Partial birth abortion ban





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Partial birth abortion ban
By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 05:00 pm: Edit

As most of you know, Kerry voted against this law and Bush signed it into affect, obviously showing their opposing views on the subject. Personnally, I think its extremely wrong to kill partially born children at will, and don't see how anyone could see any differently, but they do, and I guess I have to respect that. I don't want this to turn into partisan bickering, so lets just PLEASE discuss the issue calmly without flaming each other. So...what do you think about it? Will this affect your vote?

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 06:04 pm: Edit

I concur with you Benjamin, there is no real justification for partial birth abortion (aside from life-threatening complications). How can you possibly justify that? It's pretty hard to deny AT BIRTH that the child is not really a human yet because it's not "all born".

That's just my $0.02, I really don't like to get to deep into the abortion issue: 1. Because I'm a guy and 2. There is no middle ground with the pro-choice/life people, and people are very vehement about that issue, so it's really a lose-lose situation. I may be pro-life, but I would not vote against someone simply because they are pro-choice, it's almost always ridiculous to base your political stand/vote on one issue.

By Nmoreno1 (Nmoreno1) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 06:17 pm: Edit

I don't think this issue should be discussed at all. Moderators should close it.

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 06:26 pm: Edit

...why not? These kind of subjects shape the world we live in. Its current, important, and perfectly relevant. Generally the people who don't like to discuss the issue are the people who support partial birth abortion, because they find it hard to defend their position.

By Fenix_Three (Fenix_Three) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 07:54 pm: Edit

What is it exactly?

By Phantom (Phantom) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 08:07 pm: Edit

We had an article on this in our school newspaper last year. It's defined as when "a physician delivers a baby to the point where only the head remains inside the womb, but then punctures the back of the skull and removes the brain before completing delivery."

I think the only time a partial birth abortion can be justified is if the mother is at a risk for losing her life and there's no other way for both her AND the baby to live. It sounds really gruesome and I would classify it as murder (the baby's half-way out?) Why didn't the mother abort sooner if she didn't want the baby?

By T2opine (T2opine) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 09:06 pm: Edit

I am completely against partial-birth abortion. I can understand why people would approve of abortion during the first trimester. At that point I can see why someone would say it's a woman's right to choose. Personally I don't agree with abortion at all with the exception of extreme cases, but I can understand why people would support it.

However, I see no reason at all for partial-birth abortion. If it were a life threatening situation, they could do an emergency Cesearean section. The way I see it, there are so many ways for girls to get free or low-cost abortions, and they have time to decide if they want the baby or not.

By Taru (Taru) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 10:56 pm: Edit

"Partial birth abortion" is not a medical term but a political one; the correct name is "intact dilation and extration" (D&X). D&Xes account for far less than 5% of all abortions and they are performed when there are either severe birth defects (such as anencephaly, when the fetus has no brain) or when the mother's life is seriously in danger.

Unfortunately, many people talking or writing about this subject don't know enough about it to make a coherent, intelligent discussion.

Since this is such a hot CC topic, perhaps the Mods should start another board devoted to abortion discussion! /sarcasm

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:19 pm: Edit

Taru, there is no need to insult my intelligence. I know plently enough about it to know that it is not always "performed when there are either severe birth defects or when the mother's life is seriously in danger." Many still claim it should be the mother's right to choose even during this period, and many times it is performed (legally) just because the baby is not wanted.

By F3arxn03vil (F3arxn03vil) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:39 pm: Edit

I am COMPLETELY against partial birth abortion. It is one of the sickest things that could ever be done to a human being.

I'm with T2 on the early-pregnancy abortion. I feel that it should be used in extreme cases. I don't feel that we should have the right to end a life just because doesn't someone doesn't feel like being pregnant... ugh

By Nmoreno1 (Nmoreno1) on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:52 pm: Edit

Taru, the procedure you spoke of is performed in only about 1% of all abortions.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 12:18 am: Edit

The reason they use the partial-birth abortion procedure is because it is important for the doctor to make sure the baby is dead before removing it from the mother. Most other late-term procedures sometimes result in a live birth, which freaks out the mother and the nurses present. For instance, for a late-term abortion, sometimes they perform a "hysterotomy", which is like a C-section, except that the doctor has to cut the umbilical cord and hold his hand over the baby's mouth and smother it to death before removing it and tossing it into a tray. Every once in a while, the baby starts breathing, and they have to sit there and wait a few minutes or a few hours until it dies again. Other procedures include a saline abortion, where they inject the amniotic fluid in the womb with a saline solution, which burns off the baby's skin. Then they induce labor, and once in a while the baby is still alive and again the nurses have to watch it until it dies. In another type of late-term procedure, which is probably one of the most preferred since it is more efficient at killing the baby, they inject a poison directly into the heart of the baby, then induce labor. There may be some added danger to the mother with this, which is why many doctors prefer partial-birth abortion. The problem with a late-term abortion is that the head is too large to deliver without completely dilating the cervix, which is either difficult to do or takes too long. Also, cutting the baby into pieces and vaccuming them out, which is the normal method, is more risky because of the increased chance of leaving tissue behind and infection resulting. With partial-birth abortion, they can deliver the body whole, suck out the brains and collapse the skull, then remove the head intact. This may gross many people out, and well it should, because this is the ugly reality of abortion. You can't just discuss this issue in principle only. You have to fully understand the actuality of what you are talking about. The moderators may want to censor what I am saying, but this is a current political and legal issue, and what I say is simply the cold, awful truth.

By Steveruleworld (Steveruleworld) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 02:22 am: Edit

Also, not many people seem to argue this but when laws are signed into effect they are made for the norm, not the extreme cases. Personally from this point, a ban on abortion would seem fitting. It would try to deter person from using it as a way out, when they are not responsible enough to use contraceptives or even shouldn't be engaging in sexual activities. I will admit that cases of rape are a huge exception, but nevertheless, it is an extreme, and as i stated, laws are made for the norms, not extreme.

I'm against abortion, unless their is a severe risk of death to both parties, and the only way either could live is if the child was aborted.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 09:27 am: Edit

I am against legislators and judges deciding what is appropriate medical care.
If the doctor is liscensed to practice medicine,let them decide along with the patient what is appropriate.

By Taru (Taru) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Nmoreno, you're right; I knew it was around 1-2% but I didn't have the exact percentage on hand.

Emeraldkity, I fully agree with you.

Chavi, I suggest using "return" from time to time to make your paragraphs more readable. That said, abortion is a medical procedure, and, like many other medical procedures, can be unpleasant. And I do "fully understand the actuality" of what I'm talking about, which is why I'm pro-choice.

Also, Benjamin, in my last post I was talking about D&X abortions, not ones performed before the third trimester. As I said before, most D&Xes are performed because of severe birth defects that are not discovered until later in the pregnancy.

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 01:17 pm: Edit

Emeraldkity, that's like saying who a hitman kills should only be between him and his client and the government should stay out of it.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 01:38 pm: Edit

Emeraldkitty~
That is just bad policy. I prefer a hands off approach to government, but certainly, *some* restrictions must be made. Legislation protects both patients and doctors.

Speaking of the Saline method of abortion.

I once heard a speaker who had survived this procedure. She was taken home by a nurse and raised. To think, that the child was strong and healthy enough to not only live but survive after such a procedure blows my mind. I don't understand how anyone could say that's alright.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 03:10 pm: Edit

Taru -

Most partial birth abortions are performed in the second trimester, at 20 weeks gestation and older, but mostly 20-24 weeks. Also, statistics on "D and X" are not readily available, but in one New Jersey clinic alone, 1,500 partial birth abortions were performed, 80% of which were done on perfectly healthy mothers and babies. It boggles my mind that anyone would condone rushing in to kill a child just because it has some "defect". Sounds like discrimination against the disabled, if you ask me.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 05:57 pm: Edit

Just forget it.

By Sheeprun (Sheeprun) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 06:07 pm: Edit

If you take a 'cheap shot' at someone in this thread, you will be instantly banned. If you do not understand what that means, do NOT post here. Got it?

This is a difficult topic to discuss. If you suspect you cannot be civil in this thread, you'd better go spend your time in the Beatles vs. Beach Boys thread----or something even less confrontational.

<moderator>

By Kingkonglives (Kingkonglives) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 07:24 pm: Edit

"That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" -Bill Clinton

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 08:48 pm: Edit

I once heard a speaker who had survived this procedure. She was taken home by a nurse and raised. To think, that the child was strong and healthy enough to not only live but survive after such a procedure blows my mind. I don't understand how anyone could say that's alright

It sounds like the doctor who performed that procedure was incompetent.
Lets take the liscenses AWAY from incompentent doctors, but let us NOT tell the ones who are liscensed how to practice medicine.

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 09:44 pm: Edit

So we should let doctors do whatever they feel is acceptable, even if the majority of Americans feel it is completly unethical? I don't agree with that.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 09:55 pm: Edit

Emeraldkitty~
My point is, I don't understand how abortion can be considered humane at a stage when a child can actually survive such a procedure and go on to live a normal life.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 10:48 pm: Edit

I don't know about that particular case, perhaps some one can give links to that information?u

But ya know if doctors are performing 2nd trimester abortions in instances where it is not warrante d, that is a concern.

However I don't think the response should be to ban all abortions regardless of circumstances after the 1st trimester. At least leave room for a hospital board or panel to decide depending on medical conditions

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Here from abortionfacts.com

BTW, I don't agree with everything she says
and, there are others like her

Gianna Jessen

Testimony of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on April 22, 1996.

My name is Gianna Jessen. I am 19 years of age. I am originally from California, but now reside in Franklin, Tennessee. I am adopted. I have cerebral palsy. My biological mother was 17 years old and seven and one-half months pregnant when she made the decision to have a saline abortion. I am the person she aborted. I lived instead of died.

Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived alive, instead of dead, at 6:00 a.m. on the morning of April 6, 1977. I was early, my death was not expected to be seen until about 9 a.m., when he would probably be arriving for his office hours. I am sure I would not be here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic as his job is to take life, not sustain it. Some have said I am a "botched abortion", a result of a job not well done.

There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother and other young girls in the clinic, who also awaited the death of their babies, were the first to greet me. I am told this was a hysterical moment. Next was a staff nurse who apparently called emergency medical services and had me transferred to a hospital.

I remained in the hospital for almost three months. There was not much hope for me in the beginning. I weighed only two pounds. Today, babies smaller than I was have survived.

A doctor once said I had a great will to live and that I fought for my life. I eventually was able to leave the hospital and be placed in foster care. I was diagnosed with cerebral palsy as a result of the abortion.

My foster mother was told that it was doubtful that I would ever crawl or walk. I could not sit up independently. Through the prayers and dedication of my foster mother, and later many other people, I eventually learned to sit up, crawl, then stand. I walked with leg braces and a walker shortly before I turned age four. I was legally adopted by my foster mother's daughter, Diana De Paul, a few months after I began to walk. The Department of Social Services would not release me any earlier for adoption.

I have continued in physical therapy for my disability, and after a total of four surgeries, I can now walk without assistance. It is not always easy. Sometimes I fall, but I have learned how to fall gracefully after falling 19 years.

I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any person conceived to be any of those things.

I have met other survivors of abortion. They are all thankful for life. Only a few months ago I met another saline abortion survivor. Her name is Sarah. She is two years old. Sarah also has cerebral palsy, but her diagnosis is not good. She is blind and has severe seizures. The abortionist, besides injecting the mother with saline, also injects the baby victims. Sarah was injected in the head. I saw the place on her head where this was done. When I speak, I speak not only for myself, but for the other survivors, like Sarah, and also for those who cannot yet speak ...

Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two, three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no difference. What are you seeing? Many close there eyes...

The best thing I can show you to defend life is my life. It has been a great gift. Killing is not the answer to any question or situation. Show me how it is the answer.

There is a quote which is etched into the high ceilings of one of our state's capitol buildings. The quote says, "Whatever is morally wrong, is not politically correct." Abortion is morally wrong. Our country is shedding the blood of the innocent. America is killing its future.

All life is valuable. All life is a gift from our Creator. We must receive and cherish the gifts we are given. We must honor the right to life.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 11:30 pm: Edit

"I am against legislators and judges deciding what is appropriate medical care.
If the doctor is liscensed to practice medicine,let them decide along with the patient what is appropriate."

"But ya know if doctors are performing 2nd trimester abortions in instances where it is not warrante d, that is a concern."

Emeraldkitty, these 2 statements are highly contradictory.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 10:07 am: Edit

Geniusash,

The problem with this discussion, and the reason I have avoided participation so far, is that the two sides have polarized to a degree where I think further discussion is a waste of time. On the one side, the freedom of choice folks support a position that many americans find unpleasant, to say the least. They take a position regarding the definition of life that is all too dependent on technology, and discuss fuzzy issues like quality of life etc.

On the other side, people parade forth graphic photographs (ever see a hip surgery? not pretty either...) or testimony like you gave above. Truth is, few reputable health care providers these days would abort a late second trimester pregnancy without an overwhelming medical reason, such as the life of the mother or anencephalopathy. I suspect it would be equally heart-rending to hear from mothers who did not survive pregnancy, but that's still beyond the capability of medical science.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 01:55 pm: Edit

Great post, massdad. Well put.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 02:51 pm: Edit

When I was in the hospital having my first, my husband came in to tell me about a dad whom he had met in the waiting room, whose wife had died shortly after childbirth.
Let me tell you that got me out of bed jogging around the floor!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002000203_consent09m.html
A proposed consent form for pregnant patients says, in part:

"I recognize that no guarantee can be made as to the health of my baby. I recognize that there are a wide variety of abnormalities that can affect a baby. I understand that some of these defects can be associated with fetal death or severe lifelong disability such as mental retardation or cerebral palsy, requiring continuous care, medical interventions and substantial financial expenses.

"I understand that not all complications of labor and delivery are treatable and that current available technology to monitor the fetus in no way guarantees a good outcome. Complications in labor can result in serious consequences to the fetus, including but not limited to bodily injury, permanent severe brain damage, and death."

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 03:25 pm: Edit

Massdad
She asked for a specific case...I gave it to her. I wholeheartedly understand the complications that can occur during pregnancy, but I also recognize that, usually, there is a better option. My mother manages an obstetrics unit. She has worked as an RN and Nurse Educator for years now. She's seen babies die...I don't think she's seen one mother die (I would have heard about it, I'm sure). Not that I'm saying it doesn't happen...it does, but still, there are complications with EVERY medical procedure, abortion included. Here are some. (this is a pro-life website)

http://www.pregnantpause.org/safe/so_you.htm

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 03:38 pm: Edit

http://www.equityfeminism.com/discussion/fullthread$msgnum=1209

1/2500 childbirths result in death. I could not find a reputable source for the amount of abortions resulting in death, but am still looking.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 03:42 pm: Edit

1/100000 result in death according to this site, but this includes ALL stages, the risk is much higher later in gestation.
http://www.afraidtoask.com/abortion/abcomplications.htm

By Chavi (Chavi) on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 11:54 pm: Edit

Massdad, you are so very wrong. Everyone around here knows you can get a late term abortion at a clinic in Orlando for any reason you want. There's another clinic in Ocala, and more down in South Florida. I'm sure this is true in most metropolitan areas. If there's money involved, someone will do it. As I said before, the abortion clinic in New Jersey gave statistics showing they performed 1,500 partial birth abortions, 80% of which had nothing to do with the health of the mother or the baby.

You should read the testimony of the partial birth abortion doctors in the federal cases they filed to overturn the partial birth abortion ban. They are cold hearted killers. The judge kept asking one of them if he had considered that the fetus felt any pain. He couldn't care less, that wasn't his patient. Pro-choicers hide behind their "medical" rhetoric. Don't let it fool you.

And how can you compare the execution of a human being to hip surgery? That's like saying "So what if you have pictures of all those Iragi's killed by Sadaam and thrown in mass graves? They're no more gory than hip surgery." Why do you think pro-lifers show you the graphic pictures, to tell you that blood and guts are involved? They are pictures of tiny human beings who have been painfully and horribly killed.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 09:39 am: Edit

Chavi,

Do you support capital punishment, for any reason?

By Chavi (Chavi) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 12:11 pm: Edit

No, I don't. Although, I don't believe it is intrinsically evil like abortion is. By that, I mean that I believe along the lines of what the Catholic church teaches, that the state has the right to apply capital punishment in certain cases in order to protect society from hardened killers. But, as the Pope has recently said, I don't believe it is necessary any longer in most nations of the world today because we have the capability of imprisoning people securely for life. Earlier in our history, i.e. when people were living in tents and lean-to's, there was no good way to imprison killers for life, much less any significant length of time.

But if you are trying to draw a parallel here between capital punishment and abortion, there is a big difference between the taking of an innocent life and that of one guilty of heinous crimes who is likely to kill again.

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Chavi, you are 100% correct. I hate it when people say the two are related, because they are two completely different issues.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 03:16 pm: Edit

Benjamin, you mean in one case killing is OK, but in the other it is not? Why do I see an inconsistency here?

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 03:29 pm: Edit

I am for choice in deciding when to abort an embryo, I do not think that an embryo is human life, it is potential, it is a mass of relatively undifferientated cells.

However I am against capital punishment.
One reason is the error in conviction rate of those on death row. People make mistakes and advocates and cops are all too human.I also do not think that we should decide if a living human lives or dies regardless of what harm they have done. Death is too good for some of them frankly.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Partial birth abortions don't deal with an embryo.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 04:55 pm: Edit

Aborting a embryo is basically the point of the morning after pill or those new abortion pills.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 05:02 pm: Edit

Poison Ivy:

It may just be a semantic point, but the drugs you reference prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum. If you STILL insist on calling that abortion, you are welcome to do so. Of course, in that case, you'd well be advised to lie still after...never mind. Most folks would not call the blocking of implantation abortion.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 05:03 pm: Edit

or an iud
does "life" begin at conception, implantation, formation of the lower brain stem and circulatory system, birth or ?

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 05:22 pm: Edit

I think that life begins at implantation. Why? I don't really know. I don't see how a fetus can not be considered a life when it can SURVIVE an abortion (partial birth/saline/etc., some cases we were talking about before)

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Massdad, there is a big difference between punishment and cold-blooded murder. Anyone with any maturity can see that.

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 06:15 pm: Edit

actually... i wasn't referring to the morning after as abortion

they are actually pills that abort a fetus. i support the morning after.

By Emeraldkity4 (Emeraldkity4) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 06:18 pm: Edit

?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=1&did=923d
do a search for DNA and death row then come back and make that statement

By Chavi (Chavi) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 06:36 pm: Edit

A human life begins at conception. There is no other intellectually honest position to take. Conception is the instant at which you have your genetic makeup determined, you start to grow and develop and are a unique being, different, independent and distinct from any part of the mother's body. I don't necessarily believe that your soul exists then, but human dignity requires that we honor and treat both the ovum and the embryo as human life, not some blob of cells to experiment on or to wash away, refusing it the life-sustaining nourishment it would receive from implantation in it's mother's womb.

By the time most abortions are performed (8-12 weeks gestation) this is no longer an embryo but a recognizable human being with a beating heart, a brain, a face, arms, legs, fingers and toes. It starts to respond to stimuli, sucks its thumb and feels pain.

If we are to differentiate ourselves from animals, and hold human life in higher regard than other forms of life, then we need to respect the dignity of all stages of human life. This includes killers and murderers, although I still maintain there is a difference between the taking of innocent human life and that of those guilty of murder, when necessary for the protection of society. But we still treat them with some level of dignity and refrain from torturing or killing them. The whole concept of civil rights is that respect for human dignity, the treatment of human life as something sacred.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 07:09 pm: Edit

" there is a big difference between punishment and cold-blooded murder"

And killing is STILL killing. You may be comfortable with arbitrary decisions of the state regarding who to kill and who to let live. I am not. And yes, it is arbitrary. Arbitrary in that some crimes are capital and some are not. Arbitrary in that it is applied to some people and not others. Arbitrary in that prosecutors allow some people to plead to lesser charges and not others.

I realize my view is a minority view, and for that I am sad. It pains me when I see governmental leaders making jokes about folks on death row. It pains me when others actually justify the death penalty for "the protection of society". So anything, even death, is justified if it protects society? Sad.

By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 08:35 pm: Edit

Killing is killing, Massdad, we agree!

By Poison_Ivy (Poison_Ivy) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 08:57 pm: Edit

Rarely do any people know about it. RU 486, the French abortion pill.
"A 21-year-old student said, "It had two dark spot like eyes and a little skeleton not quite formed....I think about this often. I haven't talked about it to anyone. I feel quite empty."

"the women who saw their dead child didn't want to do so again."

*edited for graphic site*

I literally stopped breathing and started to gag when reading the personal accounts. It's graphic in terms of words but it's something that I think we should know. I wouldn't want everyone here to end up the same way.

By Bumblebee83 (Bumblebee83) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 10:04 pm: Edit

I'm pro-choice actually, and I do agree with the partial birth abortion ban. I don't agree with WHY it was inacted though. I know at least one of you will ask me what the difference between an normal abortion is and a partial birth. Just look up the pictures of amn eigth week fetus and and one a little farther along and you will know. AND most abortions are performed after the fourth week because before that a surgical abortion is next to impossible because the embryo is only half a centimeter long. At eight weeks it still only weighs about an ounce, and the big clencher for me is that the 8 week there aren't any brain waves. And the heart is still outside of the body. and most abortions take place (70%) before the 8 week. Most are at about 6 weeks.

By Hvt (Hvt) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 10:30 pm: Edit

Can someone explain to me how somebody can be so heartless, barbaric, and inhumane as to support keeping the murder by any means of innocent 3rd trimester babies without any defects, viable outside the womb, without any danger to the mother from the pregnancy, without any rape involved, legal? Anybody that supports this, explain your logic! Do you condone it because you believe in irresponsible sex with absolutely no consequences? Are you possessed by the devil? Are you insane?

No, but when a poster infers that anyone that doesn't agree with their position is possessed by the devil or is insane... I would interpret that as a very personal and outrageous attack. Such tactics are not welcome or allowed on College Confidential---or in any other civilized forum.

Sheeprun
<moderator>


Moderators, I know this one is a stretch, but I can guarantee you 100% that absolutely nothing sickens me more than 3rd trimester abortions due to irresponsibility of the mother or both parents. So be cowardly and censor the last 2 rhetorical questions and this last sentence, or let the truth be heard!

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Massdad, what if we caught OBL and we imprisoned him....but oh, no, don't kill him...he has the same rights as an innocent baby. And then, his cohorts break him out, and he kills thousands of innocent lives, once more. I would not hesitate to blame the deaths of those people as much on people like you as I did on bin Laden himself. You might not believe this, but sometimes execution IS justified for the protection of humanity.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 10:56 pm: Edit

Well, Chavi, you are right on most points but wrong on one - at conception and through birth, the blastocyst/embryo/fetus is NOT separate and distinct from the mother's body - far from it.

Hence the origin of the debate.

Also, let us be technically accurate. Plan B prevents ovulation and implantation of a blastocyst. Not an embryo, folks - technical term is blastocyst at that point.

As for partial-birth abortion - as a medical procedure, I understand it. As a non-medical procedure, I believe it to be horrible. One medical instance which I heard about and resonates with me is a couple who realized in the 5th month of pregancy that their baby would not survive birth. It did not have skin covering its stomach, had malformed internal organs, and would certainly be stillborn. The parents decided to save themselves anguish - she did not want to carry the child to term when it would certainly die. OTOH, I know people who were born weighing less than 3 lbs, one who was a pound. Given the technology available today, a person is viable outside of the womb around 6 months.

I'm of the mind that this isn't a legal issue so much as a social issue. Better birth control (through whatever method, either contraception or abstinence) will lead to fewer unwanted pregancies, and thus fewer abortions. No one is really pro-abortion; no one is really all for having a bunch of unwanted kids in the world or a bunch of women dying because of pregnancy.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Tuesday, August 10, 2004 - 11:30 pm: Edit

But we should all be for respecting human life. The little baby you mentioned did not have to be deliberately killed. That was not respectful. It is unfortunate that he was not allowed to continue to develop naturally and die a natural death, maybe even in his mother's arms. We are so concerned about saving ourselves anguish in this society. We are afraid of our own shadow sometimes.

Ariesathena, the blastocyst and whatever else you want to call it is most certainly separate and distinct from the mother's body. She cannot control it as she can an arm or a leg. It does not move independently of her. The embryo grows its own sac and amniotic fluid, it grows the placenta which attaches to the uterine wall and takes nourishment. All it needs from the mother to survive is nourishment and a safe environment. Come to think of it, we all still need those things to survive.

Massdad, I do believe we should not use the death penalty in this country. But you must admit that if you lived in more primitive times where mauraders entered your village and raped and murdered your people and you had no prison or other means of protecting yourselves, the death penalty would be a necessity. You can't just catch the bad guys and let them go, knowing they will return to repeat their crimes. Killing is killing, but justified when in self defense.

By Bumblebee83 (Bumblebee83) on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 01:11 am: Edit

Chavi- how can you say that the chld who is certanly going to die should be carried to term? That is simply causing pain to everyone involved. At five months, the fetus can feel pain. I think it's more disrespectful to force a being that cannot make it's own decision to endure pain for 4 extra months than to stop the pain.
Lets say you know your dog is going to die. It has four months to live. The dog can't say "hey this sucks, please make it stop". If I had that information, I would put my dog down. It would be the kind and humane thing to do. It would be the same thing as the fetus who isn't going to survive.

By Mosquito86 (Mosquito86) on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 06:29 am: Edit

From what I remember of an article on this ban,
the actual law did not provide for a measure that excludes cases where it is life/death for the mother or baby. That's why I am against the bill.

I talked to someone who actually works at an abortion clinic. She said that basically, no one really does this procedure unless the fetus dies or it's life or death. That is not to say there are people who have done it w/ a live baby. But I don't consider this bill a big step on the way to complete abortion.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 10:04 am: Edit

Chavi - There is no reason why it should be your choice, the Church's choice, the Legislature's choice, or anyone's choice save for the parents involved. They felt deeply that it would not be sane to continue carrying a baby, go through childbirth, and have it die a gruesome death that way. Every woman knows her own limits - that is not for you to decide.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 10:40 am: Edit

Benjamin, Chavi, I fully respect your view on capital punishment. I just don't agree. There may not even be anything logical about my view, so I suspect further argument won't help me to "see the light" or whatever.

At the same time, I suspect freedom to choose is similar. No amount of logic will convince you that life begins at viability, just like no amount of logic will convince me that life begins at conception.

I always find it fascinating to learn what others think regarding controversial issues, and really enjoy the why. So, please do not interpret my probing your views as a criticism. If I err over that line, feel free to correct me. At the same time, please respect my differing views.

By Ndbisme5 (Ndbisme5) on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 02:32 pm: Edit

Chavi, Congrats on making my skin crawl with only words. I won't bother debating abortion...but I guess I wasn't too well versed in what partial birth abortion really was.

By Chavi (Chavi) on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 03:02 pm: Edit

Bumblebee and Ariesathena, again I say unto you, as I have on many other threads, why can't it be the baby's choice? Who are you or anyone else to decide to take that life? Are you telling me that his/her life deserves no more respect than a dog's? It is not just my right but my duty as a member of the human race to say that you should not euthanize your grandmother, you should not beat your dog, you should not murder your next-door neighbor and you should not kill your baby by abortion or any other means. And while we're at it, you shouldn't litter the sidewalk or rob a bank.

Are these only your choices to make? Abortion directly affects another human life, who should have rights and respect in a decent society, just as the murderers and rapists in our prisons do.

Mosquito86 - There was overwhelming testimony in the congressional record and now the court cases that the partial birth abortion procedure is never medically necessary to preserve or protect the life of the mother. As a matter of fact, it can be more harmful to her than other procedures because of the way they force the dilation of the cervix and can damage it.

You are right that it is a relatively rarely used procedure(which was on its way to becoming more popular), but it was the particular horror of it (testimony about the baby kicking it legs as they dangled from the birth canal, then suddenly arching in pain and going limp when the scissors are inserted into the back of the skull) that enabled pro-lifers to convince legislators to outlaw it. But your friend is wrong to say that it is usually done only when the baby dies or in an emergency for the mother. It is most often used because the mother made a late decision to terminate, and this is a procedure where they can ensure that the baby is born dead and there are no accidental live births. But morally, it is the same as any other abortion.

By Sheeprun (Sheeprun) on Wednesday, August 11, 2004 - 03:12 pm: Edit

I can tell from the polite banter that most of you have had quite enough of this topic for a while and will be relieved to discover it closed to further discussion.

<moderator>


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page