-=SENATE APPROVES 'PARTIAL BIRTH' BAN=-

[Sketcher]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: lirion




Nice. Now call him a bible thumper and accuse him of flying a plane into a skyscraper.

Way to miss the point. The 9/11 terrorists believed so much in their religion that they were willing to kill scores of innocents along with themselves. They believed they were justified. The zealots goading the politicians believe so much they they are willing to let mothers die instead of having a potentially lethal condition rectified as safely as possible. I see no difference. As for "Munchies"(probably wouldn't know what to do with a bowl if someone jammed it in his mouth and lit it for him), the only two things I could get out of his post were that doctors who perform abortions should die and that the American education system is fvcked.

jaeger66, your ranting is extravagant and far reaching. If you truly cannot differentiate between 9/11 terrorists and Pro-Life supporters (whatever their moral guidance) then you're in over your head.

BaliBabyDoc is correct in assessing "This discussion has degraded to the level of Bush/Iraq dogmatic dichotomies.": If you can't refrain from sensational slander, please do not continue to post here. You've been asked several times to be considerate but you continue to disrespect this discussion with your anger and poor choice of examples.

This from the individual whose sole contribution to this thread is perhaps the oldest, tiredest, least accurate, and most sensational bit of pro-life propaganda......I'm honestly shocked that you resorted to something so obvious after all your lofty blather. I might also point out that you are in fact undermining the sense of civility in this thread you seem to be so intent on maintaining via the tone of chiding condescension you've chosen to adopt with me and others holding a viewpoint contrary to your own. I also note that you've allowed those on your own side to rant and be as obnoxious as they wish.

Again, quit being the den mother and address some of the points that I and others have made (most notably by BaliBabyDoc) or drop it.

And for starters, kindly differentiate between the 9/11 terrorists and a pro-lifer who would put a bullet in an abortion doc for us all since the difference is apparently so great. Seems to me they're both fanatics willing to kill the innocent for a "higher cause", but perhaps you can enlighten us.

The "chiding" tone I take with you Fausto1 has nothing to do with whether you have an issue worth discussing, it is the manner in which you are choosing to do so. I simply ask you to be considerate. I'm sorry you feel as if your being considerate is so difficult that you have to assume the role of a den cub. You can note, I thanked you for your contribution when you gave it considerately.

Further, I respect BaliBabyDoc for his input. And I respect that when he states his opinion of Pro-Life, at least in this instance his wording is "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." Not "blah blah blah zealots/terrorists/bible-thumping".

If anything, BaliBabyDoc is the intelligent side of the argument. What you purport as argument is little more than just that, argument for the sake of argument. And not even witty argument at that. BaliBabyDoc is perhaps one of the few qualified people to take up this argument and I commend him for that. I don't have to agree with everything he says to respect him and his experience, the detail with which he shares it and the obvious thought and care he puts into his posts. I've learned a lot from him, and I admit that many of my previous notions have been rightfully challenged, some perceptions somewhat changed even.

I'll take responsibility for posting an "old" Pro-Life reference. But I think it still has teeth. Just show me how it being old and tired relegates it to being inaccurate and without merit? Just because you label it so does not vanquish any meaning it may have. I have to ask you though, if you consider this propaganda - what then of sources you prefer? And really, why is that so different from what you are posting?

And for the record: THOSE OF YOU WHO Fausto1 CONSIDERS TO BE ON "MY SIDE". KNOCK OFF THE BULLSH!T!! It appears as though he won't take responsibility for his insolence until you do.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
I fear that a 'Packed' court may not reject this Womans issue this time,

They already did, and Republicans appointed 7 of the 9 current justices. Good job, Republicans.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"THE BEST AND SAFEST WAY" to help gals like Nicole Brown Simpson, would be to suck her estranged husband's brains out before he killed her. However, like killing partially born infants, it is, and should be, against the law. In both cases, there are other ways to deal with it, though it may not be as easy, or safe. Such is life...

So we should ban a medical practice in favor of more dangerous ones...because it's gross? Oh, that's brilliant.

 

[Ornery]

"because it's gross?"

Don't remember saying that... hmmm, looks like I didn't. You've got a REAL bad habit of doing that. I suggest you work on that problem... strongly! :|

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"because it's gross?"

Don't remember saying that... hmmm, looks like I didn't. You've got a REAL bad habit of doing that. I suggest you work on that problem... strongly! :|

Then what purpose does this ban serve? Keeping in mind that there is no such medical practice known as partial birth abortion, and that nobody actually performs an abortion by first extracting the skull.

 

[Ornery]

No big deal. Just to prevent killing partially born infants. Don't concern yourself about it...

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Ornery
No big deal. Just to prevent killing partially born infants. Don't concern yourself about it...

I'm not concerned with the bill itself. Since nobody actually performs the procedure outlined, it will have as much impact as a bill banning gas-powered vehicles on Pluto. So even if it did pass the SC, which it won't, nothing will change. My objection is the idea of a politician rather than a doctor dictating medical practice.

 

[xirtam]

And for starters, kindly differentiate between the 9/11 terrorists and a pro-lifer who would put a bullet in an abortion doc for us all since the difference is apparently so great. Seems to me they're both fanatics willing to kill the innocent for a "higher cause", but perhaps you can enlighten us.

It's a sticky issue. You're killing an "innocent" one way or another. One of them is passive, in my mind (if we allow the mother to die by not carrying out the procedure), and the other is active (killing the baby with a pair of scissors).

So for starters, kindly differentiate between the 9/11 terrorists and a pro-choicer who would put a pair of scissors in a fully-developed baby for us all since the difference is apparently so great. Seems to me they're both fanatics willing to kill the innocent for a "higher cause", but perhaps you can enlighten us.

And I know you don't think it's murder. You think somehow that the fully-developed baby isn't a human. Somehow the baby becomes human after exiting the mother. Go figure. That's like saying a fully developed car isn't a car until it pulls out of the garage.

I'm not concerned with the bill itself. Since nobody actually performs the procedure outlined, it will have as much impact as a bill banning gas-powered vehicles on Pluto. So even if it did pass the SC, which it won't, nothing will change. My objection is the idea of a politician rather than a doctor dictating medical practice.

Please tell me that's a joke. It quite nearly got me rolling. I should be more careful when I read "serious" topics. Almost lost a keyboard to Cream of Soda. What I still don't quite understand is the link to a site designed to expose others' logical fallacies when one's own posts is riddled with them.

Ah well, it's a good way to spend an evening at any rate.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: jaeger66<
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.

It would serve you better to remember that alot of the people who think abortion is wrong aren't necessarily the same "fundies" and "right-wing whackos" you often look to lambast. I know alot of people that I greatly respect who seriously believe differently than I with regards to when life begins. I think they have a right to their opinions and shouldn't be tarred and feathered for them. They believe a life is being taken away...that is a powerful motivation to move people to try and make a change. Perhaps they're right...perhaps not. I have 2 children and that has drastically altered my own personal feelings on the entire debate. It hasn't moved me to want to insist that others believe as I do but that's just where I'm at right now. It's easy to hate someone who blows up an abortion clinic. It's significantly more difficult to hate someone who honestly believes an innocent life has been lost.

Abortion isn't like most other hot button partisan issues because it cuts across all boundaries...be they political, cultural, social, or whatever. You get some strange bedfellows in the abortion debate...the Supreme Court being but one example. If it was a clear-cut, black and white issue, you wouldn't see that. Neither side is evil. I think both sides passionately believe they are right and perhaps, to some extent, both are. I also think the largest group is firmly in the middle and really just don't know what to believe.

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: jaeger66<
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.

It would serve you better to remember that alot of the people who think abortion is wrong aren't necessarily the same "fundies" and "right-wing whackos" you often look to lambast. I know alot of people that I greatly respect who seriously believe differently than I with regards to when life begins. I think they have a right to their opinions and shouldn't be tarred and feathered for them. They believe a life is being taken away...that is a powerful motivation to move people to try and make a change. Perhaps they're right...perhaps not. I have 2 children and that has drastically altered my own personal feelings on the entire debate. It hasn't moved me to want to insist that others believe as I do but that's just where I'm at right now. It's easy to hate someone who blows up an abortion clinic. It's significantly more difficult to hate someone who honestly believes an innocent life has been lost.

That's all fine, but you've taken the rather specific issue here and blown it up into the entire life/choice debate. Here, the issues are:

1.) The bill bans partial birth abortion. Since doctors recognize no such procedure, there is all kinds of room to fit in other legitimate practices lawmakers decide to be against. As such, it's a way to try and wedge the door open for the prolife agenda in the courts. This has been tried and tried again over the last 30 years, and it's never worked.

2.) The bill bans a practice that isn't done in the first place. But it does set a precedent for poiliticians dictating medical practice to the doctors. I'd prefer my doctor and I decide, not George Bush.

Think instead of reacting-

When a baby's head is outside, most of the damage to it and the mother that can be done is done.

The head is what causes most damage and trauma.

If the doc's posts here aren't enough, then put those 2 things together and ask yourself-why would any abortion procedure remove the head intact if that is exactly the scenario attempting to be avoided?

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Munchies
Why the hell does everyone keep refering to "it" as a fetus. Damn its a fully developed child. I think after its develeped. "Developed defined as if at that instant the child was born would it have no problems " there shoulb be no abortion. WTF is it a missle launch! ABORT ABORT! My mom is a labor and delivery nurse at Henry Ford Hospital, in downtown Detroit. She thinks its absolutely disgusting.
Me thinks. Abortion doctors=The hit list

I challenge anyone who is a parent to look at an ultrasound of even a very early, say 5 week fetus....you can see the head, arms, legs, hands.....and see it moving, see the heart beating, and in some cases, even tell the sex.

Look at that, knowing it's yours, knowing you created it, and then tell me that abortion should be legal. A fetus is most certainly a little person, and is most certainly NOT just a part of the mother that she has a right to get rid of whenever she wants.
If you haven't experienced what I'm talking about here, then you should NEVER have a say in the abortion/pro-life debate, because you don't have a clue.


I'm all for something like the "morning after" pill, or a shot or the like, if it's IMMEDIATELY (meaning less than a week) after conception. But if some little slut gets knocked up because of a drunken night in college and waits 6 weeks to do something about it.......screw her. She should have to carry the baby to term and then decide to give it up for adoption if at that point she doesn't want it. If you're going to do the deed, you have to realize there may be consequences.

 

[Geekbabe]

Some later term abortions occur because the current state of prenatal testing doesn't allow for some pretty serious fetal defects to be discovered earlier.Things like lack of a normal brain that would result in the infant dying after birth. If you knew at 6 months of pregnancy that the infant you were carrying was either doomed to die or would be consigned to live the life of a vegetable it's a far different thing than suddenly deciding "oops I changed my mind".

 

[xirtam]

Well yeah, it certainly complicates the issue.

But at that point it's your stance on active euthanasia that will dictate your position on this particular form of abortion.

Personally, I think we're all doomed to die. And I'm a vegetable compared to Einstein. But that still doesn't justify suicide.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: xirtam
Well yeah, it certainly complicates the issue.

But at that point it's your stance on active euthanasia that will dictate your position on this particular form of abortion.

Personally, I think we're all doomed to die. And I'm a vegetable compared to Einstein. But that still doesn't justify suicide.

Why not?

 

[jaeger66]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Why not?

I like the cut of your jib.

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: xirtam
Well yeah, it certainly complicates the issue.

But at that point it's your stance on active euthanasia that will dictate your position on this particular form of abortion.

Personally, I think we're all doomed to die. And I'm a vegetable compared to Einstein. But that still doesn't justify suicide.

Why not?

Because I don't have life insurance.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

But it does set a precedent for poiliticians dictating medical practice to the doctors. I'd prefer my doctor and I decide, not George Bush.

This argument is a non-starter IMO. Politicians and the judiciary ultimately dictate how everyone does their job. You cannot beat a confession out of someone. You're much better off arguing the issue from the standpoint of the mother. It's her right to do as she sees fit with her body. A doctor cannot force a procedure on someone...even if it's the only way to save their life...without suffering some sort of repercussions...be they civil or legal or what have you.

 

[Orsorum]

In my very brief opinion, I think this is a very good thing. Despite the obvious moral issues involved with any type of abortion, I am surprised that anyone would call a partial birth abortion an abortion at all - for all intents and purposes, it is infanticide, and as such, should be illegal.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
In my very brief opinion, I think this is a very good thing. Despite the obvious moral issues involved with any type of abortion, I am surprised that anyone would call a partial birth abortion an abortion at all - for all intents and purposes, it is infanticide, and as such, should be illegal.

Okay, so how exactly is it infanticide when the fetus isn't developed enough to survive on its own (and is likely non-viable in most D&X cases anyway) and how/why do you even make a distinction between this and other types of abortion?

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Zakath15
In my very brief opinion, I think this is a very good thing. Despite the obvious moral issues involved with any type of abortion, I am surprised that anyone would call a partial birth abortion an abortion at all - for all intents and purposes, it is infanticide, and as such, should be illegal.

Okay, so how exactly is it infanticide when the fetus isn't developed enough to survive on its own (and is likely non-viable in most D&X cases anyway) and how/why do you even make a distinction between this and other types of abortion?

There are a few definitions of "viable"...

1:Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.

2: Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

You're going for the second definition..but what about the first? The womb is the child's natural enviroment until birth. You're saying that s/he should have to live outside of his/her natural enviroment to become "viable"? Strange argument if you ask me..but apparently most think otherwise.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Zakath15
In my very brief opinion, I think this is a very good thing. Despite the obvious moral issues involved with any type of abortion, I am surprised that anyone would call a partial birth abortion an abortion at all - for all intents and purposes, it is infanticide, and as such, should be illegal.

Okay, so how exactly is it infanticide when the fetus isn't developed enough to survive on its own (and is likely non-viable in most D&X cases anyway) and how/why do you even make a distinction between this and other types of abortion?

There are a few definitions of "viable"...

1:Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.

2: Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

You're going for the second definition..but what about the first? The womb is the child's natural enviroment until birth. You're saying that s/he should have to live outside of his/her natural enviroment to become "viable"? Strange argument if you ask me..but apparently most think otherwise.

You're saying you can force another human being to incubate a developing one because you want her to? Strange argument if you ask me...

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Sketcher

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: lirion




Nice. Now call him a bible thumper and accuse him of flying a plane into a skyscraper.

Way to miss the point. The 9/11 terrorists believed so much in their religion that they were willing to kill scores of innocents along with themselves. They believed they were justified. The zealots goading the politicians believe so much they they are willing to let mothers die instead of having a potentially lethal condition rectified as safely as possible. I see no difference. As for "Munchies"(probably wouldn't know what to do with a bowl if someone jammed it in his mouth and lit it for him), the only two things I could get out of his post were that doctors who perform abortions should die and that the American education system is fvcked.

jaeger66, your ranting is extravagant and far reaching. If you truly cannot differentiate between 9/11 terrorists and Pro-Life supporters (whatever their moral guidance) then you're in over your head.

BaliBabyDoc is correct in assessing "This discussion has degraded to the level of Bush/Iraq dogmatic dichotomies.": If you can't refrain from sensational slander, please do not continue to post here. You've been asked several times to be considerate but you continue to disrespect this discussion with your anger and poor choice of examples.

This from the individual whose sole contribution to this thread is perhaps the oldest, tiredest, least accurate, and most sensational bit of pro-life propaganda......I'm honestly shocked that you resorted to something so obvious after all your lofty blather. I might also point out that you are in fact undermining the sense of civility in this thread you seem to be so intent on maintaining via the tone of chiding condescension you've chosen to adopt with me and others holding a viewpoint contrary to your own. I also note that you've allowed those on your own side to rant and be as obnoxious as they wish.

Again, quit being the den mother and address some of the points that I and others have made (most notably by BaliBabyDoc) or drop it.

And for starters, kindly differentiate between the 9/11 terrorists and a pro-lifer who would put a bullet in an abortion doc for us all since the difference is apparently so great. Seems to me they're both fanatics willing to kill the innocent for a "higher cause", but perhaps you can enlighten us.

The "chiding" tone I take with you Fausto1 has nothing to do with whether you have an issue worth discussing, it is the manner in which you are choosing to do so. I simply ask you to be considerate. I'm sorry you feel as if your being considerate is so difficult that you have to assume the role of a den cub. You can note, I thanked you for your contribution when you gave it considerately.

Further, I respect BaliBabyDoc for his input. And I respect that when he states his opinion of Pro-Life, at least in this instance his wording is "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." Not "blah blah blah zealots/terrorists/bible-thumping".

If anything, BaliBabyDoc is the intelligent side of the argument. What you purport as argument is little more than just that, argument for the sake of argument. And not even witty argument at that. BaliBabyDoc is perhaps one of the few qualified people to take up this argument and I commend him for that. I don't have to agree with everything he says to respect him and his experience, the detail with which he shares it and the obvious thought and care he puts into his posts. I've learned a lot from him, and I admit that many of my previous notions have been rightfully challenged, some perceptions somewhat changed even.

I'll take responsibility for posting an "old" Pro-Life reference. But I think it still has teeth. Just show me how it being old and tired relegates it to being inaccurate and without merit? Just because you label it so does not vanquish any meaning it may have. I have to ask you though, if you consider this propaganda - what then of sources you prefer? And really, why is that so different from what you are posting?

And for the record: THOSE OF YOU WHO Fausto1 CONSIDERS TO BE ON "MY SIDE". KNOCK OFF THE BULLSH!T!! It appears as though he won't take responsibility for his insolence until you do.

You'd argue with a fence post wouldn't you?

Anyway....more to the point, I've presented a few questions to the pro-life crowd that have yet to be addressed in any significant manner.

1. Obviously, we wouldn't have so many abortions if we didn't have so many unwanted pregnancies. Why is it that the pro-life camp seemingly focuses so much of it's energies on outlawing abortion while essentially ignoring sex education and contraception beyond simple promotion of abstinence? As I've pointed out previously in this thread, you can tell kids not to have sex (and why) until you're blue in the face, but you'll never convince all of them. Why not combine the message and education to say "Abstinence is the only absolute way to avoid pregnancy and STD's, but if you're going to have sex, you need to use contraception. Here's what's available, how it works, and how to use it." I know the common counter to this line of thinking is to say that this will only encourage kids to have sex. To that, I ask you to consider the numbers in each case; which is going to produce more unwanted pregnancies.......promotion of abstinence with little/less emphasis and access to contraception or the combination approach?

2. Adoption. The first interesting issue is that of willing parents. One side says there are lines around the corner of parents waiting to adopt and the other says the opposite while pointing out the many obvious failing of state and national child welfare agencies. Here's one recent and horrible example. Who's right and who's wrong? Anyone have real, unbiased data regarding numbers of willing parents out there? Additionally, what about the mental well-being of the adopted child; knowing that his real parents didn't want him/her. I knew several adopted kids growing up and they seemed to have more than their fair share of issues with things like running away, promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. Obviously this is completely anecdotal, but can anyone offer professional data and analysis of the mental/sociological aspects of adoption? It's easy to just say "Adoption, not abortion!", but what is the reality of this option from the adoptees standpoint?

3. This may be a tad inflammatory, but here goes. I would like to know why the pro-life movement doesn't self-police itself. How can you expect to make headway toward your cause while allowing the fringe elements to operate essentially unfettered? I'm talking about those who picket and harass at clinics, threaten or even kill doctors and others involved in abortion, set up fake clinics to lure in unsuspecting pregnant women and then bombard them with pro-life propaganda (these do indeed exist, trust me), and particularly the rampant dissemination of misleading or outright false information. Seems to me this movement would make a lot more progress by not tainting itself with the actions of the fanatical few. JMHO.

There. Discuss. And play nice so we don't give Sketcher additional heartburn.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: BDawgYou're saying you can force another human being to incubate a developing one because you want her to? Strange argument if you ask me...

At what point do we begin to get in trouble though? As was mentioned earlier, advances in medicine continue to push back the "viable" date. As the definition of viable changes, do we continue to redefine what is meant by an illegal abortion?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: CadetLee

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Zakath15
In my very brief opinion, I think this is a very good thing. Despite the obvious moral issues involved with any type of abortion, I am surprised that anyone would call a partial birth abortion an abortion at all - for all intents and purposes, it is infanticide, and as such, should be illegal.

Okay, so how exactly is it infanticide when the fetus isn't developed enough to survive on its own (and is likely non-viable in most D&X cases anyway) and how/why do you even make a distinction between this and other types of abortion?

There are a few definitions of "viable"...

1:Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.

2: Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.

You're going for the second definition..but what about the first? The womb is the child's natural enviroment until birth. You're saying that s/he should have to live outside of his/her natural enviroment to become "viable"? Strange argument if you ask me..but apparently most think otherwise.

You missed my point. Zakath referred to the D&X procedure as "infanticide" without appling that label to other forms of abortion. I wanted to know why he was making that distinction (based on the "partial-birth" aspect of the procedure, I'm assuming) when it could just as easily be applied to any form of abortion if you make the assumption that the fetus is a child at any point in its development. Conversely, if you don't call other forms of abortion "infanticide"; why and where do you draw the line? This is where the viability issue comes into play.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

BaliBabyDoc wants to blow off the opinions of doctors who say PBA is never necessary for the woman's health. I can't imagine why you would expect Koop to perform abortions, though he may have. If he didn't think it was right, he wouldn't perform them, of course. His opinion was backed by 300 physician specialists as well as the AMA. Their opinion holds as much weight as anyone's in this matter, so argue all you want. It must REALLY suck when the baby's head accidently slips out during one of these abortions. I wonder if we'll have legislation to cover the care of the "child" in that event?

I've either misspoken or you have misinterpreted my remarks. I can drive to Charlotte and amongst several hospitals I can round up 300 physician specialists that don't know jack about abortions. The easiest test would be to ask one question . . . how do you perform a dilatation and curettage (standard early abortion)? If they don't know the answer they would certainly have ZERO professional understanding of an intact D & X. Spend a little time in a court of law and you will discover the difference between opinion, knowledgable opinion, and a qualified opinion.

My point about Koop is that I assume he NEVER performed an abortion. It has nothing to do with his personal philosophy but everything to do with his training. He's unqualified for the procedure . . . just like me . . . just like 95% of all licensed MDs in America.

If I followed your line of thinking . . . I imagine you would assemble the 1999 corporate board and front office of Enron and ask them to write a treatise on appropriate corporate governance.

Maybe ask Exxon, GM, and Monsanto to produce a report on how to reduce pollution.

I've never stated nor implied this ad hoc committee's conclusions are not notable. I just said they are conclusions from a less than qualified body which differ significantly from the conclusions drawn by THE MOST QUALIFIED BODY.

I don't know what your vocational culture is like but in mine the common refrain is that a medical specialist is someone that knows almost everything about very little.