That's a five year old article by someone I don't recognize, Lash. I don't like the idea either for any reason but leave it up to the physician in charge -- I'm not in control of that. Right now it would be kind of a generalized kind of compassion for something I'm not convinced is as pervasive as some claim. I don't believe they've been performed solely because the mother is lying on the operating table and has had second thoughts about having a baby. I believe it is a red herring for the anti-abortionist to continue to show old photographs of partial birth abortions to try and sway the overwhelming majority of the American people who want abortions rights left intact. These are all opinions about partial birth abortions -- there's no recent data I can find on how many have been performed and for what reason., say for the year 2001. If one believes a fetus is cognizant that it is alive and an early abortion is killing the baby without its permission, I'm don't know what I can say about such thinking -- the same people seem to have no problem sending young people off to war to get killed. Their respect for life is very selective.
l.g. as an aside, in my career as a child-welfare investigator i had numerous cases involving death of a child. In most state that i know of those same legislators inacted statues calling that "child abuse resulting in death" which is a far cry from "murder". personally i would prefer that the charge should be murder.
dys and LW--
Value your words on this matter.
I guess I'm desperately hoping that people will see there are selective issues about abortion that should be looked at with discerning eyes, and not partisan ones.
I wouldn't support the overturning of RvW for anything. The human mess it would create would be unimaginable. And back alley abortions have been dashed from this country for all time, and rightfully so.
But some of the standing laws, such as the one we've discussed, must go, IMO.
* Refreshed and saw you, dys.
Couldn't agree with you more. Murder is murder! This is why I detest so-called 'hate crimes'. We are all just as dead, when murdered! Child abuse resulting in death? BS.
**What a gruesome job, dys. Mine was similar--Mental Health Counsellor, only I went into the community and homes...Used to have nightmares about hungry, abused children...
You?
Here's NARAL's fact sheet on "partial-birth" abortions, fyi:
http://www.naral.com/mediaresources/fact/pdfs/protect.pdf
And a recent NYT article:
Quote:Critics assert that the abortion method at issue is a grisly practice that amounts to partially delivering a fetus before aborting it. A ban on the practice passed Congress twice in the Clinton administration, only to be vetoed at the urging of abortion rights supporters who asserted that the procedure was sometimes necessary to protect a woman's health...
...Supporters of abortion rights assert that the restrictions being sought, while seemingly incremental, are an effort to chip away at the basic right to abortion. Ms. Michelman, of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, said, "We're going to see, legislatively, some difficult months ahead."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/02/politics/02ABOR.html
Lash Goth -- Please re-read your article. The quote which I pulled from your article does not speak to partial-birth abortions. It speaks to all abortions.
You say one thing, the article you like says another. It says it very clearly. Here, I'll requote including a few earlier lines, just so we all know:
"Do I favor a ban on all abortions? Absolutely not.
"I understand that abortion, like so many other issues, is not black or white but rather a shade of gray. Each situation depends on the circumstances. Obviously a mother who faces the possibility of death should have an option to choose.
"A mother who wants to use an abortion for purely birth-control purposes should not have that option. By extending an almost absolute right to an abortion, this country has had to face the unfortunate divisions that Roe v. Wade created."
...............
Now please, where does it mention first trimester? That is saying in English for us all to read that women should not be allowed to use abortion for birth-control. That's not Pro-Choice is it?
Good point, Piffka.
Just realized that the NYT article I referred to is the one in dyslexia's opening post... oops.
on an encouraging note i found this from the C.D.C.
From 1990 (the year in which the number of abortions was highest) to 1995, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States declined by 15%. From 1995 to 1996, the number increased slightly and then decreased again in 1997. This change in the number of abortions reported to the Centers for Disease Control may indicate that the number of legal abortions in the United States is leveling off.
Thanks Sozobe. Unfortunately it is also the whole point.
So Lash, do you still totally agree with the article? Or are you wondering whether or not it is exactly what you agree with?
You see, the people who wrote this article wish to overturn Roe vs Wade. Do not think for one minute that this is anything less than that.
Piffka wrote:Lash Goth -- Please re-read your article. The quote which I pulled from your article does not speak to partial-birth abortions. It speaks to all abortions.
You say one thing, the article you like says another. It says it very clearly. Here, I'll requote including a few earlier lines, just so we all know:
"Do I favor a ban on all abortions? Absolutely not.
"I understand that abortion, like so many other issues, is not black or white but rather a shade of gray. Each situation depends on the circumstances. Obviously a mother who faces the possibility of death should have an option to choose.
"A mother who wants to use an abortion for purely birth-control purposes should not have that option. By extending an almost absolute right to an abortion, this country has had to face the unfortunate divisions that Roe v. Wade created."
...............
Now please, where does it mention first trimester? That is saying in English for us all to read that women should not be allowed to use abortion for birth-control. That's not Pro-Choice is it?
I see what you mean. The title of the article is about Partial Birth abortions, as is all of the text, except those lines you copied for your post. IMO, in context with the entire article, he is saying that 'abortion purely for birth control purposes' is the very definition of partial birth abortion. It is safer for the baby to be delivered other ways, even if the mother's life IS in danger.
BUT, if I am incorrect, and the writer means there should be no abortions at any time during a pregnancy for birth control, then he and I part ways on that point. I read the article in the context that it was addressing Partial Birth abortions.
Glad you pointed it out, and allowed me to clarify.
When I heard the news, my first, instinctive reaction was that this may become the issue which deflates the right wing of the Republican party. I believe a substantial majority in this country dislike abortion but feel it has been made a kind of symbolic, one-note issue. They would far rather stick with choice, with leaving the decision to the woman and the doctor. Should a change in the law be railroaded through a new Supreme Court, a backlash could significantly change the make-up of the Republican party.
It was hardly a personal attack, Lash. You brought up an article, said it explained how you felt. You asked us to read it. When I read it carefully and questioned you about it, you brushed me off.
The point still stands, the article says one thing and you say something else.
It is pretty widely known that there is a major push to get rid of all of the abortion rights in this country. I don't think I'm surprising anybody with that statement. Do I need to pull and quote some of the planks of the GOP?
I used to be very pro-life not I am very pro-choice. Many unwanted children lead lives that are as horrifying as any medical procedure.
Incidentally there are many horrifying medical procedures.
It is late, Lash Goth. Perhaps you are not really hearing what you are saying. I have not once insulted you. I have not once given you any cause to say I have personally attacked you. To try to bring my reasonable questions so quickly to an attack level makes me think you are unsure of yourself. Which you probably should be.
You provided an article and said it was what you believed. I read it once. It proved to be a diatribe against women's right to choose, in the first trimester or in any trimester. I'm sorry you didn't recognize it for what it was the first time.
I believe it is a woman's right to choose whether or not she has a baby. That means with birth-control of her own choosing. Any woman would rather have non-invasive means to avoid pregnancy. No woman goes willy-nilly to the abortion doctor in the third trimester and says "kill this baby" except in the heads of the very conservative, religious right.
If a conservative faction of our country wants to overturn this law, then why don't they try to make it easier to have non-invasive birth control? Why did we have to fight to get the "morning-after" pill approved? Why are there delays even for first-trimester abortions and gag bills of various kinds? Why have they made the U.S. so bull-headed about providing abortions for people through UN groups?
It is important for each of us to listen carefully and think about this and not be side-tracked. Do we really need to have Washington tell Ob-Gyns what they can and cannot do, surgical procedure by surgical procedure?
In my opinion it is the women's right to choose and the government has no right to interfere. In addition it's simply another instance of the religious communities involvement in government since that is where the major support for the overturning of Roe v Wade comes from.
Since this is a woman's issue wouldn't if be ideal if only women of this nation could make the decision. Of course this is a pipe dream but suppose a national referendum could be held regarding the issue where only women could vote. What do you suppose the outcome would be? Percentage for and against.
A physician makes life and death decisions on the operating table every day. Sometimes they fail. Are we willing to start calling them murderers because they performed a proceedure to save a mother's life? On a case by case examination, it's like any operation where something is suspect. Was the surgeon intoxicated, for instance. I can't imagine a series of incompetent operations before a partial birth is performed. The reason Clinton vetoed the bill was a valid one -- it did not take into consideration the health of the mother. There's a few scattered opinions that partial birth abortion isn't necessary but no real consensus. I would personally be horrified and have compassion for both the doctor and the patient if I observed a death in an operating room for any reason. Where's the compassion for the surgeon who is a respected doctor and diagnosis that the only way to save the mother is a partial birth abortion? No, I don't believe they are murderers any more than a surgeon who looses a patient when performing a heart bypass. I have not control nor should anyone have control over decisions in the operating room. If any of these isolated cases could be proven that it was not done to save the mother's life, let someone step forward and prove it. Still no statistics on if this practice is as pervasive as the anti-abortionist want us to believe. Abortions have leveled off. I have an idea that partial birth abortions have dropped significantly since the photos were released on the interent to shock and use tactics that are tantamount to Nazi propaganda to overturn the law protecting a woman's right to choose.
Sorry for the sarcasm about the Bible thumpers and I got the response I wasn't exactly expecting although I doubt that 90% of Democrats are Bible thumpers. When the anti-abortionists are backed into a corner, that's they're defense, that all pro-lifers are atheists. In fact, those that are atheists that I know are devout humanists and would never want a human life taken needlessly, in this case and in an unwarranted war campaign. That's compassion, not all the phony, hypocritical ravings of the anti-abortionists.
Unfortunately, some of the most unfair people of very questionable character that I have met have been devoutly religious. Some of the people on the other side of the spectrum are hedonistic and sociopathic, to be sure, but they are as few as those using religion as a facade. I believe the anti-abortionists are misguided and virtually without any understanding of the human psyche.
Lash, I read your response at 12:38 a.m EST and was mentally composing a response praising how refreshingly level-headed it was ("I see what you mean"), then read on and I'm a little confused how things got off track. Piffka happened to write in two minutes before you did, curious about your response -- I don't see that as being an attack.
I'm glad to see that you (Lash) are quite evidently open-minded about the implications, and completely agree with you on the basic, most important point, which is that abortions need to be legal. I also agree that partial-birth is a complicated issue -- we don't say, for example, that anyone has the right to kill a newborn. There is a line somewhere, and partial-birth abortions toe that line, which is why the New York Times article, for example, talks about many lawmakers who are generally pro-choice possibly being in favor of making partial-birth abortions illegal.
From what I've read, my own stance is a) it only happens in very extreme circumstances, and not for "birth control", (rather, for health reasons) and b) it is a slippery-slope issue, and I don't like where that slope heads.
au1929,
This is certainly not a women's issue! This is one that indirectly affects all of society and one that directly affects the man involved in the conception of the life whose validity is being questioned.
