teach "abstinence only" in high schools.

You used they as in all, not some. In strict catholic countries I can understand that arguement, but the US isn't a strick catholic country.

[Blueflame]

.5 to 1.8 percent of babies are born with hydrocephaly.

http://tinyurl.com/3bgar9

When Andrew Percival was born last Dec. 9, he was an eight-pound bundle of medical history. By all appearances, Andrew was a normal newborn, with the reflexes and level of alertness one expects in a nearly term baby (Andrew had been due to arrive on Christmas Day). But two months earlier, prenatal diagnosis had revealed that Andrew was suffering from a severe and probably life-threatening condition: fetal hydrocephalus, in which the fluid-filled regions of the brain, called the ventricles, expand monstrously and push so hard on the brain itself that nerve cells fail to develop. The result of fetal hydrocephalus is usually profound retardation, blindness, cerebral palsy or death. Andrew was saved from this fate by a team of doctors at Prentice Women's Hospital and Maternity Center in Chicago, who treated him when they hoped they had time to salvage some healthy brain tissue. They operated on Andrew while he was still in the womb. Andrew is one of the world's first travelers to cross the brave new frontier of fetal surgery; he and the handful of others who have had similar treatment represent medical advances that seemed unthinkable even 10 years ago. For doctors are discovering that not only can the fragile and previously inviolable environment of the womb be tapped and sounded to provide vital information about the progress of a pregnancy, but that the fetus itself can tolerate correctivesurgery while inside the uterus.

In some cases, the fetus has little to no chance of survival and the mother's life (and/or chances of future successful childbirths) is endangered by continuing the pregnancy....

[ant1999e]

Some women aren't given that choice.... ::)

Then get the abortion earlier. If you can wait long enough to get a partial birth abortion, put it up for adoption, don't stab it in the head and suck it's brains out.

[ant1999e]

In some cases, the fetus has little to no chance of survival and the mother's life (and/or chances of future successful childbirths) is endangered by continuing the pregnancy....

So, in some cases of the .5 to 1.8 percent this happens to the fetus has no chance so for these maybe 2 people per year we should allow partial birth abortions? Come on, that's a weak argument.

[Blueflame]

why would that make me rethink my rhetoric? are ur logical synapses firing especially slow today? u spent a lot of half intelligent posts telling me previously how until it pops outta the women the baby is not a human being. are u backtracking on that now?

or is this another really weird tangential attempt to associate ur number of children as a refutation of direct statements u've made multiple times in the past.

The fact that I have children is ample evidence that I am not in favor of abortion, Yavoon. I'm in favor of minding my own damn business. I've discussed this topic with you before and do not care to lower my IQ by going back over that same ground with you again. Yeah, you'll reply to this post, but I'm finished talking to you on this topic because you don't have a clue what you're talking about other than that you want to impose your own brand of religion on everyone.

[yavoon]

The fact that I have children is ample evidence that I am not in favor of abortion, Yavoon. I'm in favor of minding my own damn business. I've discussed this topic with you before and do not care to lower my IQ by going back over that same ground with you again. Yeah, you'll reply to this post, but I'm finished talking to you on this topic because you don't have a clue what you're talking about other than that you want to impose your own brand of religion on everyone.

I'm not even religious, hahahaha. thats how incredibly ignorant u r.

anyway, seeing as we all know u said plenty of times that until the baby pops out its not a person. I dont see how I should retract anything. coat hangering the baby during labor is fine w/ u because obviously its not a person yet.

[Blueflame]

You used they as in all, not some. In strict catholic countries I can understand that arguement, but the US isn't a strick catholic country.

Many of the groups (right here in the good ol' USA) who want to outlaw abortion also want to outlaw and/or limit women's access to contraception. Even if all abortions were made illegal, they'd push for legislation to outlaw the Pill. As proof, I'd present arguments from some of them that pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B emergency contraceptives based on personal religious beliefs. Meaning that the pharmacist's religion would trump the woman's right to necessary medication.

[Blueflame]

Then get the abortion earlier. If you can wait long enough to get a partial birth abortion, put it up for adoption, don't stab it in the head and suck it's brains out.

Sometimes a woman does not find out until late in the pregnancy that something is seriously wrong with her fetus.

[Blueflame]

So, in some cases of the .5 to 1.8 percent this happens to the fetus has no chance so for these maybe 2 people per year we should allow partial birth abortions? Come on, that's a weak argument.

It appears that you don't quite understand my stance. I agree with Justice Ginsburg that exceptions should be made (within the legislation) to allow for safeguarding the health of the mother. If there can ever be a circumstance in which the procedure might be medically necessary to save the life of the mother (and there are those individual cases), outlawing it entirely with no exceptions is nothing more than signing those women's death warrants.

[chickennob2]

Isn't it funny how the "small government" party has turned a government surplus into an enormous deficit, started two wars, and has now increased the power of the government to overrule a woman's right to life.

[Blueflame]

Isn't it funny how the "small government" party has turned a government surplus into an enormous deficit, started two wars, and has now increased the power of the government to overrule a woman's right to life.

Yep... now "woman" = "incubator"... not a sentient human being capable of making her own medical decisions. If the "incubator" dies in the process of delivering the fetus, oh, well, I guess... that's not important to 5 of the Supreme Court Justices.

[BroncoBuff]

Oppression is almost always the eventual result when religion becomes too influential in a government.

That sentence is so rich with truth ... it's funny how the "Father of Conservatism" - Barry Goldwater - agreed 100%. His public battles with Falwell were legendary. I think he said "every American should line up to kick Falwell in the butt." :~ohyah!:

These neocons have truly perverted the good name of conservatism. Goldwater and even Reagan would despise them.

[Spider]

Late term Abortion........ Should be preformed if the mothers life is in Danger ........ I am a democrat , been around alot of other Democrats , I still have yet to meet a person that embraced abortion .............

[Blueflame]

The New York Times says it better than I did....

Editorial
Denying the Right to Choose

Published: April 19, 2007

Among the major flaws in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision giving the federal government power to limit a woman’s right to make decisions about her health was its fundamental dishonesty.

Under the modest-sounding guise of following existing precedent, the majority opinion — written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito — gutted a host of thoughtful lower federal court rulings, not to mention past Supreme Court rulings.

It severely eroded the constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the personal decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth. The justices went so far as to eviscerate the crucial requirement, which dates to the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, that all abortion regulations must have an exception to protect a woman’s health.

As far as we know, Mr. Kennedy and his four colleagues responsible for this atrocious result are not doctors. Yet these five male justices felt free to override the weight of medical evidence presented during the several trials that preceded the Supreme Court showdown. Instead, they ratified the politically based and dangerously dubious Congressional claim that criminalizing the intact dilation and extraction method of abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy — the so-called partial-birth method — would never pose a significant health risk to a woman. In fact, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has found the procedure to be medically necessary in certain cases.

Justice Kennedy actually reasoned that banning the procedure was good for women in that it would protect them from a procedure they might not fully understand in advance and would probably come to regret. This way of thinking, that women are flighty creatures who must be protected by men, reflects notions of a woman’s place in the family and under the Constitution that have long been discredited, said a powerful dissenting opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.

Far from being compelled by the court’s precedents, Justice Ginsburg aptly objected, the new ruling is so at odds with its jurisprudence — including a concurring opinion by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (who has now been succeeded by Justice Alito) when a remarkably similar state abortion ban was struck down just seven years ago — that it should not have staying power.

For anti-abortion activists, this case has never been about just one controversial procedure. They have correctly seen it as a wedge that could ultimately be used to undermine and perhaps eliminate abortion rights eventually. The court has handed the Bush administration and other opponents of women’s reproductive rights the big political victory they were hoping to get from the conservative judges Mr. Bush has added to the bench. It comes at a real cost to the court’s credibility, its integrity and the rule of law."


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/opinion/19thu1.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Please note the bolded portion... it means that according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (a group that no doubt knows more about complications that can and do occur during a pregnancy than five male judges), certain individual cases do require the procedure. What effect will the ruling have on medical professionals as they are forced to watch a patient... whose life could have been saved before the ruling... die along with her fetus? And for those who have supported the ruling.... what if it's your wife or daughter who dies?

[Atlas]

I wonder what they'll say when the first woman dies because of this no-exceptions law?

It's God's will, and don't worry about her she is in Heaven with her child...


Did you hear that?? Sounded like a little bit of freedom was just ripped away without so much as a whimper.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

These posts by rascal, antee, etc... show how much some Americans love to be directed and controlled by the government with a religious mantra. Medicine and physicians are far more knowledgeable than these Neocon and right wing nut jobs when it comes to medicine but the uninformed and ignorant trust an appointed king and his appointed court to tell them what to do their bodies.

Pathetic and sickening both.

[ant1999e]

These posts by rascal, antee, etc... show how much some Americans love to be directed and controlled by the government with a religious mantra. Medicine and physicians are far more knowledgeable than these Neocon and right wing nut jobs when it comes to medicine but the uninformed and ignorant trust an appointed king and his appointed court to tell them what to do their bodies.

Pathetic and sickening both.

If you baby killing nutjobs would have half as much concern for a baby as you do for some chicken **** terrorists maybe the government wouldn't have to regulate these kinds of things.

[ant1999e]

These posts by rascal, antee, etc... show how much some Americans love to be directed and controlled by the government with a religious mantra. Medicine and physicians are far more knowledgeable than these Neocon and right wing nut jobs when it comes to medicine but the uninformed and ignorant trust an appointed king and his appointed court to tell them what to do their bodies.

Pathetic and sickening both.

What's pathetic and sickening is the fact you have no problem with jabbing a pair of scissors into the back of a babies head while it's legs are kicking and watching it jolt it's body when the scissors penetrate. Then sucking its brain out with a vaccum. that's sickening and pathetic you fricken idiot.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

If you baby killing nutjobs would have half as much concern for a baby as you do for some chicken **** terrorists maybe the government wouldn't have to regulate these kinds of things.Further proof of how uneducated and ignorant the right wing fringe is.

Shouldn't be surprised I guess though, that these type of people think it's more important to further their religious agenda than let a doctor save a woman experiencing late term complications during a pregnancy.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What's pathetic and sickening is the fact you have no problem with jabbing a pair of scissors into the back of a babies head while it's legs are kicking and watching it jolt it's body when the scissors penetrate. Then sucking its brain out with a vaccum. that's sickening and pathetic you fricken idiot.

You're quite the ignorant arse aren't you? You didn't even read the decision or not bright enough to understand it.

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said

[spdirty]

Just need to ask a few of you, Flame, Slug, Spider, etc. Should Partial Birth abortion be legal or illegal when the mothers health is not at risk.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Just need to ask a few of you, Flame, Slug, Spider, etc. Should Partial Birth abortion be legal or illegal when the mothers health is not at risk.I personally don't approve of late term abortion but would NEVER presume to tell a woman what she can do with her own body.

[spdirty]

I personally don't approve of late term abortion but would NEVER presume to tell a woman what she can do with her own body.

amazing.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

amazing.Why? You mean the fact that I don't think I have the right to play God?

[defenseman]

Isn't it funny how the "small government" party has turned a government surplus into an enormous deficit, started two wars, and has now increased the power of the government to overrule a woman's right to life.

A government surplus? Why would a government surplus be useful? Stuffing money away in the coffers earning interest? What the hell is that? How about a waste of the taxpayers dollar. Spend it, somehow on american necessities. Real needs, not pork barrel spending. I will never agree with a surplus of cash.....dman

*I agree with Blue on one point, and one point alone. the answer to partial birth abortion should include an out for the mother whose life is in jeapordy. However, unlike blue, I do believe the court can be petitioned to authorize some sort of abortion if necessary based on the imminent death of the mother if left unchecked. On that note though, time obviously would have to be a factor wrt the mother surviving. I disagree with the call by the supreme court on the simple fact that, there has to be exclusions to the requirement, based on the survival of the mother. I am not part of the religious right, and I do oppose all forms of abortion. Women should learn to keep their damn legs closed if they aren't willing to deal with the potential consequences, or ensure measures are taken to preclude an unwanted pregnancy. Their mistake, their cross to bear, NO ONE ELSES. They pay for it, NOT the taxpayer. I could care less if she's poor or not. Responsibility starts and stops there. The male of the species needs to learn to put a damn "sock" on it. Freaking morons out there that practice "unprotected" intimacy should be held fully accountable financially for a child at birth, IN ALL RESPECTS. Freaking morons. Problem is these days, NO ONE wants to take responsibility for their actions and we as a society have allowed them to get away with it. Hold people responsible, wherever and whenever possible, things will get better in our society overall. Stop doing that, you have what we presently deal with, a nation pretty much divided down the middle...and getting wider by the year the longer we let it fester.....dman

[Hogan11]

It's a terrible decision, period.

Oh well, Ladies...there's always Canada if you're late term and you change your mind.

Expect much more revision on a great many things from the Roberts court in the years to come....talk about legislating from the bench ::)

[spdirty]

I personally don't approve of late term abortion but would NEVER presume to tell a woman what she can do with her own body.

amazing.

[Spider]

Just need to ask a few of you, Flame, Slug, Spider, etc. Should Partial Birth abortion be legal or illegal when the mothers health is not at risk.

for me .... I will never have to make that choice , I cant have Babies , it is a woman thing, i thought this was a well known fact by the 6 th grade ......... bout time you learned about the birds and the Bees .......Besides I have 6 kids ,now you tell me my stance on abortion ........

[Spider]

amazing.

Amazing huh .......... Let me break it down for you .......... My triplets had a 25% shot at living , Me and the wife were told , baby reduction ( abort 2) to give the 3 rd a better shot at life .. We were told this by Denver Doctors .....me and the wife said there had to be another way , I took over 3 months total off of work , taking my wife to Doctors appointments , Driving to Billings, Denver , back to Billings , living in and out of Motels with 3 kids , eating out 3 times a day every freaking day , so all 3 of our Babies could have a shot at life , and if I had to do it all over again I would without thinking twice ........Could you afford to do that ? Now you tell me about sacrifice you made for one of your kids ........

[Spider]

how many people could afford to do what I did ? you ****ers kill me , you Bítch about welfare , a healthcare plan , and you make snap judgments on medical cases like abortion .......... so if I was a poor man , in this situation , what do I do ? what are my options ?
guess what you are going to love this , my wife was on the pill . she cut the end of her finger off , the doctors sewed it back on , the medication and antibiotics they gave her caused the pill to work like a fertility drug ...... the trips wernt planed but it happened ........ So SPdirty , you tell me...... how is a person without the means to do this ?

[spdirty]

[QUOTE=§Pide®;1556792]for me .... I will never have to make that choice , I cant have Babies , it is a woman thing, i thought this was a well known fact by the 6 th grade ......... bout time you learned about the birds and the Bees .......QUOTE]

Dont be stupid, and go off on some idiotic reply that has nothing to do with the question. Here, Ill try rephrase the question in a manner that you might be able to understand it.

Mothers health, not at risk. 7-9 months pregnant. It has already been proven that unborn babies can survive outside the womb at 22 weeks. Should we be allowed to kill that baby or not? Only a yes or no answer is necessary.

[spdirty]

Amazing huh .......... Let me break it down for you .......... My triplets had a 25% shot at living , Me and the wife were told , baby reduction ( abort 2) to give the 3 rd a better shot at life .. We were told this by Denver Doctors .....me and the wife said there had to be another way , I took over 3 months total off of work , taking my wife to Doctors appointments , Driving to Billings, Denver , back to Billings , living in and out of Motels with 3 kids , eating out 3 times a day every freaking day , so all 3 of our Babies could have a shot at life , and if I had to do it all over again I would without thinking twice ........Could you afford to do that ? Now you tell me about sacrifice you made for one of your kids ........

yeah, amazing, how you ****ers always try to qualify your position by announcing how many kids you have.

[Spider]

[QUOTE=§Pide®;1556792]for me .... I will never have to make that choice , I cant have Babies , it is a woman thing, i thought this was a well known fact by the 6 th grade ......... bout time you learned about the birds and the Bees .......QUOTE]

Dont be stupid, and go off on some idiotic reply that has nothing to do with the question. Here, Ill try rephrase the question in a manner that you might be able to understand it.

Mothers health, not at risk. 7-9 months pregnant. It has already been proven that unborn babies can survive outside the womb at 22 weeks. Should we be allowed to kill that baby or not? Only a yes or no answer is necessary.

thats not for me to decide get it yet or do you need pictures ?

[Spider]

yeah, amazing, how you ****ers always try to qualify your position by announcing how many kids you have.
thought so you havent had to walk a mile in anyones shoes ....you dont have a clue on how tough somethings can be , yet you think you can make decisions for everyone .......... Let me guess you are a Christian. you fit the mold well

[Barry Ramey]

Partial birth abortion is a sickening practice, basically the brains of a baby sucked out of its head while it's still alive. It is even more sickening seeing those that approve and defend such a practice turn right around and get all irate if a terrorist is made to wear underwear on his head.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Partial birth abortion is a sickening practice, basically the brains of a baby sucked out of its head while it's still alive. It is even more sickening seeing those that approve and defend such a practice turn right around and get all irate if a terrorist is made to wear underwear on his head.
Of course, you approve of sacrificing the woman's life too per this new ruling if a pregnancy goes awry, correct? Let God decide who lives and die, right?

[Barry Ramey]

But one can see the value of human life is low anymore. We got those that want babies killed on whims, suicide killers willing to kill themselves and take out others because a wealthy cleric tells them it's the greatest thing while he never attempts it of course, child molsters and rapists still getting soft sentences so the bleeding hearts can save one of these criminals, which has yet to work. We got a killer at a college taking out a ton of people and people knwoing the guy was nuts, but afraid to drop the guy from school since a college not far from VT tried the same thing with a nutjob and got sued. I'm not against abortions if there is a medical danger involved, but I do have a problem with women who use abortion as their birth control and that is happening too often. How about some people taking responsibility for their choices for a change? I know that's a new concept for some.

[Barry Ramey]

Of course, you approve of sacrificing the woman's life too per this new ruling if a pregnancy goes awry, correct? Let God decide who lives and die, right?

Of course you get all hysteric and make up stuff that wasn't even written. I said the woman should die someplace? Yeah, right genius. You really are a dullard. Like you really care about women issues anyway. "Oh, we can't tell a woman what to do with her own body." Spoken from someone totally full of crap.

[Spider]

But one can see the value of human life is low anymore. We got those that want babies killed on whims, suicide killers willing to kill themselves and take out others because a wealthy cleric tells them it's the greatest thing while he never attempts it of course, child molsters and rapists still getting soft sentences so the bleeding hearts can save one of these criminals, which has yet to work. We got a killer at a college taking out a ton of people and people knwoing the guy was nuts, but afraid to drop the guy from school since a college not far from VT tried the same thing with a nutjob and got sued. I'm not against abortions if there is a medical danger involved, but I do have a problem with women who use abortion as their birth control and that is happening too often. How about some people taking responsibility for their choices for a change? I know that's a new concept for some.

funny you being a republican and mentioning Pedophilia ......
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=26393&highlight=Ideas

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Of course you get all hysteric and make up stuff that wasn't even written. I said the woman should die someplace? Yeah, right genius. You really are a dullard. Like you really care about women issues anyway. "Oh, we can't tell a woman what to do with her own body." Spoken from someone totally full of crap.Mr Oblivious speaks! As usual you didn't address the actual topic (ADD?) I said I won't presume to decide what a woman can do with her OWN body.

So you either agree with this ruling or you don't, which is it?

[Stormontheplains]

how many people could afford to do what I did ? you ****ers kill me , you Bítch about welfare , a healthcare plan , and you make snap judgments on medical cases like abortion .......... so if I was a poor man , in this situation , what do I do ? what are my options ?
guess what you are going to love this , my wife was on the pill . she cut the end of her finger off , the doctors sewed it back on , the medication and antibiotics they gave her caused the pill to work like a fertility drug ...... the trips wernt planed but it happened ........ So SPdirty , you tell me...... how is a person without the means to do this ?

Well spide, my brother in law just went through the same thing. He is not poor, but could not afford the bills. The christians in the community held several fund raising events, and raised enough money to fly them to seattle for the operation, then they went back to denver for delivery. If not for the good people and christians that would not have happened. Right now he is making payments to the hospital, and has told me that he would have sold everything he owns to make sure the twins made it. I guess where I am from christians are different than the ones everyone here hates. His babies were taken off oxygen a few months ago and are now fat and happy.

[Spider]

Well spide, my brother in law just went through the same thing. He is not poor, but could not afford the bills. The christians in the community held several fund raising events, and raised enough money to fly them to seattle for the operation, then they went back to denver for delivery. If not for the good people and christians that would not have happened. Right now he is making payments to the hospital, and has told me that he would have sold everything he owns to make sure the twins made it. I guess where I am from christians are different than the ones everyone here hates. His babies were taken off oxygen a few months ago and are now fat and happy.

well glad your brother in laws twins made it , I know the ride , it is a hard one , but well worth it ......... as for me I didnt ask for help , I dont want ot be in debt to anyone for anything .... I got myself in that position , i got myself out of it ........my trips were on Oxygen for along time due to the altitude we live at .........but glad all went well for you and youres

[ant1999e]

But one can see the value of human life is low anymore. We got those that want babies killed on whims, suicide killers willing to kill themselves and take out others because a wealthy cleric tells them it's the greatest thing while he never attempts it of course, child molsters and rapists still getting soft sentences so the bleeding hearts can save one of these criminals, which has yet to work. We got a killer at a college taking out a ton of people and people knwoing the guy was nuts, but afraid to drop the guy from school since a college not far from VT tried the same thing with a nutjob and got sued. I'm not against abortions if there is a medical danger involved, but I do have a problem with women who use abortion as their birth control and that is happening too often. How about some people taking responsibility for their choices for a change? I know that's a new concept for some.

Isn't that asking too much?

[ant1999e]

It appears that you don't quite understand my stance. I agree with Justice Ginsburg that exceptions should be made (within the legislation) to allow for safeguarding the health of the mother. If there can ever be a circumstance in which the procedure might be medically necessary to save the life of the mother (and there are those individual cases), outlawing it entirely with no exceptions is nothing more than signing those women's death warrants.

I have no problem with that point of view, but that is not your stance. Good try though.

[ant1999e]

Further proof of how uneducated and ignorant the right wing fringe is.

Shouldn't be surprised I guess though, that these type of people think it's more important to further their religious agenda than let a doctor save a woman experiencing late term complications during a pregnancy.

Can't you respond about the topic? I guess you have nothing relivant to say. Just sling that mud.

[defenseman]

Of course, you approve of sacrificing the woman's life too per this new ruling if a pregnancy goes awry, correct? Let God decide who lives and die, right?

I'm not sure it will go that far. It's my understanding that the ruling can be challenged and if necessary you can obtain the legal right to perform such an abortion to save the mom. At least, that's my understanding. In any case, my vote for this type of abortion and the need for "saving the mom" for whatever drastic medical condition comes up is yes. They should be able to save the mom, and a provision should have been made in the legislation. We have made a lot of strides in todays medical community in various areas, it's time to start trusting some of them, specifically on determining when the "mom" is in danger of losing her life, if she is, she should be allowed the abortion if desired........dman

[Bronco Bob]

But one can see the value of human life is low anymore. We got those that want babies killed on whims, suicide killers willing to kill themselves and take out others because a wealthy cleric tells them it's the greatest thing while he never attempts it of course, child molsters and rapists still getting soft sentences so the bleeding hearts can save one of these criminals, which has yet to work. We got a killer at a college taking out a ton of people and people knwoing the guy was nuts, but afraid to drop the guy from school since a college not far from VT tried the same thing with a nutjob and got sued. I'm not against abortions if there is a medical danger involved, but I do have a problem with women who use abortion as their birth control and that is happening too often. How about some people taking responsibility for their choices for a change? I know that's a new concept for some.

Yes, how about letting women and their doctors decide what is best for
them, be responsible for their own health care, instead of the government
getting involved in their personal life.
You think women are getting partial birth abortions on a whim?
In every case it is because of a serious medical problem in which
either the fetus won't survive anyway or it puts the woman's
life at risk. All this ruling is going to result in in more dead women
and more horribly deformed infants that probably won't live for
long anyway, and may well live in agony until they do pass on.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Can't you respond about the topic? I guess you have nothing relivant to say. Just sling that mud.
LOL
Says the hypocrite who refuses to post on topic...too funny!

[ant1999e]

LOL
Says the hypocrite who refuses to post on topic...too funny!

Why does every thread have to be turned into a personnel attack by you? :threadjac You have some serious anger management issues.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Why does every thread have to be turned into a personnel attack by you? :threadjac You have some serious anger management issues.
LOL
You are hypocrite supreme (and you also suffer from Alzheimer's apparently)! Your personal attacks are spewed all over this board.

What's pathetic and sickening is the fact you have no problem with jabbing a pair of scissors into the back of a babies head while it's legs are kicking and watching it jolt it's body when the scissors penetrate. Then sucking its brain out with a vaccum. that's sickening and pathetic you fricken idiot.

But once again, here's the question that you refuse to answer, is not treating mom in a medical emergency due to late term pregnancy acceptable to you or not?

[ant1999e]

LOL
You are hypocrite supreme (and you also suffer from Alzheimer's apparently)! Your personal attacks are spewed all over this board.



But once again, here's the question that you refuse to answer, is not treating mom in a medical emergency due to late term pregnancy acceptable to you or not?

I'll answer your question but answer mine. I never refused to answer it.

If the mother's life is at risk and it is necesary then I understand.

Now do you think it is right for a woman to decide late in the pregnancy that she does not want the baby so she goes and has a "doctor" jab a pair of scissors through the back of the babies head and vaccum it's brains out?

[Blueflame]

What's pathetic and sickening is the fact you have no problem with jabbing a pair of scissors into the back of a babies head while it's legs are kicking and watching it jolt it's body when the scissors penetrate. Then sucking its brain out with a vaccum. that's sickening and pathetic you fricken idiot.

You do realize that this procedure is highly uncommon and is only used in instances in which the fetus is malformed? Do you really believe that America has a huge problem with women and their doctors just capriciously deciding... for no good reason whatsoever... to do a D&E on a healthy, viable fetus? I don't. For one thing, I've never had a D&E, but I'm guessing it isn't exactly a pleasant experience for the mother either. And unless there was a good, compelling reason for it, I'm also guessing most medical professionals (and hospitals) would refuse to do it. Believe it or not, a lot of doctors have religious beliefs, too.

Again, what if it was your wife or daughter... or sister... who experienced life-threatening complications in late-term pregnancy and now faced death due to the SC's decision?

[ant1999e]

You do realize that this procedure is highly uncommon and is only used in instances in which the fetus is malformed?


So then you're making it a bigger issue than it really is?

[ant1999e]

Believe it or not, a lot of doctors have religious beliefs, too.


Who's talking about religion? Only you and your friends have brought up religion.

[Garcia Bronco]

Not happy with the "no-exception" portion of this law but in my opinion partial birth abortion is abnormally barbaric and i'm not the least upset by this ruling.

Agreed

[Blueflame]

Just need to ask a few of you, Flame, Slug, Spider, etc. Should Partial Birth abortion be legal or illegal when the mothers health is not at risk.

My opinion is that the government should leave medical decisions... all medical decisions... to the patients whose bodies are involved (and their families) and their chosen medical professionals, who have the education and the experience with similar situations to make the best choices for the individuals involved in each case. Rigid legislation cannot accommodate every circumstance that could arise in medical situations. And again, I don't believe intact dilation and extraction is a choice that is routinely made in the instance of a healthy, viable fetus... where continuing the pregnancy to term poses no risk to the life or health of the mother. I just don't believe that is happening.

This decision will add to the burden faced by families who will already be facing very tough circumstances.

[Blueflame]

So then you're making it a bigger issue than it really is?

No, those who pushed for the legislation are making it a bigger issue than it really is. I think one unnecessary maternal death due to a rigid law is too many.

Who's talking about religion? Only you and your friends have brought up religion.

Which groups have pushed for the legislation? (Hint: the religious right)

[ant1999e]

You do realize that this procedure is highly uncommon and is only used in instances in which the fetus is malformed?

So then you're making a bigger deal of it then it really is.

Do you really believe that America has a huge problem with women and their doctors just capriciously deciding... for no good reason whatsoever... to do a D&E on a healthy, viable fetus? I don't.

Yes, a few irresponsible and inconciderate people.

For one thing, I've never had a D&E, but I'm guessing it isn't exactly a pleasant experience for the mother either.

I would say having a pair of scissors jabbed into the back of your head is a little more than an unpleasant experience.


Believe it or not, a lot of doctors have religious beliefs, too.

Who's talking about religion? Only you and your baby killing buddies.

[Blueflame]

Yes, a few irresponsible and inconciderate people.

Links, please.

[ant1999e]

My opinion is that the government should leave medical decisions... all medical decisions... to the patients whose bodies are involved (and their families) and their chosen medical professionals, who have the education and the experience with similar situations to make the best choices for the individuals involved in each case. Rigid legislation cannot accommodate every circumstance that could arise in medical situations. And again, I don't believe intact dilation and extraction is a choice that is routinely made in the instance of a healthy, viable fetus... where continuing the pregnancy to term poses no risk to the life or health of the mother. I just don't believe that is happening.

This decision will add to the burden faced by families who will already be facing very tough circumstances.

So that's a YES?

[Blueflame]

So then you're making a bigger deal of it then it really is.
No, those who wrote this legislation made a bigger deal of it than it really is.

Yes, a few irresponsible and inconciderate people.
You assert that this is happening. I don't believe it... so prove it. Please provide links.

I would say having a pair of scissors jabbed into the back of your head is a little more than an unpleasant experience.
And I'm saying they don't do that unless it's medically necessary to save the life of the mother. They do that with horribly malformed fetuses that can't be delivered normally.

Who's talking about religion? Only you and your baby killing buddies.
It's religious zealots who are hyperventilating over other people's medical decisions and want to make everyone else live by their rules.

[Blueflame]

So that's a YES?

I think if a procedure exists that could save a patient's life, that patient should be allowed to choose the treatment, regardless of whether or not she is pregnant. Legislation that denies medically-necessary life-saving treatment, forcing a medical professional to watch both mother and fetus die... when the mother could be saved... is appalling.

BTW... you still haven't answered: What if it was your wife or daughter or sister who would die without an intact D&E procedure?

[ant1999e]

I think if a procedure exists that could save a patient's life, that patient should be allowed to choose the treatment, regardless of whether or not she is pregnant. Legislation that denies medically-necessary life-saving treatment, forcing a medical professional to watch both mother and fetus die... when the mother could be saved... is appalling.

So if the legislation allowed this procedure if it it was necessary for the mothers life, but banned it for any other reason the you would be fine with it? I don't think you would.

[defenseman]

So if the legislation allowed this procedure if it it was necessary for the mothers life, but banned it for any other reason the you would be fine with it? I think not.

Sounds about right to me...dman

[ant1999e]

I think if a procedure exists that could save a patient's life, that patient should be allowed to choose the treatment, regardless of whether or not she is pregnant. Legislation that denies medically-necessary life-saving treatment, forcing a medical professional to watch both mother and fetus die... when the mother could be saved... is appalling.[QUOTE/]
You didn't answer SP's previous question. If there were no threat to the mothers life, would it still be o.k.?

BTW... you still haven't answered: What if it was your wife or daughter or sister who would die without an intact D&E procedure?

If you would have read through the posts, you would have found my answer.
If it is necessary to save the mother and is the only option then it is o.k.

[bendog]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies." 2 Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her and the fetus.

I'm not sure that the cesarian approach is less barbaric to the fetus. The cesarian is definitely more invasive and dangerous for the mother

http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.982.HTM

The AMA says there are alternatives. It seems to me we have mostly two groups needing something like this: women who find they are carrying a child with hydrocephelus and who will not survive; and a smaller group of suicidely depressed women who cannot safely carry to term, even to have a cesarian - often young girls who were raped and who did not seek abortions earlier due to their lack of social power/knowledge.

I think Kennedy broke the way he did was that I cannot find a medical condition in which "partial birth" is the only means to abort ... or allow a woman to not be carrying a dying fetus.

But the law's a political statement. If the intent was truly to stop partial births for all other than the hydrocephallic dying fetus', for which it seems to be the most appropriate treatment in terms of mother's safety, the law could have banned other uses. Moreover, I don't see why the mother couldn't be stoned on demerol or something, which would zonk the fetus too.

[Crushaholic]

Ant and others have tried to explain this for the people determined to accept all forms of abortions. This is a PARTICULAR procedure where the head pops out and the brains are rudely sucked out of the baby. Medical emergencies have nothing to do with this. The baby is already in the process of being born...thus the term PARTIAL BIRTH. The article Blueflame posted didn't give examples of why it would be medically necessary. Therefore, I'll take that statement coming from a group of people who stand to make a profit with the abortion with a grain of salt.

BTW, I'm offended that people automatically dismiss babies born with hydrocephalus. A handicapped child deserves love, as well. Modern science is allowing more and more of those babies to live as productive lives as possible.

[ant1999e]

Ant and others have tried to explain this for the people determined to accept all forms of abortions. This is a PARTICULAR procedure where the head pops out and the brains are rudely sucked out of the baby. Medical emergencies have nothing to do with this. The baby is already in the process of being born...thus the term PARTIAL BIRTH. The article Blueflame posted didn't give examples of why it would be medically necessary. Therefore, I'll take that statement coming from a group of people who stand to make a profit with the abortion with a grain of salt.

BTW, I'm offended that people automatically dismiss babies born with hydrocephalus. A handicapped child deserves love, as well. Modern science is allowing more and more of those babies to live as productive lives as possible.

I posted an article earlier in this thread that talked about post birth treatment for this birth defect.

[bendog]

ant, your link doesn't support that fetal surgery can correct all cases necessitating a non-vaginal cesarian removal of a non-viable fetus.

Crush, the procedure was only appropriate to fetus that have FATAL hydrocephallas. The fetus will now just be removed by cesarian, but that poses more risk to the mother.

[Crushaholic]

Why? You mean the fact that I don't think I have the right to play God?

Aren't you doing that exact thing by allowing some people to live and some to die? Not playing God would be taking the side of life for every "fetus".

[bendog]

Aren't you doing that exact thing by allowing some people to live and some to die? Not playing God would be taking the side of life for every "fetus".

A fetus with a gallon or two gallons of fluid CANNOT LIVE. It's like terminable end stage lung cancer. The nice lady from the hospice gives you a needle full of morphine.

[Blueflame]

If you would have read through the posts, you would have found my answer.
If it is necessary to save the mother and is the only option then it is o.k.
Then you should not be approving of the USSC's decision as it does not provide for any exceptions even in cases where the mother will die.

[Blueflame]

A fetus with a gallon or two gallons of fluid CANNOT LIVE. It's like terminable end stage lung cancer. The nice lady from the hospice gives you a needle full of morphine.

It's good to see that someone understands... when the fetus cannot live, but the size of its head means that the mother cannot give birth to the fetus, the decision just made by the USSC dictates that now, it's the law of the land that lifesaving medical treatment must be withheld and the mother must die with her fetus.

[bendog]

Then you should not be approving of the USSC's decision as it does not provide for any exceptions even in cases where the mother will die.

Kennedy waffles. He says the woman could go to court for an exemption, or sue the .... the US? It's obviously bogus reasoning because not only would time be of the essence, but right, like some poor woman is going to seek the publicity of "please let me kill my dying fetus."

But, I cannot find any condition posing a real clear danger to a potential mother carrying a third trimester, non-viable fetus, for which this is the only means of removing the fetus.

[bendog]

It's good to see that someone understands... when the fetus cannot live, but the size of its head means that the mother cannot give birth to the fetus, the decision just made by the USSC dictates that now, it's the law of the land that lifesaving medical treatment must be withheld and the mother must die with her fetus.

I don't think that's quite right. The docs can do a cesarian thing. See the religious tolerance cut and paste I put up above. However, of course the cesarian thing involves more risk of infection, and even infertility (God, would that suck to lose a kid to somehting like this and find out you'd never get pregnant again), plus she'd have the scar to remind her.

I'm honestly not sure which procedure would be worse for the fetus. I really don't see why they can't just give the woman a big dose of demerol which would render the fetus totally unconscious, if not kill it first. Would that be worse then doing the cesarian thing and letting the fetus die without ever being conscious. Maybe not. I dunno.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Aren't you doing that exact thing by allowing some people to live and some to die? Not playing God would be taking the side of life for every "fetus".No I'm not. I don't condone the religious right trying to gain control of other people's bodies (see Terri Schiavo, states rights for dying with dignity and now the female sex).

[bendog]

No I'm not. I don't condone the religious right trying to gain control of other people's bodies (see Terri Schiavo, states rights for dying with dignity and now the female sex).

Ah, that's my real gripe. While I'm farily pro-choice, I can see restrictions. I don't like Roe because it takes the issue from voters. (yes I know some women will suffer, but voters need to take responsibility. If something is bad, the maj eventually come around: Iraq) And abortion was before Roe a state decision. Having congress do this just enables the Rel Right to do this without an honest debate of the procedure and medical conditions. And this thread illustrates that with some of the posts from the right.

[ant1999e]

Then you should not be approving of the USSC's decision as it does not provide for any exceptions even in cases where the mother will die.

The good outweighs the bad.

[Blueflame]

Kennedy waffles. He says the woman could go to court for an exemption, or sue the .... the US? It's obviously bogus reasoning because not only would time be of the essence, but right, like some poor woman is going to seek the publicity of "please let me kill my dying fetus."

But, I cannot find any condition posing a real clear danger to a potential mother carrying a third trimester, non-viable fetus, for which this is the only means of removing the fetus.

Well, and how is a dead woman going to sue? In these cases, time is of the essence and sometimes the woman's health won't withstand the stress of a C-section. If her health is too fragile for a C-section, there are now no other options.

[Blueflame]

Accepted risk.

An unnecessary death is "accepted risk". Bet you wouldn't think so if it were you, personally (or someone you loved), that might die because of this ruling.

[ant1999e]

So if the legislation allowed this procedure if it it was necessary for the mothers life, but banned it for any other reason, would you be fine with it?

You gonna answer my question Blue?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'll answer your question but answer mine. I never refused to answer it.
If the mother's life is at risk and it is necesary then I understand.
Now do you think it is right for a woman to decide late in the pregnancy that she does not want the baby so she goes and has a "doctor" jab a pair of scissors through the back of the babies head and vaccum it's brains out?I stated I don't approve of late term abortion. And I don't approve of taking control of other people's bodies.

[Blueflame]

The good outweighs the bad.

What "good" is there in losing both the mother and the fetus when the mother's life could be saved?

[ant1999e]

I stated I don't approve of late term abortion. And I don't approve of taking control of other people's bodies.

So jabbing a pair of scissors into another persons skull and vaccuming out their brains isn't taking control of other peoples bodies?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

Ginsburg said that for the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, "the court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."

Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications.Think Kennedy meant that as a joke or a big FU to everyone who is for keeping religion out government?

So jabbing a pair of scissors into another persons skull and vaccuming out their brains isn't taking control of other peoples bodies?Telling a medical doctor and his patient they can't make a medical decision because of federally mandated religious morality does indeed remove control of one's own body.

[Blueflame]

You gonna answer my question Blue?

Since I already stated that I believe medical necessity is only reason a woman and her doctor would decide to do it, it follows that limiting the option to "only to save the mother's life" would be OK by me....but I still don't think government needs to be involved in medical decisions. Period.

[ant1999e]

Links, please.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html

[ant1999e]

Think Kennedy meant that as a joke or a big FU to everyone who is for keeping religion out government?

Telling a medical doctor and his patient they can't make a medical decision because of federally mandated religious morality does indeed remove control of one's own body.

For me, it has nothing to do with religion. It's completely a morality thing.

[ant1999e]

So jabbing a pair of scissors into another persons skull and vaccuming out their brains isn't taking control of other peoples bodies?

Answer slug?

[ant1999e]

Since I already stated that I believe medical necessity is only reason a woman and her doctor would decide to do it, it follows that limiting the option to "only to save the mother's life" would be OK by me....but I still don't think government needs to be involved in medical decisions. Period.

You would still be on here crying about your right to brutally kill your baby if you wanted to.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Answer slug?I answered you didn't listen. Preventing a medical doctor and his patient from making a decision on abortion removes the patients right of control over their own body.

[ant1999e]

I answered you didn't listen. Preventing a medical doctor and his patient from making a decision on abortion removes the patients right of control over their own body.

Nice duck. :thumbs: I guess you don't want to answer. Just say no comment.

[ant1999e]

So jabbing a pair of scissors into another persons skull and vaccuming out their brains isn't taking control of other peoples bodies?

[ant1999e]

Maybe if babies were born with bombs strapped to themselves ready to blow us up at any chance they got you all would feel differently. Have more concern for them and their rights.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Nice duck. :thumbs: I guess you don't want to answer. Just say no comment.I did answer, you just don't like the answer (I'm against the government taking control of a woman's body, or Terri Schiavo's body, or various states with die with dignity laws, etc...).

[ant1999e]

So jabbing a pair of scissors into another persons skull and vaccuming out their brains isn't taking control of other peoples bodies?

You didn't answer the question.

This is the question. It has nothing to do with a womans body or Terry Schiavo.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You didn't answer the question.
This is the question. It has nothing to do with a womans body or Terry Schiavo.One more time, S L O W L Y this time. In most circurmstances, I don't approve of late term abortion (NO MATTER HOW THE PROCEDURE IS PERFORMED!!!). What's even more abhorrent is condoning government denying one control over his/her own body!!

[Rascal]

These posts by rascal, antee, etc... show how much some Americans love to be directed and controlled by the government with a religious mantra. Medicine and physicians are far more knowledgeable than these Neocon and right wing nut jobs when it comes to medicine but the uninformed and ignorant trust an appointed king and his appointed court to tell them what to do their bodies.

Pathetic and sickening both.

LOL

If you only knew.

[ant1999e]

One more time, S L O W L Y this time. In most circurmstances, I don't approve of late term abortion (NO MATTER HOW THE PROCEDURE IS PERFORMED!!!). What's even more abhorrent is condoning government denying one control over his/her own body!!

So we agree.

I don't agree with abortion but it's not my place to tell people what to do. However, late term/partial birth abortion is a horrible thing to do unless it is necessary for the survival of the mother.

See, I'm not the neo-con bush bot you think I am.

We just don't agree on almost everything.

[Spider]

So we agree.

I don't agree with abortion but it's not my place to tell people what to do. However, late term/partial birth abortion is a horrible thing to do unless it is necessary for the survival of the mother.

See, I'm not the neo-con bush bot you think I am.

We just don't agree on almost everything.
you Nancy Pelosi loving San Fransisco values hippy ;D

[ant1999e]

you Nancy Pelosi loving San Fransisco values hippy ;D

You've said some pretty lousy things spider but I think you're crossing the line.;)

[Spider]

You've said some pretty lousy things spider but I think you're crossing the line.;)

:~ohyah!:

[Blueflame]

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html

The National Right to Life Committee wouldn't possibly have a bit of an agenda, would they? And aren't these the same people who thought Terri Schiavo had a good chance of recovery? I think they are... hence, I don't give them much credibility. How about an unbiased link?

[Blueflame]

You would still be on here crying about your right to brutally kill your baby if you wanted to.
I'd still be saying that women are perfectly capable of making their own healthcare decisions and do not need Big Brother's supervision.

You, on the other hand, clearly don't approve of abortion in any form. Therefore, it's my opinion that you shouldn't have one. Beyond that, there's a lot of merit to the notion of minding one's own damn business... one's own life should be interesting enough that one doesn't have to try to mind everyone else's business, too.

[ant1999e]

I'd still be saying that women are perfectly capable of making their own healthcare decisions and do not need Big Brother's supervision.

Maybe they should make responsible decisions before getting pregnant.

You, on the other hand, clearly don't approve of abortion in any form. Therefore, it's my opinion that you shouldn't have one. Beyond that, there's a lot of merit to the notion of minding one's own damn business... one's own life should be interesting enough that one doesn't have to try to mind everyone else's business, too.

It might be helpful to you if you read through the posts. Then maybe you could follow along with the conversation and I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.

[bendog]

I dunno ant, nrlc isn't exactly an unbiased site, and these folks are not know for their truthfullness. Moreover, their concern is more about banning ALL abortions than just partial birth. However, I noted and posted that the AMA's guidelines, which take into account medical ethics and treatment options, provide that any partial birth is NEVER the only treatment option for any condition that partial birth might be used for. So, I can't say I'm too worked up over the scrotus decision. It's poorly written, uses inflamatory language and is logically flawed, dishonestly so sometimes, but ....

More federal control though is never a good answer to any issue involving moral issues though.

Personally, I'd rather see a limitation on all third trimester abortions making it necessary for a woman and her doctor to go to a family court (where divorces and adoptions and such are done) and show the mother has a significant chance of permanent injury unless the abortion is performed, or that the woman was raped. You can typically get into a court like that on a week's notice, and a law could even provide for an expedited hearing. And, hearings can be held without public notice or an open court room. Down here in Mississippi, I'm sure there are still third trimester abortions happening, but they'd have to be done in hospitals when mother's are in danger, and they sure won't be termed abortions.

[ant1999e]

I dunno ant, nrlc isn't exactly an unbiased site, and these folks are not know for their truthfullness. Moreover, their concern is more about banning ALL abortions than just partial birth. However, I noted and posted that the AMA's guidelines, which take into account medical ethics and treatment options, provide that any partial birth is NEVER the only treatment option for any condition that partial birth might be used for. So, I can't say I'm too worked up over the scrotus decision. It's poorly written, uses inflamatory language and is logically flawed, dishonestly so sometimes, but ....

More federal control though is never a good answer to any issue involving moral issues though.

Personally, I'd rather see a limitation on all third trimester abortions making it necessary for a woman and her doctor to go to a family court (where divorces and adoptions and such are done) and show the mother has a significant chance of permanent injury unless the abortion is performed, or that the woman was raped. You can typically get into a court like that on a week's notice, and a law could even provide for an expedited hearing. And, hearings can be held without public notice or an open court room. Down here in Mississippi, I'm sure there are still third trimester abortions happening, but they'd have to be done in hospitals when mother's are in danger, and they sure won't be termed abortions.

I like the idea you have in your last paragraph. I would have no problem with that.

[Crushaholic]

One more time, S L O W L Y this time. In most circurmstances, I don't approve of late term abortion (NO MATTER HOW THE PROCEDURE IS PERFORMED!!!). What's even more abhorrent is condoning government denying one control over his/her own body!!

What about the baby's body? If you don't approve of late term abortions, it would be logical to think that you consider the fetus a baby at that point.

[Bronco Bob]

What about the baby's body? If you don't approve of late term abortions, it would be logical to think that you consider the fetus a baby at that point.

Why not use the medical definition of when a fetus is considered a baby?
And if it is the mother's life verses the life of the fetus, why should the
fetus be afforded more rights than the woman? The woman can later
have another baby to make up for it if she is allowed to live. The fetus
can't have another mother if the mother is allowed to die.
And if the fetus is so malformed it will die anyway, why put the mother
through the agony of carrying a fetus that won't live anyway
after it comes to term and is delivered?

[bendog]

Why not use the medical definition of when a fetus is considered a baby?
And if it is the mother's life verses the life of the fetus, why should the
fetus be afforded more rights than the woman? The woman can later
have another baby to make up for it if she is allowed to live. The fetus
can't have another mother if the mother is allowed to die.
And if the fetus is so malformed it will die anyway, why put the mother
through the agony of carrying a fetus that won't live anyway
after it comes to term and is delivered?

If I understood the AMA correctly, there is another means to "extract" the fetus from the mother's body before the non-viable fetus reaches term. The cesarian route trades off more danger to the mother for allowing the fetus to be removed without ever reaching consciousness. Blue hypothesized that some women may be too ill to undergo cesarian, but I'm not really sure whether that would put more stress on a woman than the partial birth.

I don't know what pain killer they use with a cesarian. I know they can go from epidural block on a regular deliver to a full blown cesarian in like 30 seconds, cause I knew one woman who's kid got the cord wrapped around it's neck, and they got that baby out pronto. But I would think that a late term abortion will have to have an epidural.

Personally I think it's sort of absurd to call it "partial birth abortion." What it really is is early induced delivery of a non viable fetus. That's done all the time, and the vast majority of us think that is a humane thing to do. The ugly part is that they sort of have to wake the thing up to reduce the head size (killing it in the process) to save the mother's life. If there's a way to save the mom without doing that, I'd think it's pretty obvious that that's the way to go.

[Blueflame]

Excerpted from Bendog's post, #94....

However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid."

It is worth noting that a regulation-sized basketball is 19 1/2 inches. There's no way that something larger than a regulation-sized basketball can possibly come through any woman's pelvic bones. Fetal death due to compression of the skull against the mother's bones due to uterine contractions as labor progresses would not be less traumatic to the fetus than the D&E procedure... not to mention how excruciating it would be to the mother prior to her own death.

[Blueflame]

Maybe they should make responsible decisions before getting pregnant.

It might be helpful to you if you read through the posts. Then maybe you could follow along with the conversation and I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.
One cannot "make responsible decisions before getting pregnant" when the issue involves things like totally unpredictable medical complications as the pregnancy progresses. Hydrocephaly, for example, isn't usually detectable before the second trimester.

Personally, I'd rather see a limitation on all third trimester abortions making it necessary for a woman and her doctor to go to a family court (where divorces and adoptions and such are done) and show the mother has a significant chance of permanent injury unless the abortion is performed, or that the woman was raped. You can typically get into a court like that on a week's notice, and a law could even provide for an expedited hearing.
Sometimes a medical emergency... such as eclampsia... can occur and a medical decision/action has to take place immediately. In an instance like that, having any requirement for getting court permission would also mean death for both mother and fetus.

[Blueflame]

If I understood the AMA correctly, there is another means to "extract" the fetus from the mother's body before the non-viable fetus reaches term. The cesarian route trades off more danger to the mother for allowing the fetus to be removed without ever reaching consciousness. Blue hypothesized that some women may be too ill to undergo cesarian, but I'm not really sure whether that would put more stress on a woman than the partial birth.

I don't know what pain killer they use with a cesarian. I know they can go from epidural block on a regular deliver to a full blown cesarian in like 30 seconds, cause I knew one woman who's kid got the cord wrapped around it's neck, and they got that baby out pronto. But I would think that a late term abortion will have to have an epidural.

Personally I think it's sort of absurd to call it "partial birth abortion." What it really is is early induced delivery of a non viable fetus. That's done all the time, and the vast majority of us think that is a humane thing to do. The ugly part is that they sort of have to wake the thing up to reduce the head size (killing it in the process) to save the mother's life. If there's a way to save the mom without doing that, I'd think it's pretty obvious that that's the way to go.
There are many risks involved in Cesarean delivery... it is a major abdominal surgery. What can happen is anesthesia can cause a woman's kidneys to shut down... I personally know of an instance in which this occurred... with a normal baby and a healthy mother... and the mother almost died. Not surprisingly, that baby's an only child.

[ant1999e]

You all are using the medical emergency argument but that is the only ammunition you have.

[ant1999e]

Why not use the medical definition of when a fetus is considered a baby?
And if it is the mother's life verses the life of the fetus, why should the
fetus be afforded more rights than the woman? The woman can later
have another baby to make up for it if she is allowed to live. The fetus
can't have another mother if the mother is allowed to die.
And if the fetus is so malformed it will die anyway, why put the mother
through the agony of carrying a fetus that won't live anyway
after it comes to term and is delivered?

If the baby has a heartbeat and it's body jolts as the "doctor" jabbs the sissors into the back of it's head, I think it's alive and odviously kicking.

You all have so much concern for the freaking terrorists we are "torturing" but none for the babies that are being killed.

Would you all be o.k. if we jabbed a pair of scissors into the back of their heads and sucked their brains out? They are a threat to our lives.

You all keep using the life and death of the mother argument but lets be real, that's not what it's all about.

[Bronco Bob]

If the baby has a heartbeat and it's body jolts as the "doctor" jabbs the sissors into the back of it's head, I think it's alive and odviously kicking.


So what? It's a reflex action. Doesn't mean its aware of what is happening to it. Doesn't make it a baby yet. Not in the medical sense. And why is
doctor in parenthesis? You think non-medical personnel are allowed to
perform this procedure? Suddenly you have replaced the AMA in deciding
who is a doctor and who isn't?


You all have so much concern for the freaking terrorists we are "torturing" but none for the babies that are being killed.

No, I don't give a damn about the terrorists. They can be lined up against
a wall and shot as far as I am concerned. I do care about innocent people
gathered up and held without trial and who have no way to prove they are
innocent. If the man is suspected of being a terrorist, prove it, otherwise
let him go back to his wife and kids.
Somehow the right wingers seem to fail to make that distinction.
If they are a raghead, obviously they are a terrorist seems to be the
attitude.




You all keep using the life and death of the mother argument but lets be real, that's not what it's all about.

Then what is it all about?

[Bronco Bob]

You all are using the medical emergency argument but that is the only ammunition you have.

And why is that not enough? Do you hate women that much that you
would rather see them die than violate your religious beliefs?
So how is this different than the most backwards of Muslim
and Hindu communities where women are subject to "honor killings"
for violating the men's religious beliefs?

[Blueflame]

If the baby has a heartbeat and it's body jolts as the "doctor" jabbs the sissors into the back of it's head, I think it's alive and odviously kicking.

You all have so much concern for the freaking terrorists we are "torturing" but none for the babies that are being killed.

Would you all be o.k. if we jabbed a pair of scissors into the back of their heads and sucked their brains out? They are a threat to our lives.

You all keep using the life and death of the mother argument but lets be real, that's not what it's all about.

Is it preferable for the fetus for its skull to be crushed over a matter of hours or even days as uterine contractions attempt to push a basketball-sized skull through an opening it cannot hope to ever fit through?

Maternal health concerns are the primary reason for D&E surgeries... regardless of the pure propaganda the National Right to Life Committee tries to tell you.

[Blueflame]

And why is that not enough? Do you hate women that much that you
would rather see them die than violate your religious beliefs?
So how is this different than the most backwards of Muslim
and Hindu communities where women are subject to "honor killings"
for violating the men's religious beliefs?

Religion is precisely the reason for El Salvador's draconian laws that won't allow any medical intervention even to save the life of a woman who is experiencing an ectopic pregnancy... the zygote has zero chance of survival attached inside the Fallopian tube... but its "life" trumps that of the (totally unimportant) vessel who carries it.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I wonder what they'll say when the first woman dies because of this no-exceptions law? It's only a small step from this type of legislation to the laws in El Salvador in which abortion is banned... no exceptions, even in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. A Salvadoran woman has to wait... in pain... until her fallopian tube bursts or the zygote dies... and by then it often is too late to save the mother's life.
Oppression is almost always the eventual result when religion becomes too influential in a government.

Are you playing the victim card here? That is quite funny.

As if you have the right to play the victim in an issue where the real victims are children who are gruesomely mutilated, their skulls crushed, and their brains sucked out with a hose.

Did you know that these dilation-extraction procedures compromise only 10% of all of late term abortions?

There are still other options for late term abortions, including a procedure where the infant is dismembered in utero.

This is an absolute step in the right direction. A step that brings a little humanity into the conversation where the abortion industry lobby has dominated the conversation for so long.

See ya partial birth abortion. We wont miss you.

http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/pba.jpg

If abortion doesnt involve the death of a human, then this image shouldnt bother anyone here. I am posting it under that premise.

[Blueflame]

Are you playing the victim card here? That is quite funny.

As if you have the right to play the victim in an issue where the real victims are children who are gruesomely mutilated, their skulls crushed, and their brains sucked out with a hose.

Did you know that these dilation-extraction procedures compromise only 10% of all of late term abortions?

There are still other options for late term abortions, including a procedure where the infant is dismembered in utero.

This is an absolute step in the right direction. A step that brings a little humanity into the conversation where the abortion industry lobby has dominated the conversation for so long.

See ya partial birth abortion. We wont miss you.


If abortion doesnt involve the death of a human, then this image shouldnt bother anyone here. I am posting it under that premise.
No, I'm not a victim, Llama... none of my pregnancies brought about any life-threatening medical situations that forced a tough choice between aborting a fetus or dying. But other women have faced that type of situations... and now some of those women will die because treatment is withheld due to a rigid law put in place because of someone else's religious beliefs.

I daresay someone will miss those women who will die.

[epicSocialism4tw]

No, I'm not a victim, Llama... none of my pregnancies brought about any life-threatening medical situations that forced a tough choice between aborting a fetus or dying. But other women have faced that type of situations... and now some of those women will die because treatment is withheld due to a rigid law put in place because of someone else's religious beliefs. I daresay someone will miss those women who will die.

You are arguing something that isnt even relevant.

We arent talking about killing mothers. You cant identify all late-term abortion cases with that situation.

[Blueflame]

You are arguing something that isnt even relevant.

We arent talking about killing mothers. You cant identify all late-term abortion cases with that situation.

Yes, it is relevant, Llama. Because the law doesn't allow for any exceptions even in cases where the mother's life is at risk, there will be women whose lives could be saved if their medical professional could perform a D&E... but with the procedure outlawed... no exceptions.... they'll die. I should add the caveat... the deaths will be poor women... rich women will still have access to whatever medical treatment $$ can buy.

[ant1999e]

Yes, it is relevant, Llama. Because the law doesn't allow for any exceptions even in cases where the mother's life is at risk, there will be women whose lives could be saved if their medical professional could perform a D&E... but with the procedure outlawed... no exceptions.... they'll die. I should add the caveat... the deaths will be poor women... rich women will still have access to whatever medical treatment $$ can buy.

Come on, let's just put it out there without hiding. You don't give a **** whether the mothers life is at risk or not. You have no problem killing a baby just because the mother decides she isn't ready for kids and doesn't want to experience the pain of childbirth. Quit using this bull**** excuse.

[ant1999e]

So what? It's a reflex action. Doesn't mean its aware of what is happening to it. Doesn't make it a baby yet. Not in the medical sense.

Of course it isn't aware of what is happening. What a stupid statement. How would it know it's mother would allow someone to jam scissors into it's head?

No, I don't give a damn about the terrorists. They can be lined up against
a wall and shot as far as I am concerned. I do care about innocent people
gathered up and held without trial and who have no way to prove they are
innocent.

But screw the innocent babies? They will never have a chance to have a wife and kids.

[ant1999e]

And why is that not enough? Do you hate women that much that you
would rather see them die than violate your religious beliefs?
So how is this different than the most backwards of Muslim
and Hindu communities where women are subject to "honor killings"
for violating the men's religious beliefs?

Look, maybe for some it's about religious beliefs but for me it has nothing to do with it. I just think partial birth abortion is brutal. If the mothers life is at risk, then that's a different story.
I don't care what the government or anyone else says, if it's got all it's limbs and a beating heart, it's a baby. If it looks like a baby, it's a baby.

[Blueflame]

Come on, let's just put it out there without hiding. You don't give a **** whether the mothers life is at risk or not. You have no problem killing a baby just because the mother decides she isn't ready for kids and doesn't want to experience the pain of childbirth. Quit using this bull**** excuse.
I don't think it's my business to know the reasons why another human being visits a doctor, even if the patient happens to be pregnant. Nor do I think it's my business to make the decisions regarding another human being's health care unless the other human being in question is my own underage child, whose welfare is, in fact, my business. I don't think it should be my right... or yours... to second-guess any woman's reasoning behind a reproductive decision she makes. I'm guessing that a D&E procedure involves a significant amount of pain... perhaps about the same as it would be with a normal childbirth. I do not believe that your average woman just wakes up one day in her seventh or eighth month of a healthy pregnancy and capriciously decides that she really doesn't want to be a mother and calls her obstetrician to schedule a D&E. And I don't believe that your average obstetrician would agree to perform the procedure without a valid reason why it was necessary. The procedure wouldn't exist if there were not cases where it has to be done to save the mother's life. I'm also guessing that in emergency cases, it isn't always the mother herself who makes the decision to terminate the fetus... her medical condition very well might defer that decision to her next-of-kin (usually her husband). But don't let that temper your demonization of the evil, baby-killing hussies....

[ant1999e]

I don't think it's my business to know the reasons why another human being visits a doctor, even if the patient happens to be pregnant. Nor do I think it's my business to make the decisions regarding another human being's health care unless the other human being in question is my own underage child, whose welfare is, in fact, my business. I don't think it should be my right... or yours... to second-guess any woman's reasoning behind a reproductive decision she makes. I'm guessing that a D&E procedure involves a significant amount of pain... perhaps about the same as it would be with a normal childbirth. I do not believe that your average woman just wakes up one day in her seventh or eighth month of a healthy pregnancy and capriciously decides that she really doesn't want to be a mother and calls her obstetrician to schedule a D&E. And I don't believe that your average obstetrician would agree to perform the procedure without a valid reason why it was necessary. The procedure wouldn't exist if there were not cases where it has to be done to save the mother's life. I'm also guessing that in emergency cases, it isn't always the mother herself who makes the decision to terminate the fetus... her medical condition very well might defer that decision to her next-of-kin (usually her husband). But don't let that temper your demonization of the evil, baby-killing hussies....

That's all I was asking for. To quit hiding behind your excuses and just admit you don't care about the baby.

I bet more choose to have it done for their own selfish reasons than medical reasons but I guess that really doesn't matter to you.

[Blueflame]

That's all I was asking for. To quit hiding behind your excuses and just admit you don't care about the baby.

I bet more choose to have it done for their own selfish reasons than medical reasons but I guess that really doesn't matter to you.

No, I don't care to stick my nose into other people's examination rooms. I'm on record repeatedly as being in favor of minding my own damn business. One remains healthier and happier when they tend to their own affairs and live their own lives without fretting over other people's decisions. And no, your wild speculation on other people's motivations for making their medical decisions doesn't change that.

[Bronco Bob]

That's all I was asking for. To quit hiding behind your excuses and just admit you don't care about the baby.



And quite hiding behind your excuse that you do care about the baby.
The right doesn't give a damn about the baby, otherwise they wouldn't
be so against welfare to provide money for women too poor to care
for the kid. The right wouldn't be so anti-education so these
kids could grow up better educated. The right wouldn't be so
anti-contraceptive, anti-condom anti-sex education, and every
other means that would help women not get pregnant in the first place.

It's all about control for the right. They regard women as flighty,
indecisive, fickle little things incapable of thinking for themselves,
needing the big, strong man to make the decisions for them.
One only has to look here on this board to see that to a right winger,
the biggest insult they can call a person is to call them a woman,
a p***Y, a fag (effeminate). In other words, weak, incapable
of an intelligent thought.

Most of the right wing males would never admit it, but their ideal is the
Taliban way of treating women. Barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.

[ant1999e]

And quite hiding behind your excuse that you do care about the baby.
The right doesn't give a damn about the baby, otherwise they wouldn't
be so against welfare to provide money for women too poor to care
for the kid. The right wouldn't be so anti-education so these
kids could grow up better educated. The right wouldn't be so
anti-contraceptive, anti-condom anti-sex education, and every
other means that would help women not get pregnant in the first place.

It's all about control for the right. They regard women as flighty,
indecisive, fickle little things incapable of thinking for themselves,
needing the big, strong man to make the decisions for them.
One only has to look here on this board to see that to a right winger,
the biggest insult they can call a person is to call them a woman,
a p***Y, a fag (effeminate). In other words, weak, incapable
of an intelligent thought.

Most of the right wing males would never admit it, but their ideal is the
Taliban way of treating women. Barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.

Hey dip****, I'm not the right. You don't know me. You just assume since I don't agree with you. Unlike you, I can think for myself and don't have to follow along like a sheep. You are "left" and follow all the left rules.

It has nothing to do with my religion or my political views. These things don't control me like they do others. I can think independently. It has everything to do with morality. My concern is whole heartedly with the baby.

I personally don't believe in abortion but it isn't my choice. However, unless there is a healty risk to the MOTHER, late term abortions are wrong. If you don't want the burdon of a child, get an abortion early in the pregnancy.

[Blueflame]

Hey dip****, I'm not the right. You don't know me. You just assume since I don't agree with you. Unlike you, I can think for myself and don't have to follow along like a sheep. You are "left" and follow all the left rules.

It has nothing to do with my religion or my political views. These things don't control me like they do others. I can think independently. It has everything to do with morality. My concern is whole heartedly with the baby.

I personally don't believe in abortion but it isn't my choice. However, unless there is a healty risk to the MOTHER, late term abortions are wrong. If you don't want the burdon of a child, get an abortion early in the pregnancy.
Um... isn't this kind of "don't stereotype me while I'm stereotyping you"? ??? :P Every poster here has opinions formed mostly by individual personal experiences... and most, even though they might find the "R" or "D" platforms to "mostly" represent their views on the issues that face voters today, also will find some points on which they'll differ from that platform... hence, most of us here think independently to one degree or another.

[gunns]

That's all I was asking for. To quit hiding behind your excuses and just admit you don't care about the baby.

I bet more choose to have it done for their own selfish reasons than medical reasons but I guess that really doesn't matter to you.

Well of course, what would we women do without men like you to tell us what we're thinking and do our thinking for us. I really don't know why Blueflame even bothered responding to you since you already knew it all anyway.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Blueflame, your attitude on this issue is a very poor standard for what we should ascribe to in setting interpersonal relational standards for any human in any community.

You can hide behind medical terminology like "procedure", "exam room", "privacy", and "dilation-extraction"...but behind those sterile words lies a point of view that is nothing short of frightening.

Why dont you just knock the show off and come out with it already.

No more hiding. Show us how heartless and third-world you really are.

[Blueflame]

Blueflame, your attitude on this issue is a very poor standard for what we should ascribe to in setting interpersonal relational standards for any human in any community.

You can hide behind medical terminology like "procedure", "exam room", "privacy", and "dilation-extraction"...but behind those sterile words lies a point of view that is nothing short of frightening.

Why dont you just knock the show off and come out with it already.

No more hiding. Show us how heartless and third-world you really are.

Why is minding one's own damn business such a difficult concept, Llama? Why does it seem so important to you to make other people's medical decisions for them... to impose your own religious/moral standards on everyone else? Pray for others and practice your own private faith and you'll be a happier individual, imo.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Why is minding one's own damn business such a difficult concept, Llama? Why does it seem so important to you to make other people's medical decisions for them... to impose your own religious/moral standards on everyone else? Pray for others and practice your own private faith and you'll be a happier individual, imo.

Thanks for the wisdom of fools, Blueflame.

Yeah...we all live much happier lives when we disconnect from the political process so that people who dont give a crap about others in their community can make the decisions.

That sounds like a dandy idea. In fact, why dont you just mind your own business and let me carry on this debate, okay?

Well, maybe you can contribute a bit. Show us how cold you really are. Unleash the beast, Blueflame. Tell us how reasonable it is to kill a child so that the mother can continue going to cosmetology school.

Goodness. It's a dark world we live in when we literally cut our family out of our womb, stab them in the head with scissors, then slice up their brain and suck it out into a trash receptacle with a hose, and then discard their body in a sack of biological waste.

Yeah. Why dont we just mind our own business while fools literally destroy our communities.

Come out with it blueflame. Say what you want to say.

[Blueflame]

Thanks for the wisdom of fools, Blueflame.

Yeah...we all live much happier lives when we disconnect from the political process so that people who dont give a crap about others in their community can make the decisions.

That sounds like a dandy idea. In fact, why dont you just mind your own business and let me carry on this debate, okay?

Well, maybe you can contribute a bit. Show us how cold you really are. Unleash the beast, Blueflame. Tell us how reasonable it is to kill a child so that the mother can continue going to cosmetology school.

Goodness. It's a dark world we live in when we literally cut our family out of our womb, stab them in the head with scissors, then slice up their brain and suck it out into a trash receptacle with a hose, and then discard their body in a sack of biological waste.

Yeah. Why dont we just mind our own business while fools literally destroy our communities.

Come out with it blueflame. Say what you want to say.
Your post does not merit a response... I'm finished discussing this topic with you.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Thanks for the wisdom of fools, Blueflame.

Yeah...we all live much happier lives when we disconnect from the political process so that people who dont give a crap about others in their community can make the decisions.

That sounds like a dandy idea. In fact, why dont you just mind your own business and let me carry on this debate, okay?

Well, maybe you can contribute a bit. Show us how cold you really are. Unleash the beast, Blueflame. Tell us how reasonable it is to kill a child so that the mother can continue going to cosmetology school.

Goodness. It's a dark world we live in when we literally cut our family out of our womb, stab them in the head with scissors, then slice up their brain and suck it out into a trash receptacle with a hose, and then discard their body in a sack of biological waste.

Yeah. Why dont we just mind our own business while fools literally destroy our communities.

Come out with it blueflame. Say what you want to say.
The Mad Yak preaching his hypocritical tripe again I see. The trash he spews is considered a religious mantra to him though so he's justified in his "God's" eyes for imposing it on all the commoners who need "learning".

So this is what Christians are about (the Mad Yaks of the world) 8') And people wonder why church attendance continues it's downhill slide in this country.

[ant1999e]

Well of course, what would we women do without men like you to tell us what we're thinking and do our thinking for us. I really don't know why Blueflame even bothered responding to you since you already knew it all anyway.

I don't know why you responded to my post. You had nothing relivent to add to the conversation. Go back into the kitchen woman.;)

[epicSocialism4tw]

Your post does not merit a response... I'm finished discussing this topic with you.

You dont need to. I know what your response is. It will have something to do with how all of these mothers' lives are in danger. We both know that that's a load of garbage. How 'bout we throw that line of thinking into the garbage instead of the mutilated, dismembered body of the child that ends up dead in the trash as a matter of convenience.

[gunns]

I don't know why you responded to my post. You had nothing relivent to add to the conversation. Go back into the kitchen woman.;)

Well it is a free world, but only if you say so.

[Bronco Bob]

Hey dip****, I'm not the right. You don't know me. You just assume since I don't agree with you. Unlike you, I can think for myself and don't have to follow along like a sheep. You are "left" and follow all the left rules.




I can think for myself just fine, thank you very much.

And reading your other posts, and your cutesy little picture of Chavez,
if your aren't a right winger, then I am the Queen of England.

[yavoon]

btw it should be pointed out that the supreme court found nothing wrong with the CONSTITUTIONALITY of partial birth abortion bans.

so lets not confuse them w/ the legislature:). though it seems this is a distinction that isn't gna be all that well accepted.

[ant1999e]

I can think for myself just fine, thank you very much.

And reading your other posts, and your cutesy little picture of Chavez,
if your aren't a right winger, then I am the Queen of England.

Just because you like to kiss up to chavez don't mean I have to.:kiss:

[Blueflame]

I don't know why you responded to my post. You had nothing relivent to add to the conversation. Go back into the kitchen woman.;)

Yes, she does have something relevant to add to the conversation... unlike yourself, she has experienced pregnancy and childbirth and therefore has firsthand knowledge of some of the unforeseen circumstances that can arise as gestation progresses. She's well versed in women's health issues (ie: knows what she's talking about). :P

[Blueflame]

You dont need to. I know what your response is. It will have something to do with how all of these mothers' lives are in danger. We both know that that's a load of garbage. How 'bout we throw that line of thinking into the garbage instead of the mutilated, dismembered body of the child that ends up dead in the trash as a matter of convenience.

Discussing this topic does not appear to be healthy for your blood pressure, Llama... perhaps you should change the subject before you give yourself a case of apoplexy.

[ant1999e]

Yes, she does have something relevant to add to the conversation... unlike yourself, she has experienced pregnancy and childbirth and therefore has firsthand knowledge of some of the unforeseen circumstances that can arise as gestation progresses. She's well versed in women's health issues (ie: knows what she's talking about). :P

She may have something relevant to say but she didn't say it.

[Blueflame]

She may have something relevant to say but she didn't say it.

I thought she made a valid point.

Well of course, what would we women do without men like you to tell us what we're thinking and do our thinking for us. I really don't know why Blueflame even bothered responding to you since you already knew it all anyway.

[Rascal]

This may sound cold hearted, but IMO the benefit of no longer having partial birth abortions and saving all those babies is worth the .01% of that one medical reason.

If this offends somebody or lowers your opinion of me, sorry, but there has to be a voice to protect those who have none.

To protect the choice of the mother giving birth, how about the unborn child? How about protecting their choice and their rights. IMO this, partial birth abortion, is nothing more then murder.

[Blueflame]

This may sound cold hearted, but IMO the benefit of no longer having partial birth abortions and saving all those babies is worth the .01% of that one medical reason.

If this offends somebody or lowers your opinion of me, sorry, but there has to be a voice to protect those who have none.

To protect the choice of the mother giving birth, how about the unborn child? How about protecting their choice and their rights. IMO this is nothing more then murder.

As has been noted already here on this thread, the vast majority of late-term abortions are performed due to severe fetal abnormalities. Most of these fetuses won't survive, no matter what.

[Rascal]

As has been noted already here on this thread, the vast majority of late-term abortions are performed due to severe fetal abnormalities. Most of these fetuses won't survive, no matter what.

I haven't read all this thread, as it broke down into fight between you and llama and I had no interest in reading it.

Link?

[Blueflame]

I haven't read all this thread, as it broke down into fight between you and llama and I had no interest in reading it.

Link?
I apologize for my part in that unseemliness, Rascal. I probably should have stopped responding to Llama before I did.

Anyway...

Abortion case pits safety, law

Web Posted: 04/19/2007 11:12 PM CDT

Nicole Foy
Express-News

This week's Supreme Court decision upholding federal restrictions on abortions ignores medical evidence indicating the banned procedure is often safer for women than the alternative that physicians now must use, several doctors said Thursday.

The ruling marks the first time since the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision that the government placed the interests of fetal life above the health of the woman, said Dr. Deborah McNabb, a retired local obstetrician/gynecologist who has performed abortions.

"These types of procedures are not common and people should understand that women are not out there getting them willy-nilly," she said. "But for those women who really need them, they shouldn't be punished."

Justices broke new ground Wednesday when they upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by Congress in 2003. Proponents hailed it as the first major win in a fight to overturn Roe itself, while opponents said it chips away at women's rights.

Studies show that 90 percent of abortions in the country happen during the first trimester. The procedure used in most cases, in which a doctor vacuums out embryonic tissue, is not affected by the new law.

Rather, the decision targets the small number of abortions occurring later in pregnancy in which a woman's cervix is dilated and the fetus is removed intact. The technique was designed for abortions performed between 15 and 20 weeks, when the fetus' head has grown too large to fit easily through the cervix, McNabb said.

"Partial birth abortion" is not a medical term, but it most closely relates to this procedure. Known as intact dilation and evacuation, it involves a doctor pulling a fetus' legs and torso out and puncturing the skull to make removal easier. Supporters of the ban call the procedure barbaric.

"This is definitely a victory for women and unborn children in Texas and in the United States," said Elizabeth Graham of Texas Right to Life.

The alternative method, which doctors must use now or face prosecution, involves dilating the cervix and removing the fetus in parts.

This procedure can lengthen operating time, involve bleeding and increase the risk of infection or hemorrhage due to the possibility of retained fetal parts in the uterus, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

"This decision discounts and disregards the medical consensus that intact dilation and evacuation is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions," said Dr. Douglas W. Laube, president of the 51,000-member medical organization. "Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment."

Some of the most recent statistics on the frequency of intact dilation and evacuation procedures show they are rarely done. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimated that 2,200 were done in the United States by 31 physicians in 2000. That accounts for about 0.17 percent of the 1.31 million abortions performed that year.

No comprehensive numbers exist on the number of procedures in Texas, where it is illegal to obtain an abortion past 16 weeks' gestation unless performed in a hospital or ambulatory center. Jeffery Hons, president of the local Planned Parenthood, said his clinics refer women wanting abortions past that time to one of its Austin locations that are licensed to perform them.

McNabb stressed that a woman seeking an abortion after her 15th week of pregnancy often does so because a sonogram or amniocentesis has shown the fetus has a major malformation or a chromosomal abnormality that is not compatible with life. Other circumstances include victims of incest or younger women who are either hiding or ignoring their pregnancies, she said.

There are also cases in which women have been diagnosed with malignant cancers during their pregnancies.

"Say they have other children at home — they don't want to sacrifice themselves in order to continue their pregnancies," she said.

Under the law, physicians who perform intact dilation and evacuation procedures can now face up to two years' imprisonment, McNabb said.

"(The justices) basically said women can still have abortions, but we're going to make physicians do a procedure they believe causes a greater risk to the woman," she said. "It's very callous."

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA042007.01A.abortion.reax.35bbee8.html

[Rascal]

Some people's sole existance it seems is to cause discourse. There are several on this board who that applies too.

While I'm sure Mcnabb is honorable and all that, I'd like something more concrete then "often" and from an unbiased source.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimated that 2,200 were done in the United States by 31 physicians in 2000. That accounts for about 0.17 percent of the 1.31 million abortions performed that year. That's sickening.

[ant1999e]

Some people's sole existance it seems is to cause discourse. There are several on this board who that applies too.

While I'm sure Mcnabb is honorable and all that, I'd like something more concrete then "often" and from an unbiased source.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimated that 2,200 were done in the United States by 31 physicians in 2000. That accounts for about 0.17 percent of the 1.31 million abortions performed that year. That's sickening.

She is hiding behind the "danger to the life of the mother" fog. She has already made it clear that her only concern is the right of the woman to do with her body what she feels regardless of if there are health issues or not.

[Blueflame]

Some people's sole existance it seems is to cause discourse. There are several on this board who that applies too.

While I'm sure Mcnabb is honorable and all that, I'd like something more concrete then "often" and from an unbiased source.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimated that 2,200 were done in the United States by 31 physicians in 2000. That accounts for about 0.17 percent of the 1.31 million abortions performed that year. That's sickening.

It's a hot-button wedge issue, Rascal. I really don't think one could find a totally "unbiased" source where such a heated debate exists.

This article was already provided by Bendog back on Page 4 of the thread, but the relevant excerpt:

"Why Are D&X Procedures Performed?

This is a topic that is almost never discussed during public debates:
*** 1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.
*** 2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including:
*** She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.
*** There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.
*** The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.
*** 3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:
*** The fetus is dead.
*** The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
*** The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
*** The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.

There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons.

The physician is faced with two main alternatives at this late point in pregnancy:
*** a hysterotomy, which is similar to a Cesarean section, or
*** a D&X procedure

A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies." 2 Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her and the fetus.

There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X. Of course, many physicians lack this level of skill, and so need to resort to the D&X procedure. And, even in the United States, not all women have access to good quality pre-natal care. The U.S. is the only developed country on Earth that does not have a federal universal health care program. Many pregnant women first seek medical attention when they are about to deliver.

A committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) thoroughly studied D&X procedures in 1996. They reported: "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." They also determined that "an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision." Their statement was approved by the ACOG executive board on 1997-JAN-12. 3"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

[ant1999e]

This may sound cold hearted, but IMO the benefit of no longer having partial birth abortions and saving all those babies is worth the .01% of that one medical reason.

If this offends somebody or lowers your opinion of me, sorry, but there has to be a voice to protect those who have none.

To protect the choice of the mother giving birth, how about the unborn child? How about protecting their choice and their rights. IMO this, partial birth abortion, is nothing more then murder.

I agree partial birth abortion crosses the line when it comes to "acceptible abortions".

[Rascal]

It's a hot-button wedge issue, Rascal. I really don't think one could find a totally "unbiased" source where such a heated debate exists.

This article was already provided by Bendog back on Page 4 of the thread, but the relevant excerpt:

"Why Are D&X Procedures Performed?

This is a topic that is almost never discussed during public debates:
*** 1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.
*** 2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including:
*** She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.
*** There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.
*** The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.
*** 3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:
*** The fetus is dead.
*** The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
*** The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
*** The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.

There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons.

The physician is faced with two main alternatives at this late point in pregnancy:
*** a hysterotomy, which is similar to a Cesarean section, or
*** a D&X procedure

A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies." 2 Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her and the fetus.

There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X. Of course, many physicians lack this level of skill, and so need to resort to the D&X procedure. And, even in the United States, not all women have access to good quality pre-natal care. The U.S. is the only developed country on Earth that does not have a federal universal health care program. Many pregnant women first seek medical attention when they are about to deliver.

A committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) thoroughly studied D&X procedures in 1996. They reported: "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." They also determined that "an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision." Their statement was approved by the ACOG executive board on 1997-JAN-12. 3"

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

Funny they fail to mention a women's desire to no longer have the kid as a reason why they are done in the third trimester, when it's a fact that there are some surgeons out there who do that regularly.

There ya go. So outlawing it is not putting their life in danger.

[Blueflame]

Funny they fail to mention a women's desire to no longer have the kid as a reason why they are done in the third trimester, when it's a fact that there are some surgeons out there who do that regularly.

There ya go. So outlawing it is not putting their life in danger.
I'd say that perhaps "they fail to mention a woman's desire to longer have the kid as a reason why they are done in the third trimester" because that doesn't happen often enough for it to be statistically significant...

No apparently the USSC decision outlaws only one specific procedure (leaving others still OK'ed), which means that the fetus will instead be dismembered in utero (definitely not a better option, imho...)... so the legislation essentially accomplishes little to nothing. The $$ invested in this legislative effort could have been better spent on research into the causes of profound fetal defects and ways to prevent them.

Noteworthy is the timeline when "most" late-term abortions occur... it closely follows the usual timing of one of the routine prenatal ultrasound exams.

[ant1999e]

I'd say that perhaps "they fail to mention a woman's desire to longer have the kid as a reason why they are done in the third trimester" because that doesn't happen often enough for it to be statistically significant...

No apparently the USSC decision outlaws only one specific procedure (leaving others still OK'ed), which means that the fetus will instead be dismembered in utero... so the legislation essentially accomplishes little to nothing. The $$ invested in this legislative effort could have been better spent on research into the causes of profound fetal defects and ways to prevent them.

Noteworthy is the timeline when "most" late-term abortions occur... it closely follows the usual timing of one of the routine prenatal ultrasound exams.

So why are you bitching so much about it then?

[Blueflame]

So why are you b****ing so much about it then?

Because I think medical decisions should be made by doctors and not by politicians... and the alternative procedure is, in my opinion, far worse for both the mother and the fetus.

[ant1999e]

Because I think medical decisions should be made by doctors and not by politicians... and the alternative procedure is, in my opinion, far worse for both the mother and the fetus.

What could be worse than getting stabbed in the back of the head and then having your brain vaccumed out?

[Blueflame]

What could be worse than getting stabbed in the back of the head and then having your brain vaccumed out?

Dunno about you, but one of the last ways I'd want to die is by dismemberment.

[Rascal]

No actual numbers, but then 1 IMO is too high.

I agree money should be better spent, but IMO all abortions except for cases of insest, actual risks to the mother, and rape should be outlawed regardless of what trimester it is. So this happens to remove one possibility, and I agree unfortunately no clause about the mothers health, that is one less procedure to kill a child that never had the chance to hear their voice heard.

I've said all that I'm going to say on the topic. My stance is apparent and firm, and you aren't going to sway from yours. No point in debating it further.

[Blueflame]

No actual numbers, but then 1 IMO is too high.

I agree money should be better spent, but IMO all abortions except for cases of insest, actual risks to the mother, and rape should be outlawed regardless of what trimester it is. So this happens to remove one possibility, and I agree unfortunately no clause about the mothers health, that is one less procedure to kill a child that never had the chance to hear their voice heard.

I've said all that I'm going to say on the topic. My stance is apparent and firm, and you aren't going to sway from yours. No point in debating it further.
One unnecessary maternal death is too many, too. IMO.

One further speculation on the "elective" late-term abortions, if I may, Rascal... I really don't think many doctors (of the 31 in the US who are willing to perform late-term abortions) are likely to be willing to risk prosecution or losing their medical license by doing such a procedure unless the ... um... (monetary) "compensation" makes it worth his while. This type of abortion isn't being performed on poor women; it's those with enough $$ to get what they want. And no laws will affect them because money talks.

Know what? My staunchest belief is that an ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure. ;)

[bendog]

To summarize,

It seems that most of these procedures are done when the fetus will not become a living child. I think every sane person realizes these pregnancies should be terminated, even if the "birth" would not kill the mother. No woman should be forced to carry a non-viable fetus. The question becomes was congress right for deciding that health risks to the mother are outweighed by the ethical consideration of the fetus should die without ever becoming conscious, rather than be exposed to whatever pain and fear the procedure entailed. Personally, I'm sort of ok with that. The AMA weighs in and says other procedures should be used, but the decision should be left to the mother and doc. I sort of wish congress had left open a more direct way for a woman to get judicial oversight. It could be that in some hypothetical/possible case, the woman has some reason why alternative means are not so easy to come by. But the law is just really about political point getting at the national level.

A few docs appear to do this procedure electively. This seems to show that the AMA is not really able to police itself. And, I wonder if that doesn't make some of the conservative fears on cloning more believable.

I cannot imagine a majority of voters in even the most liberal states not demanding that the state legislators enact some model statute banning the procedure on a state by state basis.

[Spider]

Just glad I didnt have to face this choice ...........But I didnt have a kid as stupid as Yavoon or Barry Ramey , some others I can think of also ......

[Blueflame]

To summarize,

It seems that most of these procedures are done when the fetus will not become a living child. I think every sane person realizes these pregnancies should be terminated, even if the "birth" would not kill the mother. No woman should be forced to carry a non-viable fetus. The question becomes was congress right for deciding that health risks to the mother are outweighed by the ethical consideration of the fetus should die without ever becoming conscious, rather than be exposed to whatever pain and fear the procedure entailed. Personally, I'm sort of ok with that. The AMA weighs in and says other procedures should be used, but the decision should be left to the mother and doc. I sort of wish congress had left open a more direct way for a woman to get judicial oversight. It could be that in some hypothetical/possible case, the woman has some reason why alternative means are not so easy to come by. But the law is just really about political point getting at the national level.

A few docs appear to do this procedure electively. This seems to show that the AMA is not really able to police itself. And, I wonder if that doesn't make some of the conservative fears on cloning more believable.

I cannot imagine a majority of voters in even the most liberal states not demanding that the state legislators enact some model statute banning the procedure on a state by state basis.

Actually, I think individual states do put restrictions on late-term abortions, Bendog. Perhaps that's why only 31 doctors in the country will perform them at all (some state laws being more strict than others). Hey, it would be great if all fetuses were normal and healthy and if all mothers would be able to deliver them without complications. But sometimes stuff happens and the laws shouldn't prevent patients from receiving necessary (life-saving) medical treatment even if the patient happens to be pregnant.

[Garcia Bronco]

Here's the senario...

Your wife is delivering...and the complication arises that she will die or give birth. One or the other.....you are her husband....what do you do?


What if you chose your wife over the unborn, and the doctor refuses to save her?

[Blueflame]

Here's the senario...

Your wife is delivering...and the complication arises that she will die or give birth. One or the other.....you are her husband....what do you do?


What if you chose your wife over the unborn, and the doctor refuses to save her?

... and what if you have other small children at home that you will have to raise on your own without a mother? I know beyond the shadow of a doubt which decision my husband would have made had we been in such dire, unfortunate circumstances.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Because I think medical decisions should be made by doctors and not by politicians... and the alternative procedure is, in my opinion, far worse for both the mother and the fetus.

Every doctor I know praised the decision and wished that there was legislation that did away with late-term abortions altogether.

[Blueflame]

The New England Journal of Medicine disagrees with "every doctor you know", then...

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/blog/2007/04/journal_decries.html

I'd like to find ways to avoid or cure the fetal defects that are the catalyst for the vast majority of them....

[ant1999e]

The New England Journal of Medicine disagrees with "every doctor you know", then...

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/blog/2007/04/journal_decries.html

I'd like to find ways to avoid or cure the fetal defects that are the catalyst for the vast majority of them....

If we had a cure you would still have the same position so it wouldn't matter.

[Blueflame]

If we had a cure you would still have the same position so it wouldn't matter.

If there were a cure for fetal abnormalities, it would drastically reduce the number of women who seek late-term abortions, and in that case, those babies would be saved. Win/win if you ask me.

That said, I would still oppose politicians attempting to practice medicine without a license... they should leave medical decisions to the trained professionals with the education and experience to know what they're doing. A government that has the power to outlaw abortion also has the power to mandate it, a la China's strict one-child policy. Yeah, one can say "they wouldn't do that"... but do you really trust Big Government enough to be convinced that they never will? I don't. It's only a small step from that to only allowing "certain" citizens (read: the wealthy) the "privilege" of procreation. Once the genie gets out of the bottle (allowing governmental interference in citizens' private medical decisions), you can't put it back... they'll take more and more power.

[ant1999e]

If there were a cure for fetal abnormalities, it would drastically reduce the number of women who seek late-term abortions, and in that case, those babies would be saved. Win/win if you ask me.

That said, I would still oppose politicians attempting to practice medicine without a license... they should leave medical decisions to the trained professionals with the education and experience to know what they're doing. A government that has the power to outlaw abortion also has the power to mandate it, a la China's strict one-child policy. Yeah, one can say "they wouldn't do that"... but do you really trust Big Government enough to be convinced that they never will? I don't. It's only a small step from that to only allowing "certain" citizens (read: the wealthy) the "privilege" of procreation. Once the genie gets out of the bottle (allowing governmental interference in citizens' private medical decisions), you can't put it back... they'll take more and more power.

Well I must say, that is a much better argument than the dying mother one. It' a little extreme but at least it's different.:thumbsup:

[epicSocialism4tw]

If there were a cure for fetal abnormalities, it would drastically reduce the number of women who seek late-term abortions, and in that case, those babies would be saved. Win/win if you ask me.
That said, I would still oppose politicians attempting to practice medicine without a license... they should leave medical decisions to the trained professionals with the education and experience to know what they're doing. A government that has the power to outlaw abortion also has the power to mandate it, a la China's strict one-child policy. Yeah, one can say "they wouldn't do that"... but do you really trust Big Government enough to be convinced that they never will? I don't. It's only a small step from that to only allowing "certain" citizens (read: the wealthy) the "privilege" of procreation. Once the genie gets out of the bottle (allowing governmental interference in citizens' private medical decisions), you can't put it back... they'll take more and more power.

Lets see...

You just argued that moving away from abortion in America moves us closer to the abortion mandate in China?

That's absurd. There is a practical application of law. Connecting the practical application of "no late term brain-suck-out-inhumane-abortions" to "every parent must have all children except for one aborted" just doesnt make any common sense.

Listen. The government already regulates the medical industry. Just like they do any other business. A regulation on abortion and other disgusting, inhumane procedures isnt any different than a moral decision placed in any other arena of private life. Your boss cant fire you if you get hurt doing his work. Not only that, but your boss is required to pay for your medical care and your time off. Your boss cant require ridiculous hours from you without some form of additional incentive. Your children cannot be forced into labor. You cannot physically abuse a child. You cannot kill another person. Etc, etc. There are ethical and moral laws in every avenue of our lives. There are statutes out there that protect the sanctity of the community from behaviors that affect others in the community in a negative fashion. If killing another person while they are growing in utero isnt harming another person, I dont know what is. You have egregiously robbed that person of their entire life. That person has no voice.

Well, they could be unconscious while they are getting their skull stabbed with scissors, so it must be okay.

[epicSocialism4tw]

A 12-WEEK FETUS REACTS TO A SUCTION ABORTION

Dr. Bernard Nathan son - a former abortionist - narrates the video, “The Silent Scream:” a real time fetal ultrasound video of a live 12-week fetus undergoing a suction abortion:

Part 6 “The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; …and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist’s suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open…” (25)

Part 7 “The child’s heart rate speeds up dramatically…[as the suction catheter makes contact with the fetus]. She moves violently away in an]…attempt to escape the instrument….” (25)

In an article in the London Telegraph on 8/28/2000 titled “British Medical Experts Say Unborn Children Feel Pain During Abortion,” Dr. and Mrs. J. C. Wilke, comment on the abortion video “The Silent Scream” [above]:

“…What of The Silent Scream? A Real-time ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12- week suction abortion is commercially available as, The Silent Scream, narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby’s mouth clearly opens wide — hence, the title…” (26)

DILATION and EXTRACTION (D and X); aka PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION

Used in well developed 2nd and 3rd trimester pregnancies. The cervix is dilated over a period of time. The fetus is located via ultrasound, which serves to guide the entrance of forceps into the mother’s womb. A foot is grasped and the fetus is placed into a face-down breech (feet first) delivery position. The fetus is then pulled out of the uterus, but keeping the head still inside the mother’s cervix. Surgical scissors are then inserted into the skull at the back of the neck and an opening is thus enlarged to allow placement of a large-bore suction catheter attached to high powered suction. The fetal brain is then suctioned out of the fetal cranial vault. The fetus is now dead and the delivery is completed. (19,20,16,21,17)

3rd TRIMESTER

@ 7 months:
***Eyelids blink. (2,7,6)
***Eyes look around. (2,7)
***Hands grasp is strong. (2,7)
***Child recognizes mother‘s voice from others. (2,7)
***Mother aware when child hiccups. (7)

@ 8 months:
***Child senses difference between light and darkness through mother’s abdomen. (7)
***Taste taste-buds functional; child prefers sweet to sour. (7)
***Smiling, frowning, yawning and swallowing observed. (7)

@ 9 months:
***The now fully formed & developed child triggers labor and birth occurs, usually 255-275 days after conception. (27)

[epicSocialism4tw]

Please, educate yourself on what abortion really is. Look at the procedures. Educate yourself on the developmental characteristics of a child in-utero during all three trimesters.

Here is an instructional video by abortionist Dr. Nathanson on how some earlier abortions are done:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gjz2kB1y74A&mode=related&search=

Here's an actual real-time ultrasound video of a 12 week abortion (very common procedure). You can see the child scramble away from the abortionist's suction device in a fight or flight reaction to save its own life. Truly startling stuff. (quality is bad, but hang on until the ultrasound at about 4.5 minutes in). Part 3 of above.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WYV46OvOkHw

If you can still find a way to rationalize abortions of convenience after understanding what they are, then you probably should leave the ethical and moral decisions in the hands of the better capable.

Abortions dont solve problems, they just make different ones:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=w6Z9sLqgb1U&mode=related&search=

Abortions are only for mothers in grave danger?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH6zN4pMrhw&NR=1

[Blueflame]

Lets see...

You just argued that moving away from abortion in America moves us closer to the abortion mandate in China?

That's absurd. There is a practical application of law. Connecting the practical application of "no late term brain-suck-out-inhumane-abortions" to "every parent must have all children except for one aborted" just doesnt make any common sense.

Listen. The government already regulates the medical industry. Just like they do any other business. A regulation on abortion and other disgusting, inhumane procedures isnt any different than a moral decision placed in any other arena of private life. Your boss cant fire you if you get hurt doing his work. Not only that, but your boss is required to pay for your medical care and your time off. Your boss cant require ridiculous hours from you without some form of additional incentive. Your children cannot be forced into labor. You cannot physically abuse a child. You cannot kill another person. Etc, etc. There are ethical and moral laws in every avenue of our lives. There are statutes out there that protect the sanctity of the community from behaviors that affect others in the community in a negative fashion. If killing another person while they are growing in utero isnt harming another person, I dont know what is. You have egregiously robbed that person of their entire life. That person has no voice.

Well, they could be unconscious while they are getting their skull stabbed with scissors, so it must be okay.
The argument made is against giving government the power to supercede the individual medical decisions made by a patient and healthcare provider. Such a power can and will be abused...perhaps in ways one might not anticipate. Why is it that Republicans... who say they want smaller government... have no problem whatsoever with expansion of the scope of governmental powers to include intrusion into medical examination rooms?

As to the workplace laws you cited... thank the unions for those. But they're irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The argument made is against giving government the power to supercede the individual medical decisions made by a patient and healthcare provider. Such a power can and will be abused...perhaps in ways one might not anticipate. Why is it that Republicans... who say they want smaller government... have no problem whatsoever with expansion of the scope of governmental powers to include intrusion into medical examination rooms?

First off, you would be surprised as to what "the government" has access to as far as personal privacy goes in the world of medical information. That's what we are talking about in medicine when we are talking about privacy. We're not talking about available procedures.

The medical industry is comprised of businessmen. Your doctor is a businessman. He may be a nice guy, but he's a businessman. There are logistical concerns in medicine just like there are in other industries. Many doctors will practice with the ethical and moral concerns of the patient in mind. Those doctors will decide not to give patients abortions. I gather that you wouldnt mind if the government intervened to force the doctor to perform a procedure that he would be morally and ethically opposed to. I think that you have made your position clear that you are concerned only for the ready availability of abortions for everyone who wants them. The "government intrusion" argument that you brought in is just a rationalization, and a poor one at that.

As to the workplace laws you cited... thank the unions for those. But they're irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

They are certainly relevant. They are ethical laws that keep our society from feeding on itself. It would be nice if we had laws to keep mothers from cannabalizing their children so that they can chase their dreams.

When they take the responsibility into their hands of procreating, so comes the responsibility of childbirth.

A law that promotes the irresponsible handling of human life cannot provide our society with anything of benefit.

[bendog]

Many doctors will practice with the ethical and moral concerns of the patient in mind. Those doctors will decide not to give patients abortions.
--
Not necessarily. The problem is that you consider anyone who would suggest a woman has a right to have an abortion is immoral. That position is without support in polls, history and even in religion.

I disagree with Blue to an extent however. The govt has a place in determining what care we can ask for. The govt regulates drugs. If I get cancer, there are some treatments I cannot get. The govt has regulations restricting when psych patients can be given electro-shock. The govt even indirectly controls what procedures our private insurance covers. For example in the past 5-10 years, medicare regulations on who should have colonoscopies, and how often, have changed. Insurance companies follow in Medicare's footsteps.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Many doctors will practice with the ethical and moral concerns of the patient in mind. Those doctors will decide not to give patients abortions.
--
Not necessarily. The problem is that you consider anyone who would suggest a woman has a right to have an abortion is immoral. That position is without support in polls, history and even in religion.

I can think of well over 50 doctors I know that would advise patients against abortions in all circumstances save one, and the one circumstance that they would leave to the mother would be the one that puts her life at risk, and some of those doctors that I mentioned would probably nudge her to go through with the pregnancy.

Abortion is immoral. There is no grey area with abortion. It's simple. Some people would rather look away than to look at it. That right there should tell you that something is amiss. It's time for a return to common sense and away from the multi-billion dollar abortion industry and their lobby.

I disagree with Blue to an extent however. The govt has a place in determining what care we can ask for. The govt regulates drugs. If I get cancer, there are some treatments I cannot get. The govt has regulations restricting when psych patients can be given electro-shock. The govt even indirectly controls what procedures our private insurance covers. For example in the past 5-10 years, medicare regulations on who should have colonoscopies, and how often, have changed. Insurance companies follow in Medicare's footsteps.

Anyone dealing with medicare or medicaid should be able to attest to "government intrusion" into medical care.

[bendog]

No, abortion is sometimes the less bad of several options. I dislike Roe because it gives cover to absolutist arguments like yours, which when forced to choose, most Americans will, and do, reject.

[epicSocialism4tw]

No, abortion is sometimes the less bad of several options. I dislike Roe because it gives cover to absolutist arguments like yours, which when forced to choose, most Americans will, and do, reject.

You speak as though absolutes are evil. When we're talking about the life of a helpless individual on his or her way into our community, there is only one option. Hold standards high, and support those who fail, but dont excuse immoral and unethical behavior by lowering standards into the mud.

[bendog]

It isn't immoral for a woman who is pregnant and who will be ostracized or even abused for being so to have an abortion. Before your moral absolutes are anything but wishful thinking without any real basis, hyperbole, you'll have to change society and raise taxes quite a bit to put in the social net for women, and even then, all the "not bad" reasons to have abortions will not be ended.

[Blueflame]

First off, you would be surprised as to what "the government" has access to as far as personal privacy goes in the world of medical information. That's what we are talking about in medicine when we are talking about privacy. We're not talking about available procedures.

The medical industry is comprised of businessmen. Your doctor is a businessman. He may be a nice guy, but he's a businessman. There are logistical concerns in medicine just like there are in other industries. Many doctors will practice with the ethical and moral concerns of the patient in mind. Those doctors will decide not to give patients abortions. I gather that you wouldnt mind if the government intervened to force the doctor to perform a procedure that he would be morally and ethically opposed to. I think that you have made your position clear that you are concerned only for the ready availability of abortions for everyone who wants them. The "government intrusion" argument that you brought in is just a rationalization, and a poor one at that.

They are certainly relevant. They are ethical laws that keep our society from feeding on itself. It would be nice if we had laws to keep mothers from cannabalizing their children so that they can chase their dreams.

When they take the responsibility into their hands of procreating, so comes the responsibility of childbirth.

A law that promotes the irresponsible handling of human life cannot provide our society with anything of benefit.
And you'd be wrong... not that it would be the first time. :P I'm opposed to governmental interference either way. If abortion is against a doctor's individual religious beliefs, then I certainly believe he should be able to decline to perform them. However, in that case, he might be better suited to a field like pediatrics rather than obstetrics/gynecology. If he does object to abortion on religious grounds, yet still goes into the women's healthcare field, then he needs to be prepared to refer his patients to another healthcare provider in the event that they want/need a procedure he isn't comfortable with providing.

It's not rocket science, Llama... I think licensed healthcare providers should make medical decisions instead of politicians....

[Blueflame]

Many doctors will practice with the ethical and moral concerns of the patient in mind. Those doctors will decide not to give patients abortions.
--
Not necessarily. The problem is that you consider anyone who would suggest a woman has a right to have an abortion is immoral. That position is without support in polls, history and even in religion.

I disagree with Blue to an extent however. The govt has a place in determining what care we can ask for. The govt regulates drugs. If I get cancer, there are some treatments I cannot get. The govt has regulations restricting when psych patients can be given electro-shock. The govt even indirectly controls what procedures our private insurance covers. For example in the past 5-10 years, medicare regulations on who should have colonoscopies, and how often, have changed. Insurance companies follow in Medicare's footsteps.
Most of the laws regarding what treatments a patient can request/obtain are determined by states; not the federal government. Actually, I think things like the use of medical marijuana to ease the suffering of cancer patients should be legal.

Why is it that a lot of private insurance companies will cover Viagra but won't cover oral contraceptives? (misogyny, imo)

In recent years, I'm rather concerned that the federal government has been too lax in its oversight of Big Pharma... in the wake of the Vioxx and Fen-Phen lawsuits, it seems that pharmaceutical companies have been given immunity from lawsuits if consumers suffer adverse reactions to their products. The result is that new "medicines" are being advertised all the time on television... some of those meds not only have little to no effectiveness, they can be harmful. Of particular concern to me is the rush to make the new Gardasil vaccine mandatory... it's so new to the market that we can't be certain of possible side effects... or if the product is effective enough to even make it worthwhile.

[Bronco Bob]

I can think of well over 50 doctors I know that would advise patients against abortions in all circumstances save one, and the one circumstance that they would leave to the mother would be the one that puts her life at risk, and some of those doctors that I mentioned would probably nudge her to go through with the pregnancy.

How do you know 50 doctors, let alone 50 opposed to abortions?

Abortion is immoral. There is no grey area with abortion. It's simple. Some people would rather look away than to look at it. That right there should tell you that something is amiss.

No more immoral than any other medical procedure.

It's time for a return to common sense and away from the multi-billion dollar abortion industry and their lobby.

That's just plain nuts. There is no abortion industry, or lobbying group.
There are women's rights groups such as NOW that defend a woman's
right to an abortion, but they certainly aren't lobbying for industrial
scale abortion.

[bendog]

Sure there's an abortion industry. But the anti-abortion groups don't want identified. It's the multi-national profit first culture that places working wages and support for single moms second, or even third or fourth, in concerns. It's just a smokescreen to hide the true culprits to argue that the docs and nurses who work in abortion clinics are "an abortion industry." They could make more money in safter conditions working elsewhere, but because they believe women have a right to choose, they work for thier ideals.

Unfortunately corporations don't want to pay the tax and wages, nor do most of us and especially the richest 5% want to pay the taxes, to create a society where abortion would be "unthinkable." It's greed. And then they deflect by ..... blaming the woman. Blame the victim, it's a timeless strategy.

[Crushaholic]

OK. I'm really tired of the misinformation being spread about kids born with "water on the brain" (hydrocephalus). Modern science has made it so that the majority of these kids live. The "fatal abnormalities" argument is just a codeword for not dealing with the "inconvenience" of a handicapped child...

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/hydrocephalus/hydrocephalus.htm#What_is

Hydrocephalus is a condition in which the primary characteristic is excessive accumulation of fluid in the brain. Although hydrocephalus was once known as "water on the brain," the "water" is actually cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) -- a clear fluid surrounding the brain and spinal cord. The excessive accumulation of CSF results in an abnormal dilation of the spaces in the brain called ventricles. This dilation causes potentially harmful pressure on the tissues of the brain. Hydrocephalus may be congenital or acquired. Congenital hydrocephalus is present at birth and may be caused by genetic abnormalities or developmental disorders such as spina bifida and encephalocele. Acquired hydrocephalus develops at the time of birth or at some point afterward and can affect individuals of all ages. For example, hydrocephalus ex-vacuo occurs when there is damage to the brain caused by stroke or traumatic injury.

....

Hydrocephalus is most often treated with the surgical placement of a shunt system. This system diverts the flow of CSF from a site within the central nervous system to another area of the body where it can be absorbed as part of the circulatory process. A limited number of patients can be treated with an alternative procedure called third ventriculostomy. In this procedure, a small hole is made in the floor of the third ventricle, allowing the CSF to bypass the obstruction and flow toward the site of resorption around the surface of the brain.

...

The prognosis for patients diagnosed with hydrocephalus is difficult to predict, although there is some correlation between the specific cause of hydrocephalus and the patient's outcome. Prognosis is further complicated by the presence of associated disorders, the timeliness of diagnosis, and the success of treatment. The symptoms of normal pressure hydrocephalus usually get worse over time if the condition is not treated, although some people may experience temporary improvements. If left untreated, progressive hydrocephalus is fatal, with rare exceptions. The parents of children with hydrocephalus should be aware that hydrocephalus poses risks to both cognitive and physical development. Treatment by an interdisciplinary team of medical professionals, rehabilitation specialists, and educational experts is critical to a positive outcome. Many children diagnosed with the disorder benefit from rehabilitation therapies and educational interventions, and go on to lead normal lives with few limitations.

________________________________________________

As the article states, left untreated, the condition could be fatal. HOWEVER, this has very little to do with the health of the mother. If the mother's life is truly in danger, it's most likely due to other causes.

[bendog]

Crush, not exactly.

Under what health circumstances are D&X abortions performed?

There is currently no statistical information available on why "dilation and extraction" abortions are performed.

In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development.

Yet the procedure is also performed in cases where the woman's health is at risk, or when the fetus shows signs of serious abnormalities, some of which don't become apparent until late in pregnancy.

Take, for example, cases in which the fetus develops hydrocephalus (commonly known as water on the brain). Often undetectable until well into the second three months of pregnancy, the condition causes enlargement of the skull up to two-and-a-half times its normal size. It not only results in severe brain damage to the fetus, it can also create severe health risks to the mother if she tries to deliver it vaginally.

Some doctors say D&X abortion is a preferable method for ending such pregnancies without damaging the woman's cervix. Those in the anti-abortion camp, however, argue that the procedure is never medically necessary, noting that enough fluid can be drained from hydrocephalus babies in the womb to ensure a safe delivery.

Indeed, many abortion opponents believe even severely deformed fetuses should be delivered regardless of their prospects for a healthy life.

"We don't believe that sick babies -- babies with disabilities -- should be pulled out by the legs and struck through the head," Right to Life's Johnson told The New Republic. "We believe they should live out their life -- whether it's a few minutes or six hours."

Are there any alternatives to these procedures?

Sometimes. Labor can be induced, or the fetus can be removed by caesarian section in some cases.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5168163

this piece differs from the religious tolerance and AMA links I put up earlier. Those indicate that children with the very severe and large type of hydrocephalus will not live, rather than "just" being severely disabled. I'd think we'd need a teaching obstetrician to explain this/these disorders, but perhaps one reason for confustion is:

CSF flows through a series of openings or foramens in the brain and out into the subarachnoid space where it is reabsorbed by the venous system. If the CSF pathways are obstructed or obliterated by developmental or acquired abnormalities, CSF accumulates under pressure within the ventricular system. The ventricles begin to dilate, causing thinning and stretching of the cerebral mantle. This condition is called hydrocephalus.

The brain can accommodate ventricular dilatation to a certain extent without significant neuronal damage. As the process continues, however, irreversible brain damage inevitably occurs.
.....

It is important to distinguish hydrocephalus from ventricular enlargement or ventriculomegaly, which can also be caused by brain destruction and morphological maldevelopment. The diagnostic distinction can be difficult to make, particularly with ultrasound alone, but is critical because fetal ventriculomegaly from a destructive or maldevelopment process carries a poor prognosis. In these cases, such as hydrancephaly and holoprosencephaly, the ventricles are not only relatively enlarged but also often distorted due to overlying parenchymal abnormalities. Fetal ventriculomegaly is frequently associated with other severe developmental abnormalities, and this combination presents a uniformly dismal outcome.

http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp

Additionally, other defects such as spina bifida seem to be involved as well in more severe instances of ventriculomegaly. Althought ventriculomegaly in a mild form seems to be farily common and pretty much resolves itself.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Sure there's an abortion industry. But the anti-abortion groups don't want identified. It's the multi-national profit first culture that places working wages and support for single moms second, or even third or fourth, in concerns. It's just a smokescreen to hide the true culprits to argue that the docs and nurses who work in abortion clinics are "an abortion industry." They could make more money in safter conditions working elsewhere, but because they believe women have a right to choose, they work for thier ideals.

From Dr. Anthony Levatino, an Abortionist OBGYN:
"Why do doctors do abortions? There are many reasons. It's profitable, there's a lot of money in it! ...you find out you make a lot of money doing abortions. In my practice we were averaging between $250 and $500 for an abortion, and it was cash."


OBGYN's doing specialty surgeries (in this case abortions among others) would certainly average out in the top quarter of OBGYN salaries, and well over the average of $240,000.00/yr. It's not only the doctors that we are looking at, but the companies that provide surgery prep, equipment, drugs, staff, rooms, etc. This is a large industry that is tied in with the OBGYN arm of health care.

The doctors office is only part of the equation that also includes large PAC's and lobby groups who have effectively tripled the pro-life groups in campaign contributions over the past 16 years.

Pro Life: $5,310,015
Pro Abortion: $14,528,238

Unfortunately corporations don't want to pay the tax and wages, nor do most of us and especially the richest 5% want to pay the taxes, to create a society where abortion would be "unthinkable." It's greed. And then they deflect by ..... blaming the woman. Blame the victim, it's a timeless strategy.

Women have a choice not to become impregnated. Men have a choice not to impregnate a woman. It's very simple, and very easy.

You cannot blame that one on "the rich".

[bendog]

LLama',

The anit-abortion nutters have protested docs homes, as well as attacked them, to the pt that planned parenthood has to go out and recruit. Stop spamming from your nutter sites and stick with some facts.

I was listening to NPR on the way in, and there was a piece on Indianola, Miss. (BBKing) Little white girl down from the north was doing a two year stint with Miss Teacher Corp, which gets teachers for the public schools. She said 60% of her 15 yr-old female students are pregnant or have children, some having more than one child. Further, they aren't getting pregnant by the 15 yr-old boys, but by the 19and20 yr-old boys hanging out on the street corners they go by on their way home. Miss has the some of most restrictive abortion laws, and there is only one clinic offering abortions in the state, and that's in Jackson, roughly 120 miles from Indianola. She and a retired superintendt were commenting that abstinence education is not working for these girls, and once they have a child, most likely any chance of escaping poverty is over.

Too bad Imus didn't do a show on this. Hip-hop my ass.

AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN AND ADOLESCENT PREGNANCY
Adolescent pregnancy is a chronic concern in the African American community. Early childbearing compromises a young female’s opportunity to attain a high level of education and employment. Teen mothers are more likely to live in poverty and the overall quality of a young mother’s life is impacted.

Although teen pregnancy rates have declined, young Black females are still two to three times more likely than White females to conceive during their adolescent years. It is still evident that while some progress has been made, a continued focus on the reproductive and overall health needs of young women is necessary. The Project supports efforts that are targeted towards the reduction of teen pregnancy as well as the promotion of health behaviors.
http://www.blackwomenshealthproject.org/aaapregnancy.htm

Folks aren't exactly lining up to provide top notch health care and nice two parent suburban adoptive homes for these kids. Who are you, or who am I, to condemn a kid from opting for abortion to give herself a chance? And, yes. it's ironic what Miss is doing with denying the option to these kids.

A few facts.

Pregnancy
• Teen pregnancy rates fell from 117 pregnancies per 1,000
girls ages 15 to 19 in 1990 to 84 in 2000. This decrease
was sharpest among African Americans, dropping by more
than one-third from 1990 to 2000 (Figure 1).8
• While pregnancy rates are highest among African
American girls ages 15 to 19, Latinas have the highest
birthrates in this age group. The birthrate among Latinas
is 83 births per 1,000 girls, compared to 63 for African
Americans and 27 for Whites.9
• It is estimated that half of pregnancies among high school
students occur among girls who did not use contraception
during last intercourse.10
• The abortion rate for all women has fallen by 11% since
1994, but there are differences by age. Abortions have
decreased by 27% among 15- to 19-year-olds and 9%
among 20- to 24-year-olds. Women ages 20 to 24 remain
the age group that accounts for the highest proportion of
abortions. Half of all abortions occur among women
under the age of 25.11
• Thirty-four states require parental involvement in a
minors’ decision to have an abortion, up from 18 states in
1991. Twenty-two of these states require parental
consent and 13 require parental notification.12
Contraception and Protection
• High school students are increasingly likely to use
protection against pregnancy and STDs during sex. In
2005, 63% percent of high school students reported using
a condom the last time they had sexual intercourse, up
from 54% in 1995.3,6
• The most common methods of contraception are condoms
and birth control pills. Eighty-three percent of females
and 91% of males ages 15 to 19 who are sexually active
report using at least one method of birth control during
last intercourse.13
• While adolescents are more likely to use condoms, young
adults ages 18 to 24 are more likely to use birth control
pills, with 48% reporting they regularlyregularly use pills versus
only 30% of sexually active adolescents.14

http://www.kff.org/womenshealth/upload/3040-03.pdf

[epicSocialism4tw]

The anit-abortion nutters have protested docs homes, as well as attacked them, to the pt that planned parenthood has to go out and recruit. Stop spamming from your nutter sites and stick with some facts.

I guess that abortion doctors are "nutters", huh? There are plenty of facts in those quotes. The lobby numbers are direct from opensecrets.com . I dont think that it matters to you where any of the numbers come from. Just dont act like you are taking an objective look at the situation. If you were, you would at least consider dissenting opinion from the very people who once upheld the abortion industry at the point of service. The real decision makers.

Honestly, I would take your opinion with a grain of salt considering that your signature line says "fattys shark vacuum gets all my hair off of little girls' toys".

I was listening to NPR on the way in, and there was a piece on Indianola, Miss. (BBKing) Little white girl down from the north was doing a two year stint with Miss Teacher Corp, which gets teachers for the public schools. She said 60% of her 15 yr-old female students are pregnant or have children, some having more than one child. Further, they aren't getting pregnant by the 15 yr-old boys, but by the 19and20 yr-old boys hanging out on the street corners they go by on their way home. Miss has the some of most restrictive abortion laws, and there is only one clinic offering abortions in the state, and that's in Jackson, roughly 120 miles from Indianola. She and a retired superintendt were commenting that abstinence education is not working for these girls, and once they have a child, most likely any chance of escaping poverty is over.

See, there is the problem. I work with the people that you are talking about, and I deal with their situations daily. I organize and maintain afterschool programs and activities for the very children that you are talking about. You know, the ones that you would rather abort?

There are other options that new mothers can choose. They can grant the child it's deserved rights within the constitution and give it up to an adoption agency, which usually has parents waiting in line for newborns. Most of these children are raised by teams of parents, and usually by their grandmothers. For a typical look at what this looks like to a middle class white abortionist see Howard, Josh of the Dallas Mavericks.

Killing the child so that the mother doesnt suffer through poverty is a ridiculous idea. That wont teach them anything other that they can have sex all they want without suffering the consequences, and I'm sure that their sterility wouldnt matter to you, but sterility is a real consequence of abortion and these girls arent given education on abortion's risks. they are whisked in and shoved out the door in these places. Abortion clinics and places like planned parenthood arent doing society any favors by organizing wholesale abortions.

Also, you complain about my sources and come to the table with information from a known pro-abortion industry website? You are the pot, I am the kettle. We are both black.

[Blueflame]

I guess that abortion doctors are "nutters", huh? There are plenty of facts in those quotes. The lobby numbers are direct from opensecrets.com . I dont think that it matters to you where any of the numbers come from. Just dont act like you are taking an objective look at the situation. If you were, you would at least consider dissenting opinion from the very people who once upheld the abortion industry at the point of service. The real decision makers.

Honestly, I would take your opinion with a grain of salt considering that your signature line says "fattys shark vacuum gets all my hair off of little girls' toys".



See, there is the problem. I work with the people that you are talking about, and I deal with their situations daily. I organize and maintain afterschool programs and activities for the very children that you are talking about. You know, the ones that you would rather abort?

There are other options that new mothers can choose. They can grant the child it's deserved rights within the constitution and give it up to an adoption agency, which usually has parents waiting in line for newborns. Most of these children are raised by teams of parents, and usually by their grandmothers. For a typical look at what this looks like to a middle class white abortionist see Howard, Josh of the Dallas Mavericks.

Killing the child so that the mother doesnt suffer through poverty is a ridiculous idea. That wont teach them anything other that they can have sex all they want without suffering the consequences, and I'm sure that their sterility wouldnt matter to you, but sterility is a real consequence of abortion and these girls arent given education on abortion's risks. they are whisked in and shoved out the door in these places. Abortion clinics and places like planned parenthood arent doing society any favors by organizing wholesale abortions.

Also, you complain about my sources and come to the table with information from a known pro-abortion industry website? You are the pot, I am the kettle. We are both black.

Ah... finally... there it is. The real motivation... enforced parenthood has to be the punishment for those shameless hussies who choose to have sex. ::)

[epicSocialism4tw]

Ah... finally... there it is. The real motivation... enforced parenthood has to be the punishment for those shameless hussies who choose to have sex.


No. The real problem is, that women like you have tried to force their opinion down the throats of the "pitiful, helpless poor" that being a parent is not something to be treasured.

[Blueflame]

No. The real problem is, that women like you have tried to force their opinion down the throats of the "pitiful, helpless poor" that being a parent is not something to be treasured.

Parenthood is an incredibly rich blessing for those who are prepared to take on the responsibility. However, it can be a nightmare for both parent and child if the parent is not ready... emotionally, physically, or financially... to raise it properly.

As to "forcing down the throat"... I don't know if non-judgmentally allowing other females to make their own decisions in one of the most personal, private areas of their lives... qualifies. It's none of my business... but some zealots want to make it theirs.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Parenthood is an incredibly rich blessing for those who are prepared to take on the responsibility. However, it can be a nightmare for both parent and child if the parent is not ready... emotionally, physically, or financially... to raise it properly.

Who is ever ready for parenthood? You can plan all you want, but it's still a daily stretch. The difference between you and I is that I think that parenthood is the most important thing that the average human being can accomplish, where you think that there is a $100,000 salary at the end of every single person's life. We both know that that is not true. Your line of thinking is exactly what led China down the road that it has gone.

As to "forcing down the throat"... I don't know if non-judgmentally allowing other females to make their own decisions in one of the most personal, private areas of their lives... qualifies. It's none of my business... but some zealots want to make it theirs.

That's just ridiculous. An abortion does not affect only the mother. It affects the child more than anyone else. More than that, it affects potential uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, grandmas, grandfathers, friends, etc. Beyond that, it affects the community by affecting the perception of casual sex. It teaches people that there is no tangible consequence of casual sex. Whoever spawned the demonic idea that killing a child so that the mother doesnt have to suffer through unplanned parenthood should be ashamed. It's an awful, evil idea.

[bendog]

Llama,
you put up links from sites and people that are not objective, and who don't acknowledge that there are differing, but valid, views.

But the facts are that african american teenagers get abortions because they screwed up and got pregnant, or had some guy who was older than them knock them up cause he was too damn lazy to get a job to buy a condom, and having the kid will end whatever chance they have of making a better life. Change that fact of life, and you nutters might make some sense.

White teenagers get abortions because they don't want their parents/friends to know they got pregnant and/or they don't want to mess up their education in similar, though less disasterous, ways as black teenagers.

Latinas seem to be conscious of a culture where abortion is not an accepted choice.

College girls and young working women account for most of the abortions. I would guess their motivation is that of white teenagers.

Economic/education issues aside, some women are raped by their husbands; some girls will be punished and/or abused for being pregnant; some women get pregnant and they have too many responsibilities already to carry to term, let alone care for a kid, assuming they can't find nice yuppies to pay them for the kid.

Not all girls and women choose abortions. It's not something that most people want to choose. Society is doing a better job of making that choice easier. Rather than seeking to punish those whose behaviors fall short of our own, we need to focus more on support and finding homes for kids. Have you noticed the foster care rolls for african americans, btw. Those kids can't BUY families even if they had the money.

It's not an absolute world, no matter how you might wish it. The girls/women have to make a moral tradeoff. And making abortion illegal will hardly change that. And, Blue nailed your view. Your real issue is that if women are forced to carry a child to term, they will somehow behave more responsibly, and that all women should treasure being a parent. That's how it should be, but not how history teaches us people behave. Once the pill came on the scene, and children faced a culture where being sexually active in their teens was not only ok, but actually sold by corporations advertising stuff to them, the world you want to return to ended, forever.

[Blueflame]

Who is ever ready for parenthood? You can plan all you want, but it's still a daily stretch. The difference between you and I is that I think that parenthood is the most important thing that the average human being can accomplish, where you think that there is a $100,000 salary at the end of every single person's life. We both know that that is not true. Your line of thinking is exactly what led China down the road that it has gone.
Know what... I've never said or even suggested any of this nonsense.

That's just ridiculous. An abortion does not affect only the mother. It affects the child more than anyone else. More than that, it affects potential uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, grandmas, grandfathers, friends, etc. Beyond that, it affects the community by affecting the perception of casual sex. It teaches people that there is no tangible consequence of casual sex. Whoever spawned the demonic idea that killing a child so that the mother doesnt have to suffer through unplanned parenthood should be ashamed. It's an awful, evil idea.
Sure... abortion does affect the woman's family. However, some potential uncles, aunts, grandmas, grandfathers, etc... are the staunchest advocates that the woman choose abortion, particularly if she's physically immature.

Like it or not, casual sex has been around as long as humankind. IMO, it's wiser to teach teenagers about contraception and the use of condoms if they're going to become sexually active prior to marriage, as the vast majority of young people do. Sure, one can hide their head in the sand and say "they're not having sex" (yeah, right)... or they can sit back in judgment saying "that's what you get for 'sinning'".... but neither one of those actions solves a darn thing. Contraception does.

While abortion may be "an awful, evil idea"... it, too, has been around in some form or another as long as humankind. It's just a safer procedure today.