The W
Views: 98563441
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
31.8.07 0535
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Partial Birth Abortions Banned
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next(1223 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (95 total)
wordlife
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 106/324
EXP: 376461
For next: 28314

Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3308 days
Last activity: 2592 days
#1 Posted on 22.10.03 0750.04
Reposted on: 22.10.10 0752.34
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/22/abortion/index.html

I just wanted to get people's opinion on this.

Personally, I find this sad, women should have the right to do what they want with their bodies (men should not be allowed to choose what women do). Furthermore, there are already enough unwanted and unloved children in the world, let alone there be 2,500 more of them (all this means is that we will be cutting more welfare checks, more WIC, and more food stamps/subsidized housing/free college tuition). My feeling is that if the child cannot live on its own (meaning w/o life support systems), it is not a living being.

I just laugh b/c you know that people like Santorum, Dubya or Steve Chabot if their 18,19,20 year old daughter got pregnant would be the first ones getting this procedure done.
Promote this thread!
cranlsn
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 513/1205
EXP: 2821278
For next: 48480

Since: 18.3.02
From: Sussex, WI

Since last post: 124 days
Last activity: 2 days
#2 Posted on 22.10.03 0757.01
Reposted on: 22.10.10 0757.41
Do you even KNOW WHAT a partial birth abortion is?

A 3rd term baby is delivered breech, that is feet first, on purpose. All but the head is delivered, the arms and legs are out, usually kicking.

Then they pierce the skull and vacuum out the brains collapsing the skull.

In short...it's MURDER!

These 3rd term babies are PERFECTLY viable, with most being able to live without "life support".

My nephew was born at 25 weeks. Today he's a healthy 7 year old. In your "world" he'd be dead.

Pro-choice tries to tie this abomination of a procedure to all abortions. They are NOT the same thing.

Whatever your feelings about "normal" abortions, partial birth abortions are infanticide and a practice that common sense dictates be stopped immediately.

ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 306/641
EXP: 1098240
For next: 58886

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3648 days
Last activity: 3307 days
#3 Posted on 22.10.03 0823.44
Reposted on: 22.10.10 0825.47
    Originally posted by cranlsn
    Do you even KNOW WHAT a partial birth abortion is?

    A 3rd term baby is delivered breech, that is feet first, on purpose. All but the head is delivered, the arms and legs are out, usually kicking.

    Then they pierce the skull and vacuum out the brains collapsing the skull.

    In short...it's MURDER!

    These 3rd term babies are PERFECTLY viable, with most being able to live without "life support".

    My nephew was born at 25 weeks. Today he's a healthy 7 year old. In your "world" he'd be dead.

    Pro-choice tries to tie this abomination of a procedure to all abortions. They are NOT the same thing.

    Whatever your feelings about "normal" abortions, partial birth abortions are infanticide and a practice that common sense dictates be stopped immediately.




Then if I may ask...

What was the point of having them to begin with? I'm sure partial birth abortions weren't around to JUST to fuel some sick people's obsession with killing unborn childern.

Was there a viable, medical, reason for them? How about a legal reason? Any reason at all?

I want to hear the other side of this.
A-MOL
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 663/777
EXP: 1444651
For next: 41286

Since: 26.6.02
From: York, England

Since last post: 3820 days
Last activity: 3762 days
#4 Posted on 22.10.03 0825.45
Reposted on: 22.10.10 0827.51
    Originally posted by cranlsn
    Do you even KNOW WHAT a partial birth abortion is?

    A 3rd term baby is delivered breech, that is feet first, on purpose. All but the head is delivered, the arms and legs are out, usually kicking.

    Then they pierce the skull and vacuum out the brains collapsing the skull.

    In short...it's MURDER!

    These 3rd term babies are PERFECTLY viable, with most being able to live without "life support".

    My nephew was born at 25 weeks. Today he's a healthy 7 year old. In your "world" he'd be dead.

    Pro-choice tries to tie this abomination of a procedure to all abortions. They are NOT the same thing.

    Whatever your feelings about "normal" abortions, partial birth abortions are infanticide and a practice that common sense dictates be stopped immediately.




Unless I am misinformed (and please, correct me if I am wrong), but aren't partial birth abortions given when the health of the mother is in danger or the foetus has a condition which means it will not survive after the natural term of the pregnancy, in which case, your cousin would not have been in a position for this option to be given?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2352/4700
EXP: 21455479
For next: 381183

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1216 days
Last activity: 1013 days
#5 Posted on 22.10.03 0834.18
Reposted on: 22.10.10 0836.00
    Originally posted by A-MOL
    Unless I am misinformed (and please, correct me if I am wrong), but aren't partial birth abortions given when the health of the mother is in danger or the foetus has a condition which means it will not survive after the natural term of the pregnancy, in which case, your cousin would not have been in a position for this option to be given?

They are, but that's not always the case. NARAL, NOW, et al believe you should be able to have a partial-birth abortion on demand.

My only problem with this law is the fact that it does not allow the procedure when the life of the mother is at risk. That's my biggest concern. There is no reason to have a partial birth abortion for the hell of it.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 2474/5402
EXP: 26996696
For next: 135308

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 6 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on 22.10.03 1018.10
Reposted on: 22.10.10 1018.58
Part of the problem with the D&X debate is no one seems even remotely able to agree on how often and why it is done. The anti-choice folks generally trot out numbers in the thousands of procedures per year being done just for the hell of it by mother's who were too lazy to do it in the first 2 terms. The pro-choice folks say it's done a handful of times and only under extreme circumstances. I remember this debate a few years back one side claimed 25,000 per year, the other said something along the lines of 240. I feel like it's hard for me to judge the necessity of this procedure as long the facts about it's usage are in such dispute.
cranlsn
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 514/1205
EXP: 2821278
For next: 48480

Since: 18.3.02
From: Sussex, WI

Since last post: 124 days
Last activity: 2 days
#7 Posted on 22.10.03 1240.39
Reposted on: 22.10.10 1240.46
First...my sister-in-law was never in any danger, but my nephew was born extremely early. He only weighed two pounds. Without medical care, and several surgeries, he would not have survived. However...he is now a perfectly normal (if a little hyper) 7-year old.

Since he would not have survived, technically, my sister-in-law COULD have taken the partial birth abortion route....but what a waste that would have been.

Secondly, as for the life of the mother being in danger. My understanding of the procedure is that they've basically already given birth, they just haven't pulled the head out. How does KILLING the baby at that point save the mother???
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2359/4700
EXP: 21455479
For next: 381183

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1216 days
Last activity: 1013 days
#8 Posted on 22.10.03 1254.12
Reposted on: 22.10.10 1258.09
    Originally posted by cranlsn
    My understanding of the procedure is that they've basically already given birth, they just haven't pulled the head out. How does KILLING the baby at that point save the mother???

There is an issue of a swollen head, which at that point the baby would be still born, can cause life-threatening damage to the mother. Other than that, I'm not familiar enough to say one way or another.
Madame Manga
Kolbasz
Level: 47

Posts: 249/480
EXP: 714029
For next: 52180

Since: 16.1.02
From: Silicon Valley

Since last post: 123 days
Last activity: 1 day
#9 Posted on 23.10.03 1835.34
Reposted on: 23.10.10 1837.25
In the interests of full disclosure, I am pro-life, though I don't necessarily vote that way. Here are some reasons why not. Warning: disturbing facts.

With some types of birth defects, the fetus's head is extremely enlarged. One of those is hydrocephaly; the skull is filled with fluid and the brain doesn't develop. This condition is an obvious candidate for intact dilation and evacuation. The fluid buildup is not always detected early in the pregnancy, though ultrasound diagnosis is getting better.

Another category is conjoined (Siamese) twins. Three-quarters of them are stillborn or die within a day of birth. You only hear about the ones who live, a small minority. Again, the condition may not be obvious on sonogram until the third trimester. Even if they are not too deformed to live and go full-term, conjoined twins must usually be delivered by Caesarean section. Sometimes these twins develop with a single oversize head attached to two bodies. They are never capable of survival in that case, but are very difficult to deliver normally. Either the mother undergoes major abdominal surgery under anesthetic, or she undergoes a "partial-birth abortion", far less traumatic to her reproductive organs.

The tragic fact is that some babies cannot live no matter what anyone does. In times past, their mothers often died with them. Sometimes medical professionals have to do dreadful-sounding things to prevent those deaths. Who would you rather have make those decisions for you or your wife, sister or daughter--your doctor or your Congressman?

MM

DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 39/2697
EXP: 8835961
For next: 152858

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#10 Posted on 24.10.03 1124.52
Reposted on: 24.10.10 1125.04
I am not talking about the Wieners here discussing this but the groups and individuals fighting this out on a national level. The reality is neither side really wants to solve this problem just as politicians really don't want to solve problems that make such great fodder against their opponents and give them visibility.

It's great if you are pro-life to protray pro-choicers as baby killers and showing, or describing, a procedure such as partial birth abortions. It's great if you are pro-choice to paint pro-lifers as heartless bastards who don't care about the mother's health/life or as wanting to oppress women.

No sane person can say abortion is a godd thing though it may be necessary in some cases or that an abortion is never ever a necessary option. The pro-choice advocates should promote ways to minimize the need for abortion while keeping it legal and providing options such as adoption in some cases. The pro-lifers (not including religous dogma such as the Catholic Church stand) need to promote birth control and education to keep sexually active teens and adults from getting pregant and minimize the need for unwanted pregnancies and other options if they do. Real progress will only be made when we can sit down and agree unwanted pregancies should be minimized. This may sound simplistic but we can solve this if both sides would tone down the hyperbole and as odd as it sounds, work together.

By the way, I am pro-choice but morally opposed to abortion. Making things illegal doesn't stop them. My wife and I decide long ago that abortion is unaceptable for us unless her life/health were in danger.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1496/2042
EXP: 6273817
For next: 118982

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2980 days
Last activity: 194 days
#11 Posted on 24.10.03 1159.42
Reposted on: 24.10.10 1200.00
The partial-birth frenzy is political grandstanding, pure and simple.

The majority of third-term fetuses are indeed viable. That's why they already enjoy some protection under the law -- according to Roe vs. Wade, once a fetus reaches the third trimester, states may restrict abortions unless the mother's "life or health" is in danger. If there's any ruling that pro-lifers should seek to overturn as a starting point, it's not Roe, but Doe vs. Bolton, which greatly broadened the concept of "mother's health." (But even with Doe in place, third-trimester abortions are justifiably rare.)

Unfortunately, the procedure that was outlawed (intact dilation and extraction) is often performed in the second trimester, rather than the third. The second trimester happens to be the period of time in which many fatal birth defects are first found, which can alter the potential parent's decisions dramatically.

In other words, this is a furor over abortion _methods_, not abortion _timing_ or abortion _availability_, and the bill doesn't even define the relevant method well. There are other second-trimester procedures (dilation and evacuation, induced labor) that may end up getting caught in the backlash of this vaguely-worded bill.

ShotGunShep
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 255/836
EXP: 1568267
For next: 9288

Since: 20.2.03

Since last post: 2484 days
Last activity: 2371 days
#12 Posted on 24.10.03 1248.27
Reposted on: 24.10.10 1248.49
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    I am pro-choice but morally opposed to abortion. Making things illegal doesn't stop them. My wife and I decide long ago that abortion is unaceptable for us unless her life/health were in danger.


How can you be pro-choice but morally opposed to abortion? I mean, I could understand if somebody said that they were anti-drugs but were for drug legalization. But abortions don't just affect one life. The baby doesn't have any say in any of this. It can't.
I guess I've just never understood how people can consider a growing, living baby, inside the womb, part of the "woman". I guess I don't have the mental capacity for it.
cranlsn
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 516/1205
EXP: 2821278
For next: 48480

Since: 18.3.02
From: Sussex, WI

Since last post: 124 days
Last activity: 2 days
#13 Posted on 24.10.03 1303.17
Reposted on: 24.10.10 1303.28
    Originally posted by kgriffey79
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      I am pro-choice but morally opposed to abortion. Making things illegal doesn't stop them. My wife and I decide long ago that abortion is unaceptable for us unless her life/health were in danger.


    How can you be pro-choice but morally opposed to abortion? I mean, I could understand if somebody said that they were anti-drugs but were for drug legalization. But abortions don't just affect one life. The baby doesn't have any say in any of this. It can't.
    I guess I've just never understood how people can consider a growing, living baby, inside the womb, part of the "woman". I guess I don't have the mental capacity for it.


That point is more the heart of the debate than any procedures. I myself vacillate back and forth, although I too am morally opposed to abortion I cannot find it in myself to condemn someone for making a different decision.

That being said, I find the "fatal birth defects" argument to have little or no ground. In my opinion, a baby is a person; no ifs, ands, or buts. If an adult were found to have a "fatal defect" say brain cancer; should we then kill him?

The "danger to the mother" argument DOES hold more weight, but I still have qualms about deciding one life to be more important than another. I am not a woman, so I don't have quite the same perspective, but speaking as a parent I know that I'd lay my life on the line for one of my children in an instant.

There don't seem to be easy answers to this, and political or not, the debate is worth having. If most public debates could be as level headed as this thread has been, we might see more progress.
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 279/330
EXP: 391189
For next: 13586

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3779 days
Last activity: 2846 days
#14 Posted on 24.10.03 1347.43
Reposted on: 24.10.10 1347.48
It's an unconstitutional law. Where in article 1, section 8 does it give the government this power? Answer: Nowhere. It should be dealt with on a local and statewide level, as should every other power not given to the government. Of course, liberals would never bring a suit based on this, because it would also mean the end of their massive social safety net policies. Once again, the elusive free lunch has come back to bite liberals in the ass. Next time think about it when you support expanding government power past what's allowed in the constitution.

Sympathy? Sorry, you only have yourselves to blame.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 68

Posts: 787/1136
EXP: 2601487
For next: 127327

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3695 days
Last activity: 3165 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on 24.10.03 1410.44
Reposted on: 24.10.10 1412.39
    Originally posted by kgriffey79
    How can you be pro-choice but morally opposed to abortion?


By recognizing that it isn't your choice. I'm not the one who has to deal with the moral issues, the physical and mental trauma that comes from deciding to have an abortion. I'm not a big fan of the procedure myself, but my stance on things has nothing to do with what someone else wants or is going to do.

The trouble with debating abortion is that nobody will ever agree on it. Thus, it's a waste of time that would be better spent on dealing with the issues that make it so prevalent in the first place.
Madame Manga
Kolbasz
Level: 47

Posts: 251/480
EXP: 714029
For next: 52180

Since: 16.1.02
From: Silicon Valley

Since last post: 123 days
Last activity: 1 day
#16 Posted on 24.10.03 1426.06
Reposted on: 24.10.10 1426.23
    Originally posted by cranlsn
    How can you be pro-choice but morally opposed to abortion?


I think what he probably means is that no matter what his personal moral values are, he is not going to vote to outlaw elective abortions. By that measure, I might also be defined as pro-choice. I don't think that I can enforce that decision for other people, and as I've said, the US government is not what I would call the ideal arbiter of medical and reproductive issues.

However, if a friend of mine was considering abortion, I would argue strenuously for the baby's life on every possible ground, including religious ones. I am not afraid of saying that abortion is wrong--I will make a moral call that some people would say was "judgmental". On that score, I am pro-life. I believe that every influence should be brought to bear on both men and women to dissuade them both from creating unwanted pregnancies in the first place and from terminating them if they occur. I would like to remove the whole question from the political arena, however.

I am a mother--I have had two children. Yes, while a baby is growing in your womb, utterly dependent on your body for nourishment and protection, it *is* part of you, biologically and psychically. There is no closer relationship between humans. A baby remains part of you as long as it is helpless, especially if you are nursing. This unique bond has been recognized for a long time. The idea that an infant is a full human being is a fairly recent one. I have heard, for instance, that in old English common law, a mother could not be prosecuted for infanticide if the child was under than a few months old.


    That being said, I find the "fatal birth defects" argument to have little or no ground. In my opinion, a baby is a person; no ifs, ands, or buts. If an adult were found to have a "fatal defect" say brain cancer; should we then kill him?


In the cases I mentioned, it's not a question of euthanizing someone for their defects--it's more like letting nature take its course, because these babies have been made in such a way that they cannot live outside the womb, for whatever reason. If I had an unborn baby that was diagnosed as having a fatal defect, I would probably allow the pregnancy to continue anyway, all other things being equal. There is value in all life, even such brief sparks as a child that will inevitably be stillborn. Even only being able to hold him or her in my arms for a few minutes would be infinitely better than the alternative--for ME.

Letting me die too just to avoid intervention wouldn't be a positive good, in my opinion. However, I have heard about women who continued pregnancies that were almost sure to kill them. I applaud that kind of courage...but I also question it. Martyrdom can never be a *requirement* for anyone.


    The "danger to the mother" argument DOES hold more weight, but I still have qualms about deciding one life to be more important than another.


There is never a clear answer to that question, which is all the more reason that it shouldn't be decided by legislative fiat. Everyone involved in a decision like that SHOULD have qualms.

MM
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1497/2042
EXP: 6273817
For next: 118982

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2980 days
Last activity: 194 days
#17 Posted on 24.10.03 1434.45
Reposted on: 24.10.10 1436.17
    Originally posted by Nate The Snake
      Originally posted by kgriffey79
      How can you be pro-choice but morally opposed to abortion?

    By recognizing that it isn't your choice. I'm not the one who has to deal with the moral issues, the physical and mental trauma that comes from deciding to have an abortion.

Or the shorter version:
"Don't like abortion? Don't have one."
or
"Because it's wrong to you doesn't mean it's wrong for me."

Take your pick.

Those who feel that fetuses are human babies from conception will obviously have more problems with this notion than those with less stringent definitions of viability, of course.




(edited by vsp on 24.10.03 1240)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 40/2697
EXP: 8835961
For next: 152858

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#18 Posted on 24.10.03 1524.11
Reposted on: 24.10.10 1524.37
    Originally posted by kgriffey79
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      I am pro-choice but morally opposed to abortion. Making things illegal doesn't stop them. My wife and I decide long ago that abortion is unaceptable for us unless her life/health were in danger.


    How can you be pro-choice but morally opposed to abortion? I mean, I could understand if somebody said that they were anti-drugs but were for drug legalization. But abortions don't just affect one life. The baby doesn't have any say in any of this. It can't.
    I guess I've just never understood how people can consider a growing, living baby, inside the womb, part of the "woman". I guess I don't have the mental capacity for it.


Other Wieners have hit on some of my reasons. My wife was a CASA volunteer for a while dealing with these unwanted children. As cruel as it sounds, it may have been better for them if they had never been born. The physical, mental, and sexual abuse these children underwent was beyond horrible.

Making things illegal like this usually makes them worse and leads to even more pain and suffering on everyone's part. To be simplistic, you need a liscense to drive a car or do somone's nails professionally but to screw, get pregnant and have a child you just need a partner. And Madame Manga put some of my reasoning quite well as did deveral others.

What I would like is a concerted effort and outcry to decrease all the stupid people creating children irresponsibly (not genuine accidents) and if they do go ahead make it clear that giving up the baby for adoption is a heoric choice best for everyone. And get good effective sex education out to our kids. The trouble is too many pro-lifers get in a snit about easily obtainable birth control and sex ed. I am not wild about teenagers having sex since few are emotionally mature enough to really understand what the ultimate consequences of their actions are. But damn, i'ts better to make sure they don't get pregnant if they do.

One last thing, it might help if "illegtimate" births were not so accepted. I am not saying go back to the good old days. But when teachers throw baby showers, etc., it makes it seem acceptable or even desirable until the reality of the baby is there.

p.s. I also never understood why those who have big problems with legalized abortion, often have no trouble with capitol punishment. Of course i am a hypocite myself as I am pro-choice and agaisnt the death penalty but that's another thread.
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 280/330
EXP: 391189
For next: 13586

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3779 days
Last activity: 2846 days
#19 Posted on 24.10.03 1642.42
Reposted on: 24.10.10 1643.40
They see no conflict because the baby is defenseless and has done nothing wrong.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 41/2697
EXP: 8835961
For next: 152858

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#20 Posted on 24.10.03 1704.01
Reposted on: 24.10.10 1706.55
    Originally posted by Michrome
    They see no conflict because the baby is defenseless and has done nothing wrong.


People like myself see a huge conflict. We are opposed to banning abortion but think the cavalier use of it is awful. I cannot, however, see the world in black and white. The trouble with extreme positions on either end of a spectrum is they have simplistic answers to terribly complicated questions. That baby is also defenseless when it is abused, ignored, molested, treated like a plaything, and allowed to die or physically (and mentally) damaged for life. And guess what it didn't do anything wrong.

One more time, we need (must) minimize the need for abortion by finding common ground to eliminate the need. We must also make it clear that an abortion is not like getting your ears pierced but a procedure that may have long-term serious physical and mental consequences. It should be viewed as a last resort, not a convience as far too many believe. I am not pro-choice because I like the procedure or have no consideration of the fetus but because making it illegal will not work and will eliminate abortion as an option where it is needed.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 NextThread ahead: Jessica Lynch Laments Military Portrayal
Next thread: CNN Planted Questions for "Rock the Vote" Debate
Previous thread: New Political Parties?
(1223 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Partial Birth Abortions BannedRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.367 seconds.