'Partial-birth' abortion ban upheld - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-19-2007, 11:21 AM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 06:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Won back the Senate? There are actually more Republicans in the Senate than Democrats. But you know that. And the margin in the House is just that...narrow.

Red state voters, hell, Americans, want common sense abortion laws. As was pointed out earlier, even S.D. said "no" to a ban on all abortion.
However, there is great support for banning partial-birth/late-term abortions, parental consent laws for minors and some form of patient education/waiting period prior to any abortion procedure other than emergencies.
So they are focussing on the European system?
Late term abortions only for medical purposes, otherwise not?
That would be a good step forward, and to be welcome in my opinion.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:21 AM   #92
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 06:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Kiki
Justin's birthdate is in his profile.

Regarding a fetus dead in utero, yes, an intact dilation and extraction aka "partial birth abortion" may be performed (though technically, the latter label doesn't legally apply there), depending on what stage the pregnancy was at. From a medical POV it isn't the only method available, but may be the safest for the mother depending on the situation. Many doctors would be very reluctant to attempt a D&E (the standard second-trimester method) after around the 20th week.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:23 AM   #93
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500



However, there is great support for banning partial-birth/late-term abortions,
But why? Why is there great support for this?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:27 AM   #94
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Spiral_Staircase


Regardless of my stance on the specific issue of abortion, I think I disagree with the logic here. I actually want the government to draw a line on some medical issues. The government tells me I cannot go out and buy a supply of morphine and administer it to myself at home, even if I'm in pain. I like that. I guess I don't consider that "the government making a medical decision" for me, but it is removing an option. And I'd like the government to keep that up. I understand the concern about setting precedent, but I do believe there need to be areas where the government can say "no." But you might be able to change my mind.
How does this analogy work? People don't perform their own abortions. You go to a doctor you trust, look at all the options, and then decide together. Anyone in pain has the choice to go to a doctor and ask about receiving morphine. The doctor can say "No, that will not work, I will not prescribe it" just like a doctor can say "No, a partial birth abortion is not the right choice" and not do it.

I understand what you are saying and agree to an extent (that some options shouldn't even BE options), but I don't agree that politicians decide which options are OK and which aren't. Doctors should make those decisions. A mother carrying a baby with anencepahly is only placing herself at risk. The baby will not live, guaranteed. So why is doing the D&C such an outrageous option, from a medical point of view?
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:38 AM   #95
New Yorker
 
Kiki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: mainly in my fantasy land.....ooooo how I wish it were reality
Posts: 2,716
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Justin's birthdate is in his profile.
Thank you
__________________
Kiki is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:44 AM   #96
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

However, there is great support for banning partial-birth/late-term abortions, parental consent laws for minors and some form of patient education/waiting period prior to any abortion procedure other than emergencies.


this is because most people don't understand what a late-term abortion is for and the conditions under which it is performed.

several examples have been given in this thread. it is not used by mothers who simply forget they are pregnant or change their minds at 8 months.

but we'd like to think that women would do that. we need to think the worst of people to get ourselves emotionally roiled up.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:51 AM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 5,901
Local Time: 10:19 PM
Quote:
the term 'partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which --

(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and

(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus

i cant believe this is even a procedure.
__________________
cell is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 11:54 AM   #98
The Fly
 
babble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lynn Haven, FL
Posts: 145
Local Time: 11:19 PM
I find it amusing that many railing against the "right wing" use of emotionally-driven arguments and wording are doing the exact same thing in expressing their viewpoint. This is a highly emotionally charged argument and most, if not all, people posting here are basing their views on this topic from an emotional standpoint.

First of all, to end the ridiculous argument over the name given the procedure by the differing political parties, let's call it by what the American Medical Association has termed it, intact dilation and evacuation, or IDX.

What exactly is involved in this procedure? The woman's cervix is dilated gradually, usually over a period of days. Occasionally drugs are used to induce labor. Using forceps, the doctor rotates the fetus to the breach position and pulls the fetus' legs, abdomen and arms, leaving only the head inside the womb. Then a small incision is made at the base of the skull in which a suction catheter is inserted to remove cerebral tissue.

Those are the cold facts of the procedure via
http://americanpregnancy.org/unplann...abortions.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_...ction#_note-10

But I think anyone considering this topic should read the testimony of nurse Brenda Schafer, who assisted Dr. Martin Haskell in an IDX procedure. Her testimony is found here: http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/215.htm

Here is a portion of it:

"Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up so that he could see the baby. On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating. As Dr. Haskell watched the baby on the ultrasound screen, the baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen.

Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms-- everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus.

The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his 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.

The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp."

To me, this sounds utterly barbaric. I don't know of anyone that would consider this a humane way to kill an animal, much less a human fetus, which evidently still feels pain.

I researched this topic extensively several years ago, and I don't have the time at the moment to find all my sources (but I will as soon as I can), but basically in my findings I discovered that there is no evidence that this procedure is medically necessary for either the fetus or the mother and that
the majority of the IDX procedures being performed are not out of medical necessity.
__________________
babble is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 12:03 PM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 06:19 AM
As you might've read, no one in here promotes such an abortion if it isn't for medical reasons.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 12:08 PM   #100
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by babble
I

Those are the cold facts of the procedure via
http://americanpregnancy.org/unplann...abortions.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_...ction#_note-10


and when we focus on the procuedure, rather than the circumstance and condition of the fetus that require the procedure, we fall into easy emotionalism once again. likewise, when we focus all our rage and energy on abortion, and not the circumstances that result in an unwanted pregnancy, we fall into easy emotionalism.

again, we are talking about 0.17% of all abortions performed, and most of these are performed for medical reasons or to save the life of the mother.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 12:30 PM   #101
New Yorker
 
*Ally*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,714
Local Time: 01:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


In addition there is a clause that allows
In other words, a maternal "life" exemption.
yes, there is an exemption which would allow the procedures at issue to be performed if the life of the mother was in danger. HOWEVER, there is no exemption for the "health" of the mother- and every other Supreme Court decision regarding abortion has explicitly stated that both the life AND the health of the mother must be protected. in this regard, yesterday's decision completely contradicts Supreme Court precedent.

it's a scary to me that our government has decided that the health of a pregnant woman is no longer something that needs to be valued....
__________________
*Ally* is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 12:36 PM   #102
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Kiki
and....just for the record...can someone enlighten me as to how old Justin is?

I just get the feeling that there are a few fairly younger members here in this blog, which is great, but I think that could explain alot in the matter of maybe not fully understanding....or sticking to the subject?
25

you interested. LOL kidding

I hope with this subject matter you dont have anything against me.
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 12:37 PM   #103
New Yorker
 
*Ally*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,714
Local Time: 01:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


How does this analogy work? People don't perform their own abortions. You go to a doctor you trust, look at all the options, and then decide together. Anyone in pain has the choice to go to a doctor and ask about receiving morphine. The doctor can say "No, that will not work, I will not prescribe it" just like a doctor can say "No, a partial birth abortion is not the right choice" and not do it.

One of the reasons given for upholding the ban in yesterday's majority opinion was that a woman may not fully understand what the medical procedure entails, and therefore might come to regret her decision after the abortion takes place. this is an extremely paternalistic- and frankly sexist- reason for banning the procedure. why didn't the law at issue simply mandate that certain disclosures about the procedure be made by the doctor before the woman undergoes a procedure? this would allow for informed decision-making, and would prevent the problem of women "regretting" their decision.

but i guess the goverment really believes that women are too stupid to make informed choices on their own...
__________________
*Ally* is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 12:37 PM   #104
War Child
 
Spiral_Staircase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 679
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


How does this analogy work? People don't perform their own abortions. You go to a doctor you trust, look at all the options, and then decide together. Anyone in pain has the choice to go to a doctor and ask about receiving morphine. The doctor can say "No, that will not work, I will not prescribe it" just like a doctor can say "No, a partial birth abortion is not the right choice" and not do it.

I understand what you are saying and agree to an extent (that some options shouldn't even BE options), but I don't agree that politicians decide which options are OK and which aren't. Doctors should make those decisions. A mother carrying a baby with anencepahly is only placing herself at risk. The baby will not live, guaranteed. So why is doing the D&C such an outrageous option, from a medical point of view?
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Again, my point is not that a D&C is an outrageous optioin. My point is that I think it's ok for us to have laws regarding medical decisions...even to the extent of ruling some options out. Maybe the morphine example was a bad one, so let's try some others.. I think it's ok for the government to tell me that cloning is not an option for me for my next pregnancy. I think the ban on silicone breast implants was perfectly reasonable while research was performed to determine their safety (I'm not comparing these medical decisions to the partial-birth abortion ban). Yes, these decisions restrict the options available to doctors and their patients. I'm saying I'm ok with that and I believe lawmakers should continue to have the ability to do so. I'm not talking about giving them unlimited power. They still have to work within the framework of the constitution, and they remain accountable to voters.

Again, let me be clear, I'm NOT talking about a ban on any type of abortion, or any other specific medical option. I'm talking about the general idea that lawmakers should be involved in determining what options are available to doctors and their patients. Sorry if this is a little off topic, but think its relevant.
__________________
Spiral_Staircase is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 12:42 PM   #105
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Spiral_Staircase


Sorry if I wasn't clear. Again, my point is not that a D&C is an outrageous optioin. My point is that I think it's ok for us to have laws regarding medical decisions...even to the extent of ruling some options out. Maybe the morphine example was a bad one, so let's try some others.. I think it's ok for the government to tell me that cloning is not an option for me for my next pregnancy. I think the ban on silicone breast implants was perfectly reasonable while research was performed to determine their safety (I'm not comparing these medical decisions to the partial-birth abortion ban). Yes, these decisions restrict the options available to doctors and their patients. I'm saying I'm ok with that and I believe lawmakers should continue to have the ability to do so. I'm not talking about giving them unlimited power. They still have to work within the framework of the constitution, and they remain accountable to voters.

Again, let me be clear, I'm NOT talking about a ban on any type of abortion, or any other specific medical option. I'm talking about the general idea that lawmakers should be involved in determining what options are available to doctors and their patients. Sorry if this is a little off topic, but think its relevant.
Well, I agree with those types of bans because going ahead with those things has been determined to be medically unsafe. Leaving a brain-dead fetus in the mother's womb is more dangerous than removing it.

Lawmakers should never be involved in what options are available to patients for religious reasons. Actually, I don't like that lawmakers should be involved at all. It should be the other way around - the medical community discovers something to be very unsafe and dangerous and lawmaking is a reaction to protect us, not limit us.

Banning abortion has nothing to do with protecting us because it does just the opposite. It limits our rights.
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com