• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

"Partial Birth' Abortion Ban Sought Again"

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
"You are right, politicians never lie."

"I think it's better for a child to die quickly than to be raised by a mom who didn't want him/her. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I think love is an important thing."

What an ass. This isn't politicians, it's a coalition of about 300 medical specialists.

Better for a child to die quickly... Oh please, tell me more!
rolleye.gif
 
Originally posted by: bozack
after reading threads like this I often wish that I had never found solice in computers and that I only conversed with those in my local area...sometimes too much info and too many opinions can be a bad thing....I would have been a happier person not knowing all of the different opinions there are on this subject alone and how heartless some people can seemingly be.
Click to expand...

Well then you'd be the perfect conservative-head in the sand trying like hell not to notice the world changing around you.
 
Originally posted by: OulOat
I support adoptions, and hate those fvcks who come waddling around 10 years after they given up their child and decide to reclaim him/her. But even if you ban abortion there will be crazy fvcks who will rather kill the child than give it up.
Click to expand...

Hmm...so I don't know how to take your response....are you saying that you would rather have the mother abort than have the foster parents deal with the mother 10 years later when she comes around and decides she wants her kid back?...if this is the case then I cannot agree, and I feel the laws should be changed so that once a mother gives up her child for more than a few years (say 1-2) to adoption then there should be no chance of her ever getting custody again as basically all she did was loan her kid to some people so they could do the hard work and she wants to pick up the finihsed product (once again the lazy way).

Also I agree that there are those who would rather kill than put up for adoption, and that is very very sad almost pitiful that people are so selfish...which is why laws should be in place to promote adoption over abortion, maybe give out cash rewards to people who opt to use the adoption system or something...anything to present a viable and workable alternative to taking away life.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: jaeger66
Originally posted by: bozack
after reading threads like this I often wish that I had never found solice in computers and that I only conversed with those in my local area...sometimes too much info and too many opinions can be a bad thing....I would have been a happier person not knowing all of the different opinions there are on this subject alone and how heartless some people can seemingly be.
Click to expand...

Well then you'd be the perfect conservative-head in the sand trying like hell not to notice the world changing around you.
Click to expand...

Exactly, right about now I would rather be content and happy with life than miserable from knowing that people exist who seem to have no concern for life overall.....almost like plausable denyability.....I would be saved from alot of the greif of having to read many heartless posts by people like you...and as a result I would have alot less grey hairs on my head.

Also from reading threads like this it really does not appear that the world is changing for the better....if anything we seem to be moving backwards instead of forwards.


but I am sure once you grow up and mature you will come to your senses about some things...then again maybe not.
 
I'm not religious at all, in fact, I don't think I believe in God, but man, wouldn't it be funny if all people who support abortion would end up in hell? HAHA. They spend their mortal lives figting for abortions, and spouting all this crap about "woman's body" and all that stuff, and all it gets em in the end is a 1 way ticket to hell! LOL
 
Originally posted by: Ornery
"You are right, politicians never lie."

"I think it's better for a child to die quickly than to be raised by a mom who didn't want him/her. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I think love is an important thing."

What an ass. This isn't politicians, it's a coalition of about 300 medical specialists.

Better for a child to die quickly... Oh please, tell me more!
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...

Can you quote more than one source? Maybe from an accredited medical document?

It must make you really happy to know that once you ban abortion, you'll be causing more of these cases

Baby found in dumpster
Crushed baby's body found in dump truck
Dead Infant found in trash
Baby fatally beaten to death
Children found living in filth

Yah, you're right. Ban abortion, it's okay if these kinds of cases increase as long as we ban abortion.
 
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: OulOat
I support adoptions, and hate those fvcks who come waddling around 10 years after they given up their child and decide to reclaim him/her. But even if you ban abortion there will be crazy fvcks who will rather kill the child than give it up.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Hmm...so I don't know how to take your response....are you saying that you would rather have the mother abort than have the foster parents deal with the mother 10 years later when she comes around and decides she wants her kid back?...if this is the case then I cannot agree, and I feel the laws should be changed so that once a mother gives up her child for more than a few years (say 1-2) to adoption then there should be no chance of her ever getting custody again as basically all she did was loan her kid to some people so they could do the hard work and she wants to pick up the finihsed product (once again the lazy way).
Click to expand...
No, I agree with you, I hate those fvcks who comes years later to claim a child that isn't their's anymore.

Also I agree that there are those who would rather kill than put up for adoption, and that is very very sad almost pitiful that people are so selfish...which is why laws should be in place to promote adoption over abortion, maybe give out cash rewards to people who opt to use the adoption system or something...anything to present a viable and workable alternative to taking away life.
Click to expand...
Uh, we don't want to pay people to fvck now do we?
 
One perspective which I'm not sure was mentioned because I didn't read all of this: I really can't see how anyone could support an abortion of a fetus/child when if it was to be born in its current state modern medicine would be able to support its life and grow up to be just like you and me. What I mean is that children are born premature all the time and some quite early, but still live. But it would be legal to have killed them at that age.
 
Originally posted by: everman
One perspective which I'm not sure was mentioned because I didn't read all of this: I really can't see how anyone could support an abortion of a fetus/child when if it was to be born in its current state modern medicine would be able to support its life and grow up to be just like you and me. What I mean is that children are born premature all the time and some quite early, but still live. But it would be legal to have killed them at that age.
Click to expand...

It's been mentioned 7 or 8 times. And the last sentence of your post is incorrect.
 
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Intact D & X is not some macabre procedure designed to kill children. It's a product of rational thinking about how to terminate pregnancies. You can argue all day about the morality of abortion but as long as abortions are legal . . . the only people who should be involved in the decision to do it . . . is the mother, father (spouse), and whatever moral/legal authority they choose to consult. The only people qualified to determine HOW to do it are obstetricians and gynecologists.

The policy statement noted that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision."
 
After just witnessing the birth of our second child (and yes, I stayed on my feet the entire time for the second one too!) my feelings about abortion have only solidified.

I'm confused about one thing tho, since I am not a medical professional.
Medically speaking (so if you aren't a medical professional with first-hand knowledge about this subject, silence would be golden), what are some concrete examples of complications or situations where the mother's life would be put at risk because of/by the fetus? Besides pre-eclampsia, that is.
 
Congratulations on your addition . . . anyone with a weak stomach should NOT read on . . .

I really recommend you try the ACOG website for detailed explanations but I will give your question a whack. Let's start with the assumption the intact D & X is fully elective. It sounds harsh but once a couple decides to abort a fetus . . . regardless of reason . . . there's only ONE patient . . . the mother. The focus of the surgical team is how to best serve the patient which is very different calculus from balancing mother/fetus issues during a wanted/viable pregnancy.

During my tour of obstetrics I was always amazed at how such a large entity could exit such a small opening . . . it ain't pretty. During my third delivery I spent an hour sewing up a birth canal . . . which can have lacerations all the way up to the cervix (opening to uterus) during NORMAL deliveries.

A condition of increasing prevalence in America is diabetes. Diabetes greatly increases the risk of macrosomia (big damn baby) . . . the larger the baby the greater the mismatch between the package (baby) and the pathway (birth canal) . . . which dramatically increases the risk of birth injury to child and mother. During a normal delivery blood loss is minimal. Macrosomics are given a limited opportunity to progress but OBs have a low threshold for moving on to Ceasarian section. C-section entails cutting open the abdomen, physically removing the uterus (it's freaky pulling it out and plopping it on the mother's abdomen), cutting open the uterus, squeezing the kid out, sewing the uterus back up (if you do it with a running/locking stitch you can make the uterus look like a face), stuffing the uterus back into the mom, sewing up the layers of fascia, muscle, and subcutaneous tissue, and then top her off with some staples. Blood loss would be expected to be less than 500mL (pint).

A macrosomic (which is typically normal) versus a macrocephalic (big head) is a significant issue. Again the assumption is the family chooses an elective abortion . . . if their choice is based on amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling for abnormalities then this decision may not come until 16wks. Vaginal passage is accomodated by dilating the cervix (passage) AND reducing the size of the fetus (package). A macrosomic may require dismemberment while a macrocephalic must be reduced to facilitate removal.

I'm not an OB/GYN but we had an open debate between OBs at our medical school. Medical necessity depends on how you define necessity. Every OB will tell you that intact D & X is NOT the ONLY method available. Experienced OBs will tell you that for a given patient under given circumstances intact D & X is the best option.

Fragile X and Down Syndrome are NOT sufficient reasons IMHO to abort a fetus. Other trisomies like 16 and 18 are rarely born live and never survive to the first birthday. There are a myriad of genetic conditions which guarantee lifelong morbidity and early mortality. It's up the parents and their support group to decide if giving every one of Nature's gifts a chance even in the face of short (or long) term suffering of the child.

Medicine cannot answer the question about the morality of abortion but it can evaluate reasonable and unreasonable means of performing abortions. I didn't bother with emergency intact D & X (maternal health condition like eclampsia) b/c there's little doubt the Congress has absolutely no business trying to dictate how physicians should treat patients during a medical emergency. The Pro-Life/Anti-Choice people have attempted to create a tempest by giving graphic descriptions of a medical procedure that they are unqualified to assess. They aren't offering alternatives they are just saying don't do this one. Dilatation and Curettage (D&C) is the typical elective abortion (or clean up after a spontaneous abortion/miscarriage). It's graphic as well but won't be banned b/c the Supreme Court has granted women the right to choose their procreative destiny.
 
I like how no matter where you stand on the issue, everyone who doesn't share your beliefs calls you an uninformed moron.

 
Originally posted by: Infos
Male anti-choicers make me want to puke (on them):disgust:
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity..why do you word it pro/anti choice? Why not pro and *anti-life*? Doesn't sound quite right, does it?
 
Senate has approved a ban overwhelmingly (64-33) so it appears the ban will go in sometime this Spring after the house passes it.

From CNN's story...

The bill prohibits doctors from committing an "overt act" designed to kill a partially delivered fetus. Partial birth is described as a case in which the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the event of a breech delivery, if "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."

The legislation includes an exemption in cases in which the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with a woman getting an early term abortion as they should have a right to decide, but I do have a problem with partial birth abortions. I'm glad to see this ban and hope it stands up in court.
 
Originally posted by: AU Tiger


I have no problem with a woman getting an early term abortion as they should have a right to decide, but I do have a problem with partial birth abortions. I'm glad to see this ban and hope it stands up in court.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, this will fail in the SC. They're smarter up there than the congressmen who think they can tell doctors how to best care for their patients.
 
Partial birth is described as a case in which the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the event of a breech delivery, if ?any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.?
Click to expand...

This legislation may be the most ridiculous and egregious misapplication of the law since Jim Crow. Greed and duplicity have always been problematic on the 'Hill . . . now it is clear they are ignorant fools as well. My difficulty is understanding how Majority Leader Frist could endorse this bill. Unless of course he pushed the legislation as a trial balloon to the Supreme Court.

Only physicians will understand that the bill's language essentially guarantees NO physician will be prohibited from performing intact D & X . . . the legislation just modifies HOW to perform an intact D & X. I know that's a disappointment to the Pro-Life crowd . . . but you guys have been lead astray if you think this bill will save a single life.

The first kid I ever delivered almost hit the floor b/c no matter how many times they tell you "grab him by the neck . . . and hold on tight b/c they're slippery" . . . you don't understand until that last push . . . and damn if the damn thing isn't like catching a football covered with Crisco . . . damn . . . what was I talking about . . .

Oh . . . case one the entire fetal head is out of the body . . . well assuming the fetus is scheduled for abortion . . . the head would NEVER come first. The head does most of the damage during labor/delivery b/c it's the biggest part. If the kid was oriented properly for a normal birth the physician would reach inside the dilated cervix and orient the child into breech or perform an external cephalic version (maneuver the fetus into breech by externally moving the head/bottom). I would have to ask an OB but I can't think of any scenario under which an abortion would be performed by delivering the head first.

DO NOT READ ON if you don't like moderately graphic descriptions . . .

Case two . . . a breech delivery where the fetus is delivered (feet first) except the head remains in the canal (at which point the physician reduces the head). My understanding of the typical intact D & X is to reduce maternal trauma which would typically mean delivering just a leg then maneuvering instruments into the birth canal up to the head +/- the abdomen. These instruments are used to "reduce" the abdomen and head. After reduction the delivery is completed. If a fetus had a condition like omphalocele or gastrochesis (sorry couldn't find easy pix). In these cases a doctor might reduce the belly. If the abdomen is not very big then the physician would probably deliver legs, pelvis, and lower abdomen but leave the fetal torso/head in the uterus.

I'm not a lawyer but by the letter of the law and medicine. . . a fetus doesn't have a navel. If they are implying the navel after cutting the umbilical cord . . . well the cord is attached to the placenta . . . so how much of the cord would be considered part of the navel? The bill says abdomen past the navel which essentially means any portion of navel (umbilical cord) overlap is sufficient for the procedure to be legal.

Although I applaud the Pro-Life spirit . . . I think you've gotten a real dog with this legislation.
 
Originally posted by: Infos
Male anti-choicers make me want to puke (on them):disgust:
Click to expand...

Okay well according to your theory then a male should not be responsible for a womans pregnancy until the child is actually born. After all, it's her damn body and it's not like its a human being inside her... it's just a darn fetus, a clump of cells which she is responsible for.
 
Originally posted by: Ornery
Well, looky here:

The legislation includes an exemption in cases in which the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother.

...now I'm trying to figure out what all the previous hand wringing is about! 😕

Edit: ...fined or imprisoned for not more than two years. WTF? If somebody premeditatedly stuck a pair of scissors in the skull of a newborn, and sucked it's brains out, I'd think they would get more than TWO years!
Click to expand...

Read the bill. It has so many loopholes and exceptions that any facade of tolerance is negated. And, again, the procedure in the bill is not practiced. Methods actually used today to collapse the skull are not prohibited.
 
May I ask why? Feel free to tell me it's none of my business, I'm just curious.
Click to expand...

Children with Fragile X and Down Syndrome have significantly shortened and somewhat complicated lives but I don't consider those conditions sufficiently morbid or mortal to justify aborting them. These children will NEVER lead normal lives but that does not mean they don't deserve a chance.

Granted, the corollary to my statement must be that every child deserves a chance regardless of their health status. I believe abortion to be difficult to defend . . . except to say women have a right to self-determination which includes their procreative capacity.

IMHO, abortion should remain legal but our society should address the multiple factors which lead to 1.5 million abortions each year. Less than 5% of that total is attributable to fetal anomaly or maternal health . . . which means the other 95% occur as a means of birth control. It's inexcusable that our media is filled with images of sex and legal drugs (alcohol/tobacco) but responsible sex education is taboo.
 
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc


IMHO, abortion should remain legal but our society should address the multiple factors which lead to 1.5 million abortions each year. Less than 5% of that total is attributable to fetal anomaly or maternal health . . . which means the other 95% occur as a means of birth control. It's inexcusable that our media is filled with images of sex and legal drugs (alcohol/tobacco) but responsible sex education is taboo.
Click to expand...

With any social issue I think it's better to address the cause before the effect, but unfortuantely that takes the kind of time, money, and perserverance that most people don't have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top