-=SENATE APPROVES 'PARTIAL BIRTH' BAN=-

[BDawg]

I dislike the law for the same reason the Supreme Court will knock it down; there is no provision to save the life of the mother.

I'm all for terminating sperm, eggs, zygotes, fetuses, and babies by whatever means necessary to save a mother's life.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

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).

Fausto1, your accusation that Mday's input is civil but uninformed (meaning that if Mday knew what you'd like Mday to know, then Mday would support your thinking). may be so - but it's not your place to make that judgement, it's Mday's. I can just as well pick a medical article from the other side of the bench, just as well written as ACOG's dissertation on the matter and insist that your decision is biased and uninformed. But I won't. I'll give you the benefit of respect for no longer posting slanderous conjecture and thank you for posting some worthwhile reading material - whether I agree with it or not, it's worth reading. Thank you for contributing.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: Fausto1

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).

[/b]Fausto1, your accusation that Mday's input is civil but uninformed (meaning that if Mday knew what you'd like Mday to know, then Mday would support your thinking). may be so - but it's not your place to make that judgement, it's Mday's. I can just as well pick a medical article from the other side of the bench, just as well written as ACOG's dissertation on the matter and insist that your decision is biased and uninformed. But I won't. I'll give you the benefit of respect for no longer posting slanderous conjecture and thank you for posting some worthwhile reading material - whether I agree with it or not, it's worth reading.

Not to split hairs, but he stated that he'd not read the bill. That's uninformed, not selectively informed (note that I never said anything about bias). My whole point is that a lot of supporters for the bill are persuaded by the seemingly graphic nature of this procedure without seeing the other side of the coin.......why it is performed in such a manner, which is explained nicely by ACOG. The term "partial-birth abortion" was even created by abortion opponents for this very reason......it sounds nasty.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
What's sad about this is the fact that it is a last chance senario to save the mothers life in a delivery gone bad.
There have been like only 2 done in the whole country in the last few years.
It's a given that the baby will die either way, now they are imposing the death penalty on the traumatized mother.
Brilliant display of partisan politics. May these evil polititians rot in hell.

hey asshat read the damn article

The bill does exempt a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother.

It was approved by a vote of 64 to 33, with 16 Democrats joining 48 Republicans in supporting it

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Sketcher
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.

How is stating that a partial birth abortion is sometimes the safest way to deliver a nonviable fetus conjecture? Do you even know what conjecture means? Or is it OK as long as you agree? Ugh. Anyway, doctors perform this procedure with the best interests of the mother in mind. There can be no higher directive in medicine than the welfare of the patient. A doctor who allows himself to be guided by any other agenda is a very poor one.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Not to split hairs, but he stated that he'd not read the bill. That's uninformed, not selectively informed (note that I never said anything about bias). My whole point is that a lot of supporters for the bill are persuaded by the seemingly graphic nature of this procedure without seeing the other side of the coin.......why it is performed in such a manner, which is explained nicely by ACOG. The term "partial-birth abortion" was even created by abortion opponents for this very reason......it sounds nasty.

If that's a "Thank you", then you're welcome (I gave you credit for posting something worth reading - though I don't necessarily agree with it). Anyway, I'm not arguing whether Mday is uninformed. Mabye he doesn't need more information to make his decision, perhaps he doesn't and could benefit from looking into it further. What I take you to task for is that it's not your place to determine where his perception would lean simply because you provide him select reading material. I'm not going to assume that if I deluge him with what I consider to be Unequivocal substantiate "proof" by an establishment of preference that he'd quid pro quo change his thinking. That's just irresponsible.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Sketcher
I can just as well pick a medical article from the other side of the bench, just as well written as ACOG's dissertation on the matter and insist that your decision is biased and uninformed.

Then do so. And I want medical science, not someone who has interpreted the Bible as supporting their position. Until then, your only leg to stand on is your own false sense of moral superiority. Either refute science with science, or STFU.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Sketcher
I can just as well pick a medical article from the other side of the bench, just as well written as ACOG's dissertation on the matter and insist that your decision is biased and uninformed.

Then do so. And I want medical science, not someone who has interpreted the Bible as supporting their position. Until then, your only leg to stand on is your own false sense of moral superiority. Either refute science with science, or STFU.

If the ACOG supports the use of the procedure, any doctor who believes otherwise is not someone I want operating on my wife.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Not to split hairs, but he stated that he'd not read the bill. That's uninformed, not selectively informed (note that I never said anything about bias). My whole point is that a lot of supporters for the bill are persuaded by the seemingly graphic nature of this procedure without seeing the other side of the coin.......why it is performed in such a manner, which is explained nicely by ACOG. The term "partial-birth abortion" was even created by abortion opponents for this very reason......it sounds nasty.

If that's a "Thank you", then you're welcome (I gave you credit for posting something worth reading). Anyway, I'm not arguing whether Mday is uninformed. Mabye he doesn't need more information to make his decision, perhaps he doesn't and could benefit from looking into it further. What I take you to task for is that it's not your place to determine where his perception would lean simply because you provide him select reading material. I'm not going to assume that if I deluge him with what I consider to be Unequivocal substantiate "proof" by an establishment of preference that he'd quid pro quo change his thinking. That's just irresponsible.

Again, put simply: he has not read the bill, yet made a statement in support of it. He said he was opposed to D&X, without stating why. I provided a bit of information on why they are performed for his benefit and the benefit of others who have only a cursory knowledge of the procedure and have made a decision based on this. There's no steering going on there, it's still a form of abortion and they are free to draw their own conclusions from that point on. As for irresponsible, I suggest you take a close look at your attempts to steer this thread to your liking before casting stones to that regard. You're all about focused debate, yet you've been doing little more than attempting to play den mother for the most part. How about less constructive criticism and more contribution?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: BDawg
If the ACOG supports the use of the procedure, any doctor who believes otherwise is not someone I want operating on my wife.

I don't have an opinion one way or another because I know nothing about the medical side of it. However, reading this from the ACOG:

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.

...makes me quite a bit uncomfortable. Assuming it's a "fetus" until it's "born", the mother can decide to terminate it during the delivery. The doctor eases the head out and sucks the brains out of a normal baby? To me that's abhorrent and I've always been very pro-choice.

If I'm making unfair assumptions, then so be it. There isn't alot to go on here

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Sketcher
I can just as well pick a medical article from the other side of the bench, just as well written as ACOG's dissertation on the matter and insist that your decision is biased and uninformed.

Then do so. And I want medical science, not someone who has interpreted the Bible as supporting their position. Until then, your only leg to stand on is your own false sense of moral superiority. Either refute science with science, or STFU.

Can't quite post anything worthwhile without giving in to your anger, slandering and swearing can you? By the way jaeger66, I never said my moral was superior. I just asked everyone to give reasonable input, and put away the childish remarks.

Besides, my statement which you pull out of context is to leverage a point - though I will eventually come to post articles which I've read and esteem I will not do so at your beck and call. This is not conjecture, my point was a relative comparison of concept not a argument of statistic or factual statement. I continue to ask you to post and leave your slander and anger out of it. If you can't - then please don't post. There's no need to get caught up in it, and even if you did have a valid argument - you discredit yourself.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: BDawg
If the ACOG supports the use of the procedure, any doctor who believes otherwise is not someone I want operating on my wife.

I don't have an opinion one way or another because I know nothing about the medical side of it. However, reading this from the ACOG:

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.

...makes me quite a bit uncomfortable. Assuming it's a "fetus" until it's "born", the mother can decide to terminate it during the delivery. The doctor eases the head out and sucks the brains out of a normal baby? To me that's abhorrent and I've always been very pro-choice.

If I'm making unfair assumptions, then so be it. There isn't alot to go on here

The point to be taken from the ACOG and BBD's posts is that abortion is 100% legal. Since it is, when a woman chooses to have one, there is one and only one patient. The safety of that one patient is of most importance.

 

[NightTrain]

I guess I'll buy that.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: NightTrain
I guess I'll buy that.

Your confusion stems from the fact that this bill is completely absurd. It bans a practice which isn't practiced, and as such is nothing more than a way to keep abortion on the SC's schedule. The medical community does not recocgnize anything called a partial birth abortion. The name is a scare tactic coined by the zealots. As the babydoc pointed out in the other thread, the whole goal of an abortion at this stage is to avoid passing the head through the birth canal at all.

 

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Not to split hairs, but he stated that he'd not read the bill. That's uninformed, not selectively informed (note that I never said anything about bias). My whole point is that a lot of supporters for the bill are persuaded by the seemingly graphic nature of this procedure without seeing the other side of the coin.......why it is performed in such a manner, which is explained nicely by ACOG. The term "partial-birth abortion" was even created by abortion opponents for this very reason......it sounds nasty.

If that's a "Thank you", then you're welcome (I gave you credit for posting something worth reading). Anyway, I'm not arguing whether Mday is uninformed. Mabye he doesn't need more information to make his decision, perhaps he doesn't and could benefit from looking into it further. What I take you to task for is that it's not your place to determine where his perception would lean simply because you provide him select reading material. I'm not going to assume that if I deluge him with what I consider to be Unequivocal substantiate "proof" by an establishment of preference that he'd quid pro quo change his thinking. That's just irresponsible.

Again, put simply: he has not read the bill, yet made a statement in support of it. He said he was opposed to D&X, without stating why. I provided a bit of information on why they are performed for his benefit and the benefit of others who have only a cursory knowledge of the procedure and have made a decision based on this. There's no steering going on there, it's still a form of abortion and they are free to draw their own conclusions from that point on. As for irresponsible, I suggest you take a close look at your attempts to steer this thread to your liking before casting stones to that regard. You're all about focused debate, yet you've been doing little more than attempting to play den mother for the most part. How about less constructive criticism and more contribution?

Fine, visuals speak louder than words. How about this for a contribution? Silent Scream In particular, begin viewing Part #6.. This isn't even a 'partial birth' scenario - it pre-empts it. Oh I know. I've read Planned Parenthood's response and many of the similar retorts. It's much easier to write pages upon pages of "Clinical Data" than it is to be responsible for one live video by the Doctor who pioneered the abortion practice and now abhors it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I don't have an opinion one way or another because I know nothing about the medical side of it. However, reading this from the ACOG:
Quote
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.

That's not from ACOG . . . it's part of my post. But it does encapsulate the medical ethos. We serve our patients with moral/ethical standards founded in principles NOT law. It would be unethical for a physician to provide inferior service to patients based on religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, being an arsehole or ability to pay. IMHO most physicians extend that ethos to the unborn from conception to birth. Assuming the guiding moral principles are benevolence and non-malfeasance it's easy to serve both . . . except when the two are in conflict.

A woman with Marfan is guaranteed morbidity and is at high risk of mortality during pregnancy. The only cure for eclampsia (which can also permanently harm if not kill the mother) is immediate abortion or birth. The number of vital daily medications that can harm the fetus is incredible. It requires a deliberate process to wean preggies off medications to balance risk to mother with risk to fetus. But in every case the mother/spouse is making the decision. Some may think only their God has a right to those decisions. Well you better move to the Serengeti b/c the quality of your physician and available facilities have definitely supplanted fate . . . or faith as the controlling entities.

No one would argue the abortion debate is not arbitrary. People like Rick Santorum R-PA say life begins at conception . . . so protecting the fetus is a necessity until you think the mother might die . . . THEN you can abort the fetus. Well even the medical novice would say, "shouldn't your threshold be a little lower?" Why wait for threat of mortal peril before you intercede? Assuming Santorum is making a moral . . . not a medical argument . . . what's the rationale behind his decision matrix? If the mother's life is threatened b/c she didn't take care of herself why should the fetus suffer for her irresponsible behavior?

 

[Ornery]

AMA Supported Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002

• The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act will prohibit the procedure unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother which, according to the American Medical Association, the 600-member Physicians' Ad hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) as well as our nation's highly respected former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Ornery
AMA Supported Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002

• The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act will prohibit the procedure unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother which, according to the American Medical Association, the 600-member Physicians' Ad hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) as well as our nation's highly respected former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary.

From what I read in the article, the passed law does not provide provisions for mother's safety.

 

[Sketcher]

By the way, I don't stand on a moral high ground and say abortion is wrong in all cases.

There is without question situations that should be given preference for the benefit of the mother.

*Friends of ours were pregnant and had to abort due to it being a tubal pregnancy without chance for either the Mother or child to survive an attempt to carry the fetus to term.

**Two of my students became pregnant at 15 and 16 years old. One had her abortion early, the other had hers at six months. Both were performed within the last two years. Both were performed at the same clinic. Neither abortion was a medical necessity. It was a matter of convenience. All either girl had to do was have a psychologist certify that they were not in the proper mental condition to carry the children to term.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Ornery
AMA Supported Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002

• The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act will prohibit the procedure unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother which, according to the American Medical Association, the 600-member Physicians' Ad hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) as well as our nation's highly respected former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary.

You can't possibly be suggesting that a brainwashing factory like the "SBA List" has any standing in a medical discussion. As for the second "point", there is a difference between the only way and the best way. You can abort with a variety of more traumatic procedures. But why should you?

And you obviously haven't even read this thread, you see "abortion" and start in with the bible thumping. Doctors ruled by their interpretation of the bible should have no right to practice medicine.

 

[jaeger66]

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Dude, you still don't understand. If there's ONE other option . . . then the procedure would not be a NECESSITY. The procedure is called intact D & X b/c the fetus is INTACT. How many guesses would be NECESSARY for you to discover what it means to be NOT intact?!

Maternal morbidity significantly increases when you start whacking away at something INSIDE the uterus. This discussion has degraded to the level of Bush/Iraq dogmatic dichotomies.

Delusion: If we ban partial birth abortion then babies will be saved.
Truth: Abortion by other means.

Pro-Life Abortion Facts?
How early can a baby survive outside the mother? womb?
Currently, twenty weeks is considered the accepted minimum. However, this time will be reduced as medical technology continues to improve.
I spent ONE day in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit . . . I never want to go back. The miracle babies make headlines . . . the other 99.9% are forgotten by everyone except their families. I think many people in the Pro-Life community have their heart in the right place but they lack even a basic understanding of medicine.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

One caveat about my NICU . . . we take care of the sickest of the sick. The NICU in a tertiary care center is the last hope. Some NICUs are very pleasant filled with light and caring families. Ours had plenty of caring family members but it's dark, noisy and death is always close by.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Ornery
AMA Supported Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002

• The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act will prohibit the procedure unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother which, according to the American Medical Association, the 600-member Physicians' Ad hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT) as well as our nation's highly respected former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary.

You can't possibly be suggesting that a brainwashing factory like the "SBA List" has any standing in a medical discussion. As for the second "point", there is a difference between the only way and the best way. You can abort with a variety of more traumatic procedures. But why should you?

And you obviously haven't even read this thread, you see "abortion" and start in with the bible thumping. Doctors ruled by their interpretation of the bible should have no right to practice medicine.

Hey sh|t for brains. Did I make any statement one way or the other? Does the AMA have "any standing in a medical discussion"? Does the Surgeon General have "any standing in a medical discussion"? I don't see any "bible thumping" either fvcktard.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Hey sh|t for brains. Did I make any statement one way or the other? Does the AMA have "any standing in a medical discussion"? Does the Surgeon General have "any standing in a medical discussion"? I don't see any "bible thumping" either fvcktard.

Well, your links speak for themselves and for your religiously guided views. And the problem with people like you is that you will use your own interpretation of scripture to justify ANYTHING. In that way, you're not so different than the people who blew up the Trade Center. It's not really your fault, you've probably been indoctrinated since birth with fairy tales about going to hell. Again, for the 100th time, the AMA only said that this method was never absolutely necessary. The Fundies stop there and take this out of context to suggest that it is never the preferred method for minumum trauma to the mother. And that is blatantly false. Once the decision has been made to abort, the way to go about doing it in the safest manner must only be made by the mother and doctor. Not congress, for crying out loud.