'Partial-birth' abortion ban upheld - Page 8 - 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, 12:44 PM   #106
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by babble


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.
Yeah, I would love to see your "sources". For I find it hard to believe, due to my own research and my understanding of humanity that many would make this choice due to "you know what, I've carried almost full term but now I don't want the baby".
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 12:49 PM   #107
War Child
 
Spiral_Staircase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 679
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


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.
We're in 100% agreement on this.
__________________

__________________
Spiral_Staircase is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 12:52 PM   #108
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by *Ally*


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.
It's really idiotic, because doesn't the doctor have a duty to obtain informed consent to a procedure anyway? She's free to pursue him civilly if she feels that she was not properly informed of the risks and consequences of the procedure. In no other area of informed consent have the courts outright banned a procedure on the off-chance that the patient may not fully understand it.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-19-2007, 12:58 PM   #109
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


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.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 01:06 PM   #110
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


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.
It isn't always dangerous. Sometimes it's perfectly safe to carry an anencephalitic baby to term. The mother's life should not have to be in danger for her to perform this procedure on a fetus without a brain. Serious psychological harm = serious bodily harm, and should be viewed as such. If the mother would suffer great psychological harm, agony and trauma, she should have access to this procedure instead of being forced to carry a fetus which has no brain function and cannot survive more than some 36 hours on average just so some religious person out there is satisfied.

If you're religious and pregnant with an anencephalitic fetus, go ahead and carry to term. But you don't get to dictate to the rest of us what our rights should be in cases like this. It's unbelievable that conservatives crow about state intrusion constantly but are perfectly willing to engage in it here. Very self-serving.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-19-2007, 01:24 PM   #111
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


It isn't always dangerous. Sometimes it's perfectly safe to carry an anencephalitic baby to term. The mother's life should not have to be in danger for her to perform this procedure on a fetus without a brain. Serious psychological harm = serious bodily harm, and should be viewed as such. If the mother would suffer great psychological harm, agony and trauma, she should have access to this procedure instead of being forced to carry a fetus which has no brain function and cannot survive more than some 36 hours on average just so some religious person out there is satisfied.

If you're religious and pregnant with an anencephalitic fetus, go ahead and carry to term. But you don't get to dictate to the rest of us what our rights should be in cases like this. It's unbelievable that conservatives crow about state intrusion constantly but are perfectly willing to engage in it here. Very self-serving.
Precisely.

By "dangerous" I meant that childbirth always carries a level of risk, even if the mother doesn't have any medical conditions relating to the pregnancy. Something can happen, even with a healthy mother in a clean hospital. Some women may not want to keep those risks if they already know the baby has zero chance. Some might, and that's fine too.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 01:51 PM   #112
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

So a stillbirth is not affected.

But giving birth to an infant that will die within days...you have no problem forcing a woman to do that.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 01:54 PM   #113
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

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.
And justify retaining control over them.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 04:51 PM   #114
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,789
Local Time: 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But can you at least see this is a step backwards? You are banning the one form of abortion that in the overall scheme of things is the most medically neccesary.

This is not the form of abortion one chooses as a means of birth control...
Yes, I see your point and understand it. Nothing good will come of this. I'd rather them do these things in broad daylight with people's knowledge rather than with coat hangers in some basement to keep themselves out of trouble. Abortions will still be going on, just not as safely or legally.
__________________
LemonMelon is online now  
Old 04-19-2007, 05:06 PM   #115
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 5,901
Local Time: 10:36 AM
why does everything have to be about control over women's rights? reading the description of what a partial birth abortion was bad enough hearing that the child is still ALIVE...what about the right for the child to live?
__________________
cell is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 05:17 PM   #116
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by icelle
why does everything have to be about control over women's rights? reading the description of what a partial birth abortion was bad enough hearing that the child is still ALIVE...what about the right for the child to live?
Have you read the whole thread? Have you missed the part that the majority of these procedures are done when either the child or the mother's life is at stake, or some other major complication?

How many women do you think carry almost full term and then decide, you know what I don't want the baby now?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 05:56 PM   #117
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
cell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 5,901
Local Time: 10:36 AM
bvs, i've read thru most of the threads, and i can see the arguments. if the mother's life is at stake, then by all means, save the mother.

when it comes to the child, however, i speak from experience. there's always hope.
__________________
cell is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 07:07 PM   #118
Blue Crack Supplier
 
dazzledbylight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D
Posts: 33,000
Local Time: 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Exactly. What needs to happen now is one of the twits on the Supreme Court or in the Senate needs to have a daughter who needs to have one of these. Then we'll see laws that treat women as something other than baby-makers.
I don't have time right now to view this whole thread.....

..but I have heard interviews with people over the years working in Obyn/Gen clinics, and have had at least one direct conversation with a person who saw the "holier than thou " religious-right folks come sneaking in in to get an abortion when it was their daughter/wife etc who needed one!

A woman who has had a real life experienced should be saved verses, the potential to be lived life outside the womb of a near to term fetus/baby.

These judges are haters of women who claim/have {had} the right to direct their own lives AND critical Medical/Health desicions for the past 30 yrs.
Though the rights of women without money/ or acess HAS been whittled away/or not truely provided for in these past 30 yrs as well.

Can you hear the cries, see the uncontrollable bleeding trying to be stopped of women desperate enough to still get an abortion to SAVE their OWN life.

Fuck the Theocratic Religious Right [Dominonists & Recontructionists and others] trying to put Women back to ONLY being barefoot & pregnent!

MY statement ABove is NOT to disparage moderate to liberal House-of-Worship beleivers in any religion who believe women are full citizens of the USA {and arounf the whole world}who HAVE the right to make their OWN Desicions about such crucial aspects of their lives.
__________________
dazzledbylight is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 07:14 PM   #119
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 10:36 AM

http://www.afterabortion.info/news/depressionmsm.html

prozac anyone?
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-19-2007, 07:23 PM   #120
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 11:36 AM
What's your point, diamond?

Studys Show Late-Term Pregnancy Complications can Lead to Mothers' Death
__________________

__________________
Diemen 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 12:36 PM.


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