2
   

Judge Rules Against Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion

 
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 01:41 pm
If nothing else, the nurse's testimony about seeing the baby's reactions to this cruel and inhumane treatment should touch the heart of anyone who has one.

They could at least put the baby to sleep...
<disgusting>
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 02:05 pm
Sofia wrote:
If nothing else, the nurse's testimony about seeing the baby's reactions to this cruel and inhumane treatment should touch the heart of anyone who has one.

They could at least put the baby to sleep...
<disgusting>
They couldn't place the baby asleep because that would be admitting it was alive and could feel pain. Remember someone on this board and in other places have said it is a baby it is nothing more then something that feeds off of the mother, and until it takes its first breath it isn't living and doesn't deserve protection.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 02:25 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Sofia wrote:
If a mother slaps her child down in the department store, it's my business. I would hope all decent people consider things like this their concern.


This seems to me to be a compelling argument, and wonder how those who believe abortion is none of anybody's business, other than mother and doctor, address it.


Slapping down - what is that when it's at home?
Is it abuse?
Is it discipline?

Another fine line to be drawn. Who decides?

I get positively frantic when I see small children who have itchy ears. I have horrible, horrible memories of the true agony of ear infections - worse than anything I've experienced since - even pain that ended with me in a hospital emergency room. I feel that parents inattention to itchy ears is verging on child abuse, and always want to point it out to them - but I usually manage to resist.

There are things in my life that will never be anyone else's business, and things in your lives that will never be mine.

I'da guessed most people on the less left/less central side of these questions would argue for less community/government involvement. Always interesting to see them arguing more community/government involvement in these cases.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 02:26 pm
sozobe wrote:
Nice summary, Thomas.

Revel, again, for what it's worth, in this (yes totally horrible to contemplate) procedure, the [what?] is not killed after [it's] been born, but before.

Why not the morning after pill? Jane Brody just had a great article on how it is confused with abortion, while it's something quite different:

Quote:
Some opponents of emergency contraception confuse it with abortion. But an abortion can occur only after a pregnancy has been established. The National Institutes of Health and the obstetricians group define pregnancy as beginning with the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.

Emergency contraception, on the other hand, has no effect once a fertilized egg implants in the womb. It cannot dislodge an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo. Nor does it appear to work by destroying a fertilized egg or preventing implantation, which would negate the concerns of those who consider fertilization, not implantation, the start of pregnancy.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/24/health/24brod.html


Normally I don't get into abortion discussions, but there little else going on besides this swift boat obsession.

If the procedure is horrible to contemplate, then it should tell us something; I would think.

So what you are saying is that a baby is not really legally born until it is completely clear of the mother's uterus? If that is the case, then I guess I can understand why legally the Judge would rule that the banning of a partial birth abortions is not legal.

I think the constitution on that should be changed so that it wouldn't conflict with the rules on the books. The procedure that Sofia described is completely inhumane for any reason.

On the whole issue of abortion in general; I believe that life begins at conception and that life has a right to be born. I wish that Roe v. Wade would be overturned.

I do not believe that it is right to abort just because a woman is raped and becomes pregnant. It is not the fault of the baby what the father did. I also don't think it is any excuse to kill a baby if the baby has birth defects.

If the morning after pill is as you describe then I have no problem with it. I thought it killed a life once the life started. I am curious though about what good it does, isn't rather like shutting the barn door after the horses have run off? I mean it is the morning after you done had sexual relations so it is not preventing sperm from (I am not sure how to phrase, not real good at remembering medical terms) being able to hatch with the egg of the mother.

The reason I don't let the whole issue affect my voting habits is that there are republicans who are pro choice and it is only one issue.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 02:27 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Is it the father's business?


No. Or I don't it should be legally. What couples decide to do is their business.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 03:10 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Is it the father's business?


No. Or I don't it should be legally. What couples decide to do is their business.
I think there should be a level of say for the father. If a women is pregnant and she wants an abortion but the father wants to keep the baby then that should be allowed as long as he pays for the bills to the point of birth. After that the child is his and the mother doesn't have to worry about a child she didn't want. The way things stand now the father has no say so should he still have to pay child support? I direct this towards PBA as in most cases it is done as a birth control issue not a health issue. Remember the original issue for abortion was because of the mothers health not birth control and it has now been abused.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 03:17 pm
revel wrote:

If the morning after pill is as you describe then I have no problem with it. I thought it killed a life once the life started. I am curious though about what good it does, isn't rather like shutting the barn door after the horses have run off? I mean it is the morning after you done had sexual relations so it is not preventing sperm from (I am not sure how to phrase, not real good at remembering medical terms) being able to hatch with the egg of the mother.


The morning after pill prevents implantation. It never gets beyond the blastocyst stage, which precedes embryonic.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 03:30 pm
princesspupule wrote:
The morning after pill prevents implantation. It never gets beyond the blastocyst stage, which precedes embryonic.

But the morning after pill does not prevent fertilization/conception. So for those who believe that life begins at conception, the morning after pill can act as an abortifacient, like birth control pills and IUDs.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 03:33 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
princesspupule wrote:
The morning after pill prevents implantation. It never gets beyond the blastocyst stage, which precedes embryonic.

But the morning after pill does not prevent fertilization/conception. So for those who believe that life begins at conception, the morning after pill can act as an abortifacient, like birth control pills and IUDs.


Joe, you are right. But at least it prevents it growing to a stage where the termination is felt by the life.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 07:44 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Sofia wrote:
If a mother slaps her child down in the department store, it's my business. I would hope all decent people consider things like this their concern.


This seems to me to be a compelling argument, and wonder how those who believe abortion is none of anybody's business, other than mother and doctor, address it.


Slapping down - what is that when it's at home?
Is it abuse?
Is it discipline?

Another fine line to be drawn. Who decides?
-------



Slapping a small child so hard that it falls to the ground is abuse.
I hope you don't think slapping a child in this manner can ever be confused with discipline.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2004 09:23 pm
Thomas wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I suppose if you believe that a fetus (irrespective of development stage) is nothing more than a lump of tissue, you can fairly easily draw a distinction, but I don't mean to presume your argument(s).

I think that's the core of the matter. I'm sure Sofia agrees that it's nobody else's business whether a woman has a tumor removed or not. I'm sure ehBeth agrees that it is other people's business whether or not a woman commits infanticide. The problem is that there's a broad grey area between the status of a tumor and the status of a newborn baby, and that we have no cookie-cutter method for deciding where in that grey area the status of an embryo is. And that's why this question is so awfully controversial.

If we did agree on what embryos are and on what this means in terms of the rights they may have, the question what is whose business would simply evaporate.


I appreciate how it can be perceived as a grey area, but surely it is a grey spectrum with black and white predominate at either end. A third trimester fetus is something far more than a newly fertilized egg.

I can understand how someone can rationalize treating something that looks like a lump of flesh as simply a lump of flesh, but when it can clearly be seen as a small human, I find the tumor analogy horribly perverse.

I'm sure this will draw ire, but, frankly, any woman that can look at pictures of any fetus ( let alone her own) that has developed beyond the first trimester and still consider it merely a lump of tissue to be excised as if it were a tumor has virtually no maternal instinct, and should probably do the world and her possible future progeny a favor and have herself sterilized.

Pictures

Actually, I don't believe there are very many of such women at all.

I have mixed feelings on the issue of abortion.

I appreciate the desire of women to have complete control of their bodies, even though no one actually has such control. We are not allowed to sell our organs, we are not allowed to kill ourselves.

I understand what a dramatic impact an unwanted pregnancy can have on lives, especially in the case of a teenage girl.

I accept that when a decision must be made between saving the mother or saving the child, no definitively clear choice can be made.

I can abide some legalization of abortion, preferably limited to first trimester pregnancies, but what I cannot abide is the efforts of the pro-choice movement to dehumanize unborn children. Having an abortion should be one of the most difficult choices a woman ever makes, it should not be made easy by using incredibly cynical tumor or parasite analogies.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2004 05:35 am
princesspupule wrote:
revel wrote:

If the morning after pill is as you describe then I have no problem with it. I thought it killed a life once the life started. I am curious though about what good it does, isn't rather like shutting the barn door after the horses have run off? I mean it is the morning after you done had sexual relations so it is not preventing sperm from (I am not sure how to phrase, not real good at remembering medical terms) being able to hatch with the egg of the mother.


The morning after pill prevents implantation. It never gets beyond the blastocyst stage, which precedes embryonic.


I am just going to let this one as over my head. But thanks for your patience.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2004 07:30 am
Finn - it's difficult to get actual statistics on this. It's no wonder to me, but here's a comment by Dr. Curtis Cook in an interview with Gwen Ifill on 11/5/03:

GWEN IFILL: If it only affects a small number of rogue physicians, as you describe, does it affect that many people, that many patients, that many babies?

DR. CURTIS COOK: Well, even the Alan Guttmacher Institute has estimated that it runs in excess of 2,000 cases a year. And I'm sure that's underreported. It probably more represents five to ten thousand babies a year. So I suppose it depends upon what you define as many. It's a small percentage of total abortions but it's several thousand children a year that will be affected.

GWEN IFILL: Actually those numbers are that 90 percent of abortions occur during the first trimester of pregnancy. Only 1 percent, or depending on how you -- maybe not only -- 1 percent occur after the 20th week of pregnancy which is the kind of procedure we're talking about here. There's a lot debate about those numbers, obviously. DR.

CURTIS COOK: Well, actually the numbers are very consistent. Everyone agrees there's something on the order of 1.3, 1.4 million abortions a year in this country; 1 percent obviously makes up a very small number percentage-wise but you're talking about several thousand cases. So I think several thousand cases is something that the average American would be concerned about.

But this is the part of the interview that amazed me:

DR. CURTIS COOK: "........... I do think we need to correct the misinformation that's put out there oftentimes. This is done not on just emergency basis, not just abnormal babies or sick mothers. These are done predominantly on healthy babies and healthy mothers. Every medical expert that has testified has said the same thing. Even pro abortion advocates including the national director of abortion providers has admitted that. These are done predominantly on healthy mothers and healthy babies.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec03/abortion_11-05.html

I read this thread a few days ago, but was so disturbed it's taken me a while to wrap my brain around the fact that anyone could sanction this.

It's wrong.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2004 09:18 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I appreciate how it can be perceived as a grey area, but surely it is a grey spectrum with black and white predominate at either end. A third trimester fetus is something far more than a newly fertilized egg.

I agree -- and I, personally, wouldn't object to laws that make third trimester abortions illegal -- except for preserving the mother's life or health. Of the Wikipedia list of indications that Sozobe linked to earlier, the last item seems unacceptable to me for any third trimester abortion. ("The fetus is alive, but the woman wishes to end her pregnancy for non-medical/psychological reasons.")

The point I was trying to make in the post you responded to is this: I don't think the arguments supporting my judgment are so compelling that other people must necessarily accept them.

Another problem I have is with the particular law in question. I don't understand why the Republicans who crafted it didn't make it a law against third trimester abortions in general. Why micromanage doctors, when your party is ideologically opposed to micromanagement by government? It's clear that there is no nice, gentle, pleasant way to kill an embryo in the third trimester, so why single out this procedure? What makes the other techniques for third trimester abortions so much better? It would be nice if you, or Sophia, or anyone else could explain this to me.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2004 04:02 pm
Politics, sad to say, Thomas. The GOP knows the language in a bill taking on abortion in any form is a tedious proposal.

The abortion lobby is very powerful, and has 'very close loyalty' from a wide majority of Dems and some Republicans. <The babies doen't have a PAC.>

A law "outlawing" abortion in the third trimester would never pass. You can see how shrill and disengenuous abortion rights activists are even in the face of the reality of something as hideous and inhumane as a PBA. Going after broader terminology, such as "none in the third trimester" wouldn't have even made it to the congressional floor.

Third trimester abortions SHOULD be illegal, except in rare, odd situations. (I think there are always rare situations that may warrant a late term abortion--BUT RARE!) The problem is--when you add 'in rare situations' --that is carte blanche for many unethical doctors. They do it when they please. There are no moniters standing around checking the criteria. It is abortion on demand. And, now it is PBA on demand. If Dr. A won't do it--Go on down the list... You WILL find a doctor that will do anything you ask, for a price.

Its open season on babies in America. Even PBA has supporters.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2004 04:11 pm
Bah. The only reason that PBA ban got turned over in the first place is that there was no provision for the health of the mother, which, I'm sorry, has to take precedent over that of the child in every instance.

Quote:
Its open season on babies in America.


You act as if there are tons of people out there who are crowing every time a baby dies. This is a rather unrealistic position to take; there are just a bunch of people out there who don't want you, Sofia, or anyone else telling them what they can or cannot do with their bodies.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2004 04:24 pm
How does one "act as though people are crowing..." Nah. I'm very direct in my opinion--no need to try to emotionalize it. And the 'health of the mother bullshit' is a tiny percentage, which Planned Parenthood ALWAYS trots out... and that is the loophole that is getting thousands of babies killed in this inhumane fashion.

I don't care what they do with *their* bodies.

Its what they're doing to babies' bodies that I can't stand.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2004 04:27 pm
Sofia wrote:
A law "outlawing" abortion in the third trimester would never pass. You can see how shrill and disengenuous abortion rights activists are even in the face of the reality of something as hideous and inhumane as a PBA. Going after broader terminology, such as "none in the third trimester" wouldn't have even made it to the congressional floor.

As an outside observer, I find that pretty amazing. Here in Germany, we are generally much more liberal than Americans are. But abortion is only legal in the first trimester here, and even this has some procedural strings attached. (They are too loose to deter anyone though.) In the second and third trimesters, abortions are only allowed if they protect the life and health of the mother. This looks like a workable compromise to me. I'm not aware that these restrictions have created a large black market in abortions. I also don't think any large number of women are complaining about being deprived of their rights. (German feminists in general are pretty outspoken about fighting for their rights, so I would have noticed if there was a large number complaining.)

I'm not quite sure what to think of this, but it's certainly remarkable.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2004 04:28 pm
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but i would be interested, Sofia, to know if you can substantiate a claim that thousands of such procedures are being done. Over what period of time? In what area, the United States only? That seems an extreme statement.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Aug, 2004 04:38 pm
Sofia wrote:
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers testified in government hearings that only about 450 D&Xs were performed annually in the United States. Later, on ABC's Nightline program, he admitted that he had lied about this figure in order to match the the lies and rhetoric by the other side in the debate. He now estimates that 3 to 4 thousand is a more accurate value.

No way I believe Planned Parenthood's statistics.
They are a political organization, that gets it's payroll from abortions.

And, call it D and X, or whatever ... the procedure is the same. Partial birth abortion describes it. Some medical personnel will describe an abortion as 'removing tissue'. They don't say it is a formed baby and has a heartbeat.

Here, Set. Ron Fitsimmons has more reliable stats than most anyone else. He admitted thousands on a Nightline segment. Yearly.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 04:44:14