Good. I’ve read about this. The baby is “delivered” feet first and the brains scrambled while the head remains indoors.
Also good.
Good. I’ve read about this. The baby is “delivered” feet first and the brains scrambled while the head remains indoors.
Also good.
Are you opposed because it’s a grisly procedure, or for other reasons?
If you’re asking if I’m anti abortion, no I’m not. There are enough parents in the world who don’t want their kids. Why give them more?
Take a read jaboney. Some of these “fetuses” are moving their arms and legs when they are “partially delivered.”
But yeah, it’s a bit gristly for my sensibilities, and unnecessary. A “fetus” at that stage can be put in an incubator or a garbage can.
I’ve read up on the procedure, but I don’t remember you being opposed to abortion, so I’m curious why you’re opposed to this particular procedure.
The emotive argument is more powerful given the stage of development. But grisliness aside, what other arguments differentiate this procedure from an early-stage abortion? Necessity? Maybe. But the emotive aspect seems to be what tips the balance.
[quote]In September, 1993, Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse with thirteen years or experience, was assigned by her nursing agency to an abortion clinic. Since Nurse Shafer considered herself “very pro-choice,” she didn’t think this assignment would be a problem. She was wrong. This is what Nurse Shafer saw:
" I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was [color=red]six months pregnant[/color]. [color=cyan]The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet[/color].
The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby’s head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen." [/quote]
I believe this nurse testified before Congress as well.
[quote]
Partial Birth Abortion remains legal primarily because of common misconceptions about the topic. Many people believe that partial birth abortions are rare, and are only performed to save the mother. However, in the United States alone, thousands of partial birth abortions are performed every year, almost exclusively for elective and not health-based reasons1. These babies are killed: were they to be fully and not partially delivered their lives could be saved. Many people argue that the anesthetics used in the process kill the baby, so death to the child painless.
However the American Society of Anesthesiologists testified to Congress that this is simply not true2.[/quote]
abortioninfo.net/facts/pba.shtml
Abortion is an extremely sensitive topic and as someone who considers himself religious (and as a Republican), I am uncomfortable about it. BUT I do not think that it should be banned. I ultimately recognize that there are some very gray areas here that I would rather not look at too closely. I figure if the mother makes the tough choice, she not me has to live with that.
I am a bit concerned, however, regarding certain questionable moral stances that seem to arise out of this whole debate. Women have rights (100 percent) over the fetus. For example, a man could not force a woman not to get an abortion to my understanding. BUT also, a woman would be able to choose not to have an abortion and still require child support. All these decisions are hers and hers alone.
BUT where I categorically oppose abortion is in the last trimester. IF a mother has waited nearly seven months to decide this issue, then I think that she can wait two to three months more and then give up the baby for adoption.
I am FOR abortion in the first trimester without restriction. I am increasingly uncomfortable about the second and am absolutely opposed to the third unless the health of the mother (really) is at risk.
What do you know… fred and I agree.
jdsmith, there’s no need to try and convince me that this is a horror show. I’m generally opposed to abortion, I’m just not willing to impose my views on others… save in the late stages.
If 1/10th of the energy devoted to the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate were instead invested in serious, fact-based, no nonsense, get the taboos out of the way sex ed, there’d be far less need, and far fewer abortions performed.
That’s beside the point. You’re generally not anti-abortion; what tips the balance here, for you? That’s all I’m asking.
[quote=“Jaboney”]I’ve read up on the procedure, but I don’t remember you being opposed to abortion, so I’m curious why you’re opposed to this particular procedure.
The emotive argument is more powerful given the stage of development. But grisliness aside, what other arguments differentiate this procedure from an early-stage abortion? Necessity? Maybe. But the emotive aspect seems to be what tips the balance.
[/quote]
At some point a fetus becomes a child fully protected by law. Is it the moment it slips out of the womb? I think this is preposterous as is the notion that full citizenship begins at the moment of conception. In the first place, there is no moment of each. Both are long, drawn out procedures without clear boundaries. So where to draw the boundaries?
Partial-birth abortions are performed on fetuses that are recognizably human. This is partly an emotive response, but a scientific studies confirm this. The fetus is capable of emotions and the brain registers advanced thought paterns. The difference between this and a zygote is more than just degrees. It is different in kind. A 3rd stage fetus is actually capable of being delivered and living. An earlier stage delivery would result in a blob, or a figure that is partially human but in no way capable of ever continuing its development to full-human status.
Life is full of artbritrary decisions that are based partly on emotive responses and partly on a good grasp of reality. We don’t let 12 year olds drive because we sense they are not ready for the responsibility and psychological studies confirm this as do athletic tests.
Since a decision has to be made on abortion I feel banning partial-birth abortions is a solid decision that considers both our human response to the procedure (it’s grisly) and the evidence of science that the fetus at this stage is just too close to a full human being to ignore.
I’m with Fred here too. It is the women’s choice, totally. However, the bone I have to pick is with the issue of personal responsibility. Why wait so long? There is a long list of abortion choices that a woman can choose long before this type of procedure is necessary.
I won’t come out and say it is murder that these women are choosing to commit, but IMHO it is gross neglegence of the highest degree. If a thing that, having grown in and now sticks out of a women save the head, moves and clasps its hands isn’t a live birth, then I don’t know what is.
Jaboney if you’re not willing to impose your views on others, save the late stages, then I guess we agree as well. I know wrong when I see it.
jdsecular
[quote=“Jaboney”]What do you know… fred and I agree.
jdsmith, there’s no need to try and convince me that this is a horror show. I’m generally opposed to abortion, I’m just not willing to impose my views on others… save in the late stages.
If 1/10th of the energy devoted to the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate were instead invested in serious, fact-based, no nonsense, get the taboos out of the way sex ed, there’d be far less need, and far fewer abortions performed.
That’s beside the point. You’re generally not anti-abortion; what tips the balance here, for you? That’s all I’m asking.[/quote]
I agree with Fred.
But it takes two to tango. All these anti-abortion people never focus on the man and the woman who created this fetus/baby/life/whatever. Excluding cases of rape (which I’m totally pro-choice categorically), these 2 individuals are responsible. Everyone blames the clinic and bombs and kills doctors and nurses. What about those individuals? I’m no prude, but with great powers comes great responsibility, and the individuals should be held accountable. And if it’s 2 ignorant kids messing around, then do something about sex ed (yes, we run into parents complaining about the Bible v. sex ed, but if they do, then they are also responsible for poor childrearing ie not about their religion, but not watching over their children).
There are so many people who should be sterilized, it’s just unfortunate.
Fred Smith springs to mind. But then whoever heard of a “colonic birth”?
BroonAbortion
Fred Smith springs to mind. But then whoever heard of a “colonic birth”?
BroonAbortion[/quote]
I was going to say, he’s just a drop in the bucket. hahaha.
[quote=“jdsmith”]If you’re asking if I’m anti abortion, no I’m not. There are enough parents in the world who don’t want their kids. Why give them more?
Take a read jaboney. Some of these “fetuses” are moving their arms and legs when they are “partially delivered.”
But yeah, it’s a bit gristly for my sensibilities, and unnecessary. A “fetus” at that stage can be put in an incubator or a garbage can.[/quote]
This is a rare procedure that’s only used when medically necessary. And sometimes it is the only choice. After all, extracting a cancerous eye is certainly a grisly procedure too.
The USSC just legislated from the bench, placing politicians in charge of medical decisions that should be made by doctors and patients alone.
May this bogus law be repealed and never obeyed.
[quote=“Chris”][quote=“jdsmith”]If you’re asking if I’m anti abortion, no I’m not. There are enough parents in the world who don’t want their kids. Why give them more?
Take a read jaboney. Some of these “fetuses” are moving their arms and legs when they are “partially delivered.”
But yeah, it’s a bit gristly for my sensibilities, and unnecessary. A “fetus” at that stage can be put in an incubator or a garbage can.[/quote]
This is a rare procedure that’s only used when medically necessary. And sometimes it is the only choice. After all, extracting a cancerous eye is certainly a grisly procedure too.
The USSC just legislated from the bench, placing politicians in charge of medical decisions that should be made by doctors and patients alone.
May this bogus law be repealed and never obeyed.[/quote]
Chris, do you acknowledge that a human life has been ended in the process of performing a dilation and extraction abortion and one of the central ethical questions is whether it was justified or not?
Got linkage for that?
And if it is only used when medically necessary, why repeal it? As that possibility is included in the law as it is, when the mother’s life is in danger. “Medically necassary” might mean it’s needed because the woman waited too damn long and there isn’t any other option outside of making her ride bareback for 100 miles.
From the Coop:
[quote]The anti-abortion forces often imply that this procedure is usually performed late in the third trimester on fully developed babies. Actually, most partial-birth abortions are performed late in the second trimester, around 26 weeks. Some of these would be viable babies.
But the misinformation campaign conducted by the advocates of partial-birth abortion is much more misleading. At first, abortion-rights activists claimed that procedure hardly ever took place. When pressed for figures, several pro-abortion groups came up with 500 a year, but later investigations revealed that in New Jersey alone 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed each year. Obviously, the national annual figure is much higher.
The primary reason given for this procedure–that it is often medically necessary to save the mother’s life–is a false claim, though many people, including President Clinton, were misled into believing this. With all that modern medicine has to offer, partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother, and the procedure’s impact on a woman’s cervix can put future pregnancies at risk. Recent reports have concluded that a majority of partial-birth abortions are elective, involving a healthy woman and normal fetus. [/quote]
uiowa.edu/~030116/116/articles/koop.htm
[quote=“spook”][quote=“Chris”][quote=“jdsmith”]If you’re asking if I’m anti abortion, no I’m not. There are enough parents in the world who don’t want their kids. Why give them more?
Take a read jaboney. Some of these “fetuses” are moving their arms and legs when they are “partially delivered.”
But yeah, it’s a bit gristly for my sensibilities, and unnecessary. A “fetus” at that stage can be put in an incubator or a garbage can.[/quote]
This is a rare procedure that’s only used when medically necessary. And sometimes it is the only choice. After all, extracting a cancerous eye is certainly a grisly procedure too.
The USSC just legislated from the bench, placing politicians in charge of medical decisions that should be made by doctors and patients alone.
May this bogus law be repealed and never obeyed.[/quote]
Chris, do you acknowledge that a human life has been ended in the process of performing a dilation and extraction abortion and one of the central ethical questions is whether it was justified or not?[/quote]
I believe that before the point of viability, the fetus is not a human life, so no death occurs in the abortion procedure. Afterwards, if it comes to a choice between the life of the fetus and the life of the mother, the latter prevails.
[quote=“Chris”][quote=“spook”][quote=“Chris”][quote=“jdsmith”]If you’re asking if I’m anti abortion, no I’m not. There are enough parents in the world who don’t want their kids. Why give them more?
Take a read jaboney. Some of these “fetuses” are moving their arms and legs when they are “partially delivered.”
But yeah, it’s a bit gristly for my sensibilities, and unnecessary. A “fetus” at that stage can be put in an incubator or a garbage can.[/quote]
This is a rare procedure that’s only used when medically necessary. And sometimes it is the only choice. After all, extracting a cancerous eye is certainly a grisly procedure too.
The USSC just legislated from the bench, placing politicians in charge of medical decisions that should be made by doctors and patients alone.
May this bogus law be repealed and never obeyed.[/quote]
Chris, do you acknowledge that a human life has been ended in the process of performing a dilation and extraction abortion and one of the central ethical questions is whether it was justified or not?[/quote]
I believe that before the point of viability, the fetus is not a human life, so no death occurs in the abortion procedure. Afterwards, if it comes to a choice between the life of the fetus and the life of the mother, the latter prevails.[/quote]
I don’t understand. In a dilation and extraction abortion, the fetus is typically extracted from the womb except for its head, then killed. Why is extracting the head intact at that point a matter of life or death for the mother?
“Preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus’ leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the ‘partial birth’ of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a suction curette.”
– Wikipedia
[quote=“Chris”]
The USSC just legislated from the bench, placing politicians in charge of medical decisions that should be made by doctors and patients alone.[/quote]
I’m not sure what your definition of “legislated from the bench” is, but it seems to me that the SC did no such thing. I think the “legislated from the bench” tag is more applicable where the Court overturns legislation, thus placing its judgment above that of elected officials (which is warranted in cases where elected officials act in violation of the Constitution). Instead, the SC upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is a nationwide ban on partial birth abortions.
Now, one could argue that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is a violation of state rights, but isn’t that something that could be addressed at the ballot box? If voters are unhappy with the federal ban, couldn’t they vote out the federal legislators who supported the Act?