Abortion back on the top of the agenda

Clarke D. Forsythe, president of Americans United for Life, said the decision would restore power to the states and make it easier to enact “common-sense regulations” on abortion. The “partial-birth” ban, aimed at a type of abortion known medically as intact dilation and extraction, was the product of years of effort by abortion opponents in states and on Capitol Hill. The legislation was twice vetoed by President Bill Clinton and, in a previous version, ruled unconstitutional by a different makeup of the Supreme Court.

Abortion rights advocates said they were shaken by the 5-to-4 ruling upholding the ban and asserted that the ruling cut to the heart of the protections of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision recognizing a constitutional right to abortion. They said it also underscored the stakes of the 2008 presidential election, arguing that the next president will almost certainly appoint a justice who could shift the balance of the court on Roe itself.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/us/politics/19react.html?ref=politics

"This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

Just throwin that out there

Where did you find that quote, Bullitt? I might have missed it, but I can't find it in the article, and it is my understanding that this ban does not allow it even in the case of danger to the life of the mother. I'm looking for clarification.

Thanks!

Oh, thanks, it is in the actual letter of the law. I had been hearing news reports saying otherwise (imagine that!)

Wait, news reports not telling the whole story just so they can drum up air time and raise a stir?? Say it ain't so!!

Shawnee123;335793 wrote:

it is my understanding that this ban does not allow it even in the case of danger to the life of the mother.

The ban has a provision where if the "life" of the mother is threatened, then the ban does not apply. The District court and the Appeals court have said the law is unconstitutional because there is no provision for the "health" of the mother. And the Supreme Court overruled them, saying the "health" issue doesn't matter. So it's a difference between the "life" of the mother and the "health" of the mother.

There is no provision for the "health" of the mother, and the conservative old men of the Supreme Court don't care.

Wikipedia has a confusing article on the topic with lots of links to the original documents.

Why is this procedure considered worse than any other?

Because they look like people.

A partial birth abortion is an inherently dangerous procedure in terms of physical health to begin with. With all abortion, the later in pregnancy an abortion is performed, the more complicated the procedure and the greater the risk of injury to the woman. In addition to associated emotion reactions, D&X carries the risk of injury to the woman, including heavy bleeding, blood clots, damage to the cervix or uterus, pelvic infection, and anesthesia-related complications. There is also a risk of incomplete abortion, meaning that the fetus is not dead when removed from the woman's body. Possible long-term risks include difficulty becoming pregnant or carrying a future pregnancy to term.
Also:
http://www.pregnancycenters.org/abortion.html

Happy Monkey;335846 wrote:

Why is this procedure considered worse than any other?

In one you get to suck out the bits a little at a time. In the other you get to scrape out the little blob and suck it all out at once.

Happy Monkey;335846 wrote:

Why is this procedure considered worse than any other?

From the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 of the 108th Congress 1st Session:
(M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.

See! They look like people.

Bullitt;335854 wrote:

It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli.

That doesn't sound like a medical fact at all.

Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.

That's true of all abortions, dependant upon the stage of pregnancy.

A partial birth abortion is an inherently dangerous procedure in terms of physical health to begin with. With all abortion, the later in pregnancy an abortion is performed, the more complicated the procedure and the greater the risk of injury to the woman.

OK. With all abortion.

In addition to associated emotion reactions, D&X carries the risk of injury to the woman, including heavy bleeding, blood clots, damage to the cervix or uterus, pelvic infection, and anesthesia-related complications.

Probably still true for all abortion, and a huge number of other medical procedures.

There is also a risk of incomplete abortion, meaning that the fetus is not dead when removed from the woman's body.

This one is probably more likely for IDX.

Possible long-term risks include difficulty becoming pregnant or carrying a future pregnancy to term.

And back to "true for all abortion".

The list of "differences" seems to be primarily about late-term vs early abortions. I think just about everybody agrees that if one is going to get an abortion, one should do it as early as possible (except for those who want to introduce roadblocks and delaying tactics until it's too late). But if one is going to have a late-term abortion, I don't see what's worse about this particular procedure. In fact, I heard a caller to C-SPAN who (along with his wife) chose IDX so they could say goodbye to the baby she couldn't carry.

Just find a few Drs. and nurses that know what is right for young women, surround it with well armed men and women and kill anyone that tries to come in or near who is not invited. Everyone is connects via cell phone and radio.
It will be placed in a ranch, well inside the property, through several gates. The fence-line will be motion sensitive and patrolled. Each open field will have a full grown bull that will not tolerate anything in it's area.
Simple.

If they try to drive in, you take out their car. If they get out of the car... you load their corpses and the car onto a front-end loader and bury all of it somewhere on the property and continue helping young women.
"What car?... who?"

Going back to back-alley abortions and dead girls is NOT an option. Those that want to make it happen will be collateral damage.

Speaking of people. These are the people who created the law that doesn't take a woman's health into consideration, signed that law, and overruled two federal courts in order to keep the law on the books.

Which demographic group is missing from these pictures? I'll give the reader a hint, it's the same group who is being controlled by the law.

Think after signing this law and having a few laughs, all the men went into the back room to have a few cigars and tell sexist jokes?

Bullitt wrote:

--snip--There is also a risk of incomplete abortion, meaning that the fetus is not dead when removed from the woman's body.--snip--

You are mixed up here, Bullitt. An incomplete abortion is one where not all of the fetal mass is removed from the uterus. When a not-dead fetus is removed from a woman's body, it's not called an incomplete abortion, it's called birth. Come on.

"Congratulations on your new Not-Dead Fetus!"

:eek:

Ah yes, because requiring a woman to decided whether or not to carry her baby to term before a certain deadline is the exact same thing as requiring her to sit in a back-ally with a coat hanger up her cooch. Why is it that anyone who wants to actually put some thought into issues like this can't find a spot on either side? This is not "slitting the throat of Roe vs Wade" or any of the stupid crap the sensationalists are pasting on the front-page news. It's saying that there is a point at a child's development before birth at which it has reached a stage of development which we would call human where it outside the uterus.
Abortion, like every issue more important then one's choice in shampoo, must not be allowed to degenerate into an all-or-nothing screaming fest from the extremes. Anyone want to argue from a scientific position rather then an emotional one?

HEY, HEY, HEY, WHOA NOW!

Don't diss the importance of picking the right kind of shampoo!

9th Engineer;335955 wrote:

... Anyone want to argue from a scientific position rather then an emotional one?

You can't. There is no way to prove conclusively when "it" becomes a human.

rkzenrage;335876 wrote:

Just find a few Drs. and nurses that know what is right for young women, surround it with well armed men and women and kill anyone that tries to come in or near who is not invited. Everyone is connects via cell phone and radio.
It will be placed in a ranch, well inside the property, through several gates. The fence-line will be motion sensitive and patrolled. Each open field will have a full grown bull that will not tolerate anything in it's area.
Simple.

If they try to drive in, you take out their car. If they get out of the car... you load their corpses and the car onto a front-end loader and bury all of it somewhere on the property and continue helping young women.
"What car?... who?"

Going back to back-alley abortions and dead girls is NOT an option. Those that want to make it happen will be collateral damage.

Not gonna just shoot 'em?

Spexxvet;336136 wrote:

You can't. There is no way to prove conclusively when "it" becomes a human.

In that case why not assume the fetus is alive as soon as you are able to detect a heartbeat and brainwaves? After all the cervix does not have magic abilities that breathes life into a fetus as it passes through during birth.

duck duck wrote:

In that case why not assume the fetus is alive as soon as you are able to detect a heartbeat and brainwaves?

Just making sure, you do know you can visually confirm a heartbeat and detect brainwaves as early as 5 weeks, which is 3 weeks before it even becomes a fetus. (It's still an embryo until the end of the 8th week.) Women will not even show a positive pregnancy test until the end of the 4th week. So your position is effectively pro-life?

Clodfobble;336239 wrote:

Just making sure, you do know you can visually confirm a heartbeat and detect brainwaves as early as 5 weeks, which is 3 weeks before it even becomes a fetus. (It's still an embryo until the end of the 8th week.) Women will not even show a positive pregnancy test until the end of the 4th week. So your position is effectively pro-life?

I wouldn't say I'm pro-life but I don't see the point in a late term abortion unless there is a medical reason for it.

I agree, I think that's a decision that any reasonable person ought to be able to make in the first trimester, barring late-stage medical conditions. But the presence of a heartbeat is not a workable deadline, was all I was saying.

duck_duck;336246 wrote:

I wouldn't say I'm pro-life but I don't see the point in a late term abortion unless there is a medical reason for it.

The reason for late term abortions were due to medical threats to the mother. What makes the Supreme Court decision so unique? For the first time, the life of a mother is no longer relevant. She must be condemned to death rather than have a late term abortion.

"This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

skip that part did we tw?

Bullitt;336252 wrote:

skip that part did we tw?

Nothing was skipped. The ruling makes dilation and extraction illegal. Politicians can tell doctors what medical procedure is best - mother be damned. New laws are now possible to restrict good medical care in the name of morality - also called religious extremism.

The decision was quiet clear. Mother's life is secondary to life of a fetus even if the fetus is defective. That one paragraph forgets to include the other requirements and restrictions. Safest procedure is now illegal. To get any other medical treatment, a patient must first file suit in court. And then the fetus must be dismembered inside the woman – cannot be removed intact. This is called morality. “The act expresses respect for the dignity of human life.” IOW morality and ethics are smarter than science, facts and logic? Yes.

Kill the mother; save the world?

Moralists are the last people I want to decide my life for me. But Scalia and his puppy dog Thomas wrote a separate opinion to ban all abortions. No different than wacko Islamic extremisms based in the same moral reasoning.

Moralists somehow know better than a doctor? Wrong. Moralists include a man who said, "A man who marries outside of his religion inherits the devil for a father-in-law”. That exact quote is also moral preaching. A moralist was even told by god to invade Iraq. These are people who want to save me? From what? Clearly only they can be trusted; not I. Reason give: " ...respect for the dignity of human life.” Science, fact, logic, and brutal reality be damned.

Dialate and extract - what spin doctors renamed 'partial birth abortion' - is no longer legal as in that Nebraska law and in 29 other states. Other and more dangerous procedures may be implemented, but only with court approval. Cut up a fetus inside a woman is now the only legal method. Who here is so stupid as to think that is a viable alternative to ‘dialate and extract’? Endanger a woman in the name of morality? Then morality is satanistic. Endanger a woman to save a defective fetus? Clearly morality is more important than common sense, basic human values, and an American's right to decide for himself?

The Supreme Court ruling makes dialate and extract to save a woman’s life illegal in direct contradiction to what Bullitt has posted because he did not provide all facts. New laws will foolishly require more dangerous procedures AND only with court approval.

Morality no different than laws created by another religion – Islam. Funny. Those same moralists attack Islam for laws based in religion – and then impose the same moral extremism on stem cell research and on abortion. A mother’s life is now secondary to a fetus. Why? Because that is more moral.

This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001531----000-.html

Doesn't this mean it is legal if the procedure is a medical necessity?

You think the doctors are the ones in charge of when these procedures are usually done now? The doctor gets no final say at all really, if a woman demands it be done even without medical need then there are extremely few (basically none) recourses for the doctor. I just want to clarify the idea that it's the scientists who are truly in charge of this whole deal, damn I wish we were. Scientists are rarely in charge of much these days, it's one of my huge frustrations that society will pat itself on the back about being so enlightened and scientific, then put control of what we're allowed to do in the hands of Johnny moron. Why in the world are we even bothering to give people a vote on stem cell research? Why the hell do I have to deal with the nutjobs who think they can tell me that my research on primates is the same as research on enslaved humans when the extent of their biological education was HS sex ed? Sorry, this didn't have much to do with abortion debating, but as long as we're putting science up to vote in ANY forum outside the scientific community I'll fight the idea that we're a society based on what's really logical and scientific.

Frankly speaking, if you really thought that this issue is one that should be decided by pure science, you wouldn't want to be included in the decision. Argue for the removal of emotional arguments, but don't hide behind a mask.

Bullitt;335852 wrote:

In addition to associated emotion reactions, D&X carries the risk of injury to the woman, including heavy bleeding, blood clots, damage to the cervix or uterus, pelvic infection, and anesthesia-related complications.

Apparently, the alternate method to D&X is actually more dangerous. And Tom Minnery, "Focus on the Family"s veep, thinks that's a good thing:

Tom Minnery wrote:

Doctors adopted the late-term procedure "out of convenience," Minnery added. "The old procedure, which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling."

9th Engineer;336322 wrote:

You think the doctors are the ones in charge of when these procedures are usually done now? The doctor gets no final say at all really, if a woman demands it be done even without medical need then there are extremely few (basically none) recourses for the doctor.~snip

Are you talking about abortion, 9th? Wouldn't that be like elective surgery? Are you saying the Doctor can't say no, can't say she'll have to find another Doctor, and walk away if the woman isn't in immediate danger?

Or do you mean if it's not elective, just the Doctor has more than one procedure to choose from, but can't choose if the woman insists on a particular one?

Hope that's clear.

Happy Monkey;350747 wrote:

Apparently, the alternate method to D&X is actually more dangerous. And Tom Minnery, "Focus on the Family"s veep, thinks that's a good thing:

Sure, that'll put the fear o' god in 'em. Maybe they'll have a nervous breakdown and won't be competent to sign for it
until it's too late. After all, we have our stirling child services department to raise the kid properly.




[SIZE="1"]Stirling? Serling? Stirling? Serling? Whatever.[/SIZE]