-=SENATE APPROVES 'PARTIAL BIRTH' BAN=-

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
So what if something happens late in the pregnancy that endangers the mother?

According to the zealots, all of whom apparently have medical degrees, that never happens. Isn't religion great? You can use it to justify anything from killing mothers to flying jumbo jets into skyscrapers.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: Jzero

*You really don't know what you're arguing with yourself about there do you Jzero?

Au contraire. I asked if Kiyup could back up his claim that a majority of late term abortions are by choice, and not a last-ditch effort to save the life of the mother, and within minutes you edited your initial post. Which is fine, except I presented no facts. Why should I not ask others to back up their "facts", then?

To quiet your rage of paranoia about my having edited my post as a result of yours - I hadn't even read your post when I edited that Jzero. I just figured I'd edit my post to address what would certainly be a welcome invitation to mud slinging for the sake of another chance to spew party jibes. That I didn't get it edited until after you put your .5 cents in is coincidental. Nothing more. It's unfortunate you feel I singled you out of the mix - but I tend to address issues directly if the issue warrants a response.

As for my statement "You really don't know what you're arguing with yourself about there do you Jzero", your words refuting your own responsibility contradict the actual meaning of the words, and you keep reinforcing it. If you're going to drag a quote from me, at least include the quote I was referring to. If you didn't take the meaning when I first said it, my edit was made before I even read your post. You're the only one having problems with it.

 

[Drekce]

I just can't understand how so many people can be in favor of killing innocent babies. The youth of America and most liberal adults have been brainwashed into seeing this as an issue of *choice*. This is a matter of life and death for that baby, how hard is it to understand that simple truth.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Ameesh
I'm curious what the Supreme Court will say.

They said no once. They'll say it again.

Then there's really no good reason for you to get your posts all up in a dander is there? Or were you just looking for material to strap to your "bash everything that's not me" whipping post... and along came this thread.

 

[Dufman]

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: Tiger

Senate APPROVES 'Partial Birth' Ban-

Good.

I second that

i will third that

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Sketcher
Then there's really no good reason for you to get your posts all up in a dander is there? Or were you just looking for material to strap to a whipping post... and along came this thread.

I was perfectly happy in the thread that already existed. Not my fault you reposted.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Drekce
I just can't understand how so many people can be in favor of killing innocent babies. The youth of America and most liberal adults have been brainwashed into seeing this as an issue of *choice*. This is a matter of life and death for that baby, how hard is it to understand that simple truth.

Thank you, Captain Rhetoric.

 

[Drekce]

Originally posted by: amdmang

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: Tiger

Senate APPROVES 'Partial Birth' Ban-

Good.

I second that

i will third that

I give it a fourth.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Drekce

Originally posted by: amdmang

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff

Originally posted by: Tiger

Senate APPROVES 'Partial Birth' Ban-

Good.

I second that

i will third that

I give it a fourth.

Now all four of you hold hands and sing "Kumbaya".

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Drekce
I just can't understand how so many people can be in favor of killing innocent babies. The youth of America and most liberal adults have been brainwashed into seeing this as an issue of *choice*. This is a matter of life and death for that baby, how hard is it to understand that simple truth.

Oops.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Drekce
I just can't understand how so many people can be in favor of killing innocent babies. The youth of America and most liberal adults have been brainwashed into seeing this as an issue of *choice*. This is a matter of life and death for that baby, how hard is it to understand that simple truth.

Oops.

LMAO...nice.

 

[Drekce]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Drekce
I just can't understand how so many people can be in favor of killing innocent babies. The youth of America and most liberal adults have been brainwashed into seeing this as an issue of *choice*. This is a matter of life and death for that baby, how hard is it to understand that simple truth.

Oops.

LMAO...nice.

Although you may see what I said as an "Appeal to Emotion," it does not change the fact that when a woman has an abortion a baby dies. That is a fact.

These three examples of Appeals to Emotion (taken from your link) are different from what I stated:

The new PowerTangerine computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your power. They will look up to you and wish they were just like you. You will know the true joy of power. TangerinePower.

The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled by your weight. Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in your new freedom from fat. You will know true happiness if you try our diet!

Bill goes to hear a politician speak. The politician tells the crowd about the evils of the government and the need to throw out the peoople who are currently in office. After hearing the speach, Bill is full of hatred for the current politicians. Because of this, he feels good about getting rid of the old politicians and accepts that it is the right thing to do because of how he feels.

None of those examples deal with facts. They are all ideas that may or may not be true.

 

[Sketcher]

Again, jaeger66 and Fausto1:

If you're not going to actually post something that contributes to the furthering of reasonable discussion (as was requested in the original post)- please do not post. No one mistakes where your preferences are on the matter.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Sketcher
Then there's really no good reason for you to get your posts all up in a dander is there? Or were you just looking for material to strap to a whipping post... and along came this thread.

I was perfectly happy in the thread that already existed. Not my fault you reposted.

Then go back to the thread you were happy in, no one's forcing you to post here.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Sketcher
Again, jaeger66 and Fausto1:

If you're not going to actually post something that contributes to the furthering of reasonable discussion (as was requested in the original post)- please do not post. No one mistakes where your preferences are on the matter.

Oh I see....and how does "Don't just spew tired rhetoric." not apply to idiots like Drekce, exactly? I made two perfectly valid contributions to this thread before the bible-beaters showed up and started yammering, seconding and thirding.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Drekce


Although you may see what I said as an "Appeal to Emotion," it does not change the fact that when a woman has an abortion a baby dies. That is a fact.

Babies die every day, unloved and unwanted. That is irrelevant. The issue here is that abortions will still be legal, just more dangerous. And these are NOT choice abortions. When your doctor tells you at 5 months that your baby has no hope of being born alive, and that delivering it will cause great risks to your health and life, then what? Cut her open from ass to sternum because some religious loons decided that the safest way is too gruesome? These are people that WANT to have children, but their medical care is being dictated by a bunch of old men on their holy high horses.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Sketcher
Again, jaeger66 and Fausto1:

If you're not going to actually post something that contributes to the furthering of reasonable discussion (as was requested in the original post)- please do not post. No one mistakes where your preferences are on the matter.

Oh I see....and how does "Don't just spew tired rhetoric." not apply to idiots like Drekce, exactly? I made two perfectly valid contributions to this thread before the bible-beaters showed up and started yammering, seconding and thirding.

Fausto1 - Whether or not I agree with your first two posts, they actually did present consideration to further discussion. Your subsequent posts however, go beyond my reasonable request to further discussion in a reasonable manner. Yeah, the "second" and "thirding" was unecessary, but it didn't slander or bash with sarcasm - nor did it sacrafice the intent of this thread for the enjoyment of party slander.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Drekce


Although you may see what I said as an "Appeal to Emotion," it does not change the fact that when a woman has an abortion a baby dies. That is a fact.

Babies die every day, unloved and unwanted. That is irrelevant. The issue here is that abortions will still be legal, just more dangerous. And these are NOT choice abortions. When your doctor tells you at 5 months that your baby has no hope of being born alive, and that delivering it will cause great risks to your health and life, then what? Cut her open from ass to sternum because some religious loons decided that the safest way is too gruesome? These are people that WANT to have children, but their medical care is being dictated by a bunch of old men on their holy high horses.

That is Conjecture by its own definition. Anyone can contrive hypotheticals to argue a point of conjecture - but we're really looking for substantial arguments here jaeger66. If you'd like to contribute, by all means, but your need to spout slander is telling of your lack of material.

 

[Mday]

i am pro-choice. don't believe in the abuse of abortions, and dont believe in partial birth abortions.

so, basically, i am for the bill, as far as i have not read it.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: Mday
i am pro-choice. don't believe in the abuse of abortions, and dont believe in partial birth abortions.

so, basically, i am for the bill, as far as i have not read it.

Now that is some good input. I personally am Pro-Life, but I respect Mday's opinion. AND I do not feel like I have to slander or bash anyone's party, moral ground or personal stance to have my opinion heard. Thanks for contributing Mday.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Sketcher
Again, jaeger66 and Fausto1:

If you're not going to actually post something that contributes to the furthering of reasonable discussion (as was requested in the original post)- please do not post. No one mistakes where your preferences are on the matter.

Oh I see....and how does "Don't just spew tired rhetoric." not apply to idiots like Drekce, exactly? I made two perfectly valid contributions to this thread before the bible-beaters showed up and started yammering, seconding and thirding.

Fausto1 - Whether or not I agree with your first two posts, they actually did present consideration to further discussion. Your subsequent posts however, go beyond my reasonable request to further discussion in a reasonable manner. Yeah, the "second" and "thirding" was unecessary, but it didn't slander or bash with sarcasm - nor did it sacrafice the intent of this thread for the enjoyment of party slander.

Okay, so how does the repeated-to-death battle cry of "Think of the babies!" in any way contribute to this "conversation"? Simple: it doesn't. It (as pointed out by Jaeger) is a gross oversimplification of a very complicated topic designed to appeal to one's sense of guilt and shame. It doesn't address anything with regard to what point the fetus transforms into an "innocent baby", what happens to all the unwanted children that weren't aborted (and don't give me any garbage about adoption...we all know that all the good little pro-life white housewives aren't lining up to adopt crack babies), health issues for the mother, sex education and availability of contraception to hopefully avoid unwanted, pregnancies, etc, etc, etc, etc. If people like Drekce were really the champion of innocent babies, they'd be devoting all their energy to education and contraception....not abortion. But they don't because sex is icky and you just shouldn't do it and repeating this enough times will eventually convince hormone-addled teens from playing hide-the-sausage all the time, right? Wrong.

 

[Drekce]

Sex is not "icky." I have sex at least 4 times a week...with my WIFE. I talk about sex with friends. I have a sister who is in high school and talk about sex with her (occasionally). Sex education is fine and dandy, but they need to be teaching these kids to wait to have sex and not tell them that it is ok as long as they use a condom. We all know that birth control is not infallable.

As for kids who are unwanted by their parents...at least they have a chance at life. That is a completely different issue that shows even more problems with our society.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: Mday
i am pro-choice. don't believe in the abuse of abortions, and dont believe in partial birth abortions.

so, basically, i am for the bill, as far as i have not read it.

Now that is some good input. I personally am Pro-Life, but I respect Mday's opinion. AND I do not feel like I have to slander or bash anyone's party, moral ground or personal stance to have my opinion heard. Thanks for contributing Mday.

He hasn't read the bill, and I'm guessing didn't read BaliBabyDoc's excellent explanation of why D&X is performed and it's "good input"? It may be civil, but uninformed is never good. Most people don't agree with "partial-birth" because it seems yucky, while not understanding why it is performed. I'll add it here to save you all the trouble of diggin for it (note that this is two posts combined).

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."

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.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Drekce
Sex is not "icky." I have sex at least 4 times a week...with my WIFE. I talk about sex with friends. I have a sister who is in high school and talk about sex with her (occasionally). Sex education is fine and dandy, but they need to be teaching these kids to wait to have sex and not tell them that it is ok as long as they use a condom. We all know that birth control is not infallable.

Again, we're talking about teenagers here. You're not so far removed from being one that you can't recall what that's like. Some of them will respond to talks about waiting for marriage, but most will not. They are going to have sex. Period. Providing contraception and education on how they work isn't encouraging them any more than providing seatbelts encourages kids to drive fast. They're going to make their own decisions and do it anyway for the most part so all we as parents and counselors can do is try to insure they don't get hurt along the way.

As for kids who are unwanted by their parents...at least they have a chance at life. That is a completely different issue that shows even more problems with our society.

A chance at life, yes. But what kind of chance? Imagine yourself as that person; you don't know anything about your birth mother aside from the fact that she didn't want you. Your deprived of a normal homelife and upbringing....bounced around foster homes.... How is that a good thing?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Aproves partial birth abortion ban? crap, that means that there will now be more people in the world to slow down my internet connection.