What is your view on partial-birth abortion?

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
...

I know if I'm looking for non-biased 'facts' on a feminine medical procedure, I go straight to a feminist website. Give me a break. At least find one where they try to quote ONE doctor.

Originally posted by: arsbanned
It's good for the gene pool!

Yes, eugenics is great for society. In fact, it is this very statement that is likely leading to the ban of all abortions in the UK per the EU charter's statements against eugenics.

Originally posted by: kage69
...once the umbilical cord is cut.

Ok, so we'll give the mother a machete and allow her to decapitate her baby after it's born, but only if she does it before the umbilical cord is cut. DX is even more gruesome than that. The baby is mostly born (all is outside the mother but the head), then forceps and suction utensils jammed into the base of its skull and its brain is sucked out.

"Why, if it's dangerous to the mother's health to do this when your intent is to deliver the baby alive, that this should suddenly become...the safe method when your intention is to kill the baby?" Dr. Pamela Smith, testimony to Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, cited in Johnson, p. 11.

 

[kage69]

Ok, so we'll give the mother a machete and allow her to decapitate her baby after it's born, but only if she does it before the umbilical cord is cut. DX is even more gruesome than that. The baby is mostly born (all is outside the mother but the head), then forceps and suction utensils jammed into the base of its skull and its brain is sucked out

Please re-read what I wrote, and make at least a small effort to comprehend it. I'm going to try and not let my hangover get the better of me in regards to saying what I really think about your assumptions and needless descriptions.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: kage69

Ok, so we'll give the mother a machete and allow her to decapitate her baby after it's born, but only if she does it before the umbilical cord is cut. DX is even more gruesome than that. The baby is mostly born (all is outside the mother but the head), then forceps and suction utensils jammed into the base of its skull and its brain is sucked out

Can you for once, post something that doesn't portray you as an ignorant, assumptive ass?

Please, demonstrate my ignorance, if you can. I made no assumptions in the above statement. I, however, demonstrated the complete idiocy of your previous statement.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: kage69

Ok, so we'll give the mother a machete and allow her to decapitate her baby after it's born, but only if she does it before the umbilical cord is cut. DX is even more gruesome than that. The baby is mostly born (all is outside the mother but the head), then forceps and suction utensils jammed into the base of its skull and its brain is sucked out

Can you for once, post something that doesn't portray you as an ignorant, assumptive ass?

Please, demonstrate my ignorance, if you can. I made no assumptions in the above statement. I, however, demonstrated the complete idiocy of your previous statement.

Well at least according to you!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well at least according to you!

So a mother should be allowed to decapitate her baby as long as the cord isn't cut yet?

For everyone who might not know about this procedure... Dr. Haskell is the person who invented it. Here is what he had to say:

The term "partial-birth abortion" describes a late term abortion procedure also known as Dilation and Extraction (D & X). This particular abortion method first came under public scrutiny after a 1992 presentation by abortionist Martin Haskell in which Haskell graphically described the D & X abortion technique.1

According to Haskell's presentation, the initial step in performing a partial-birth abortion involves two days of dilating the mother?s cervix. Afterward, the abortionist uses an ultrasound probe to locate the lower extremities of the preborn baby. He then works large grasping forceps through the mother?s vagina and cervix, and into her uterus. The abortionist grasps a leg of the baby with the forceps and pulls the leg into the mother?s vagina. "With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities. The skull lodges at the internal cervical os,"2Haskell explained.

While clutching the baby?s upper body, the abortionist "takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors. . . . He carefully advances the tip, curve down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger. . . . The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient."3

What other docs have said:

"With all that modern medicine has to offer, partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother, and the procedure?s impact on a woman?s cervix can put future pregnancies at risk."

Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D. Letter to the Editor The New York Times, September 26, 1996

"Most partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies," and "there is no obstetrical situation that requires the willful destruction of a partially delivered baby to protect the life, health or future of a woman."

Nancy Romer, M.D., Curtis Cook, M.D., Pamela Smith, M.D. and Joseph DeCook, M.D. Letter to the Editor The Wall Street Journal, October 14, 1996

"Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method." (The AMA supported the federal ban passed by Congress and vetoed by President Clinton.)

Daniel H. Johnson Jr., M.D. President, American Medical Association Letter to the Editor The New York Times, May 26, 1997

"Why, if it's dangerous to the mother's health to do this when your intent is to deliver the baby alive, that this should suddenly become...the safe method when your intention is to kill the baby?" Dr. Pamela Smith, testimony to Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, cited in Johnson, p. 11.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well at least according to you!

So a mother should be allowed to decapitate her baby as long as the cord isn't cut yet?

For everyone who might not know about this procedure... Dr. Haskell is the person who invented it. Here is what he had to say:

The term "partial-birth abortion" describes a late term abortion procedure also known as Dilation and Extraction (D & X). This particular abortion method first came under public scrutiny after a 1992 presentation by abortionist Martin Haskell in which Haskell graphically described the D & X abortion technique.1

According to Haskell's presentation, the initial step in performing a partial-birth abortion involves two days of dilating the mother?s cervix. Afterward, the abortionist uses an ultrasound probe to locate the lower extremities of the preborn baby. He then works large grasping forceps through the mother?s vagina and cervix, and into her uterus. The abortionist grasps a leg of the baby with the forceps and pulls the leg into the mother?s vagina. "With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities. The skull lodges at the internal cervical os,"2Haskell explained.

While clutching the baby?s upper body, the abortionist "takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors. . . . He carefully advances the tip, curve down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger. . . . The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient."3

What other docs have said:

"With all that modern medicine has to offer, partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother, and the procedure?s impact on a woman?s cervix can put future pregnancies at risk."

Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D. Letter to the Editor The New York Times, September 26, 1996

"Most partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies," and "there is no obstetrical situation that requires the willful destruction of a partially delivered baby to protect the life, health or future of a woman."

Nancy Romer, M.D., Curtis Cook, M.D., Pamela Smith, M.D. and Joseph DeCook, M.D. Letter to the Editor The Wall Street Journal, October 14, 1996

"Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method." (The AMA supported the federal ban passed by Congress and vetoed by President Clinton.)

Daniel H. Johnson Jr., M.D. President, American Medical Association Letter to the Editor The New York Times, May 26, 1997

"Why, if it's dangerous to the mother's health to do this when your intent is to deliver the baby alive, that this should suddenly become...the safe method when your intention is to kill the baby?" Dr. Pamela Smith, testimony to Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, cited in Johnson, p. 11.

What Kage said and I agreed with is that Partial Birth abortion should only be allowed when the Mothers life is in danger or the Baby will be born severly retarded of will die shortly after/at Child Birth. If you would open your eyes you'd see we agree with you that it should not be allowed for Birth Control ever!

 

[kage69]

Please, demonstrate my ignorance, if you can. I made no assumptions in the above statement. I, however, demonstrated the complete idiocy of your previous statement.

Actually I was editing that while you posted (and feel free to note the edit), but since you asked:


In regards to

...and the child's body is not his/her mother's

I replied

...once the umbilical cord is cut.

What I was addressing, and what you failed to catch, is that a child's body is not actually autonomous and seperate until after it is actually seperated! An intact umbilical cord indicates one conjoined being, it just happens that one of them is almost ready to fend for itself by virtue of possessing organs capable of self-sustainment once seperation has actually occured. Got it?

Your reply of

Ok, so we'll give the mother a machete and allow her to decapitate her baby after it's born, but only if she does it before the umbilical cord is cut.

seems awfully close to something I just stated as 'disgusting and unacceptable.' Sounds like ignorance to me.

You then proceed to detail the procedure of PBA, assuming I'mignorant of it even though I'm well read on the topic, and to which I even had already indicated so with

...and vaccuuming out the brains of a fetus that is almost fully developed.

Anything else I can clear up for you, O trollish one?

 

[kage69]

Red, just curious - what do you think our chances are of successfully lobbying for anand to incorporate an "Ignore" feature on these forums? I've got a couple names just off the top of my head I wouldn't mind never hearing from again...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: kage69
Red, just curious - what do you think our chances are of successfully lobbying for anand to incorporate an "Ignore" feature on these forums? I've got a couple names just off the top of my head I wouldn't mind never hearing form again...

Learn some self control and just don't reply or read the posts of those who bother you!

 

[TBone77]

Originally posted by: kage69

I find partial birth abortions to be disgusting and unacceptable.

It's comforting that most people at least agree on that point.

Originally posted by: kage69

I see a world of difference between expelling a clump of cells smaller than a grain of rice

While I understand where you are coming from, I just hope nothing comes along in the future and deems you and I nothing more relevant than a clump of cells.

Originally posted by: kage69

I can't sidw with the rabid anti-abortion crowd as they are so polarized over the matter it blinds them to a litany of unescapable realities surrounding women and the abortion issue. I feel it is a necessary evil.

That's putting a little too fine a point on it for me. I'm against abortion in general, however I certainly recognize that there are cases where a decision must be made between the life of the child and the life of the mother. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with rape victims aborting pregancies provided that they are early term. I don't know many "fanatics" who would not allow such exceptions, but I find certain groups trying to paint them with that brush as a means of clouding the issue. I'm not saying that they don't exist, but you can ban abortion and provide for these specific scenarios and protect the rights of the mother without completely sacrificing those of the child.

 

[Moonbeam]

Any male seriously interested in the life of the aborted will fund scientific research that will make it possible for an unwanted fetus to be transfered to him to be carried to term. The lack of such research shows me the truth of such 'seriousness'. In fact in a 'just' society I think abortion opponents should be registered with the government and drafted as needed to provide this service. They could be locked up for nine months at government expense or until they change their opinion at which point somebody else can be drafted.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
"Why, if it's dangerous to the mother's health to do this when your intent is to deliver the baby alive, that this should suddenly become...the safe method when your intention is to kill the baby?" Dr. Pamela Smith, testimony to Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, cited in Johnson, p. 11.

[/quote]
What Kage said and I agreed with is that Partial Birth abortion should only be allowed when the Mothers life is in danger or the Baby will be born severly retarded of will die shortly after/at Child Birth. If you would open your eyes you'd see we agree with you that it should not be allowed for Birth Control ever!
[/quote]
But it's NEVER necessary for this reason. Why is that so hard?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
"Why, if it's dangerous to the mother's health to do this when your intent is to deliver the baby alive, that this should suddenly become...the safe method when your intention is to kill the baby?" Dr. Pamela Smith, testimony to Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, cited in Johnson, p. 11.

What Kage said and I agreed with is that Partial Birth abortion should only be allowed when the Mothers life is in danger or the Baby will be born severly retarded of will die shortly after/at Child Birth. If you would open your eyes you'd see we agree with you that it should not be allowed for Birth Control ever!
[/quote]
But it's NEVER necessary for this reason. Why is that so hard?
[/quote]
Yeah it is. It might not be the reason most of them happen but there are times that there are valid reasons for them.

 

[kage69]

Learn some self control and just don't reply or read the posts of those who bother you!

Oh I've got it, as demonstrated by my previous edit. I too used to espouse the 'don't pay it any mind' position, but in my time here in these forums I've learned that are some who deserve to be ignored. This place attracts partisan hacks of sufficient potency to exhaust even the hardiest of well-meaning resolves.

 

[kage69]

While I understand where you are coming from, I just hope nothing comes along in the future and deems you and I nothing more relevant than a clump of cells.

Not to worry, most people don't have a problem distinguishing between grown adults and a gooey little zygote. I don't think you can get much more relevent than that, other than note the distinction that neither of us existing currently 'butts heads' with someone's rights over their own body.

That's putting a little too fine a point on it for me. I'm against abortion in general, however I certainly recognize that there are cases where a decision must be made between the life of the child and the life of the mother. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with rape victims aborting pregancies provided that they are early term. I don't know many "fanatics" who would not allow such exceptions, but I find certain groups trying to paint them with that brush as a means of clouding the issue. I'm not saying that they don't exist, but you can ban abortion and provide for these specific scenarios and protect the rights of the mother without completely sacrificing those of the child.

It seems you and I share a similar position then. You'll have to excuse my citing of fanatics, I wasn't directing that at you. You see, I used to live in Pensacola, Fl and have had many experiences with the frothy mouthed idealogues like CW here.

How's that re-read comin CW?

 

[PingSpike]

I agree with Kerry's position. There are certain circumstances where I believe it may be necessary, and it is not the governments place to make a doctors decision on what is the best treatment for a patient. Kerry voted against the bill because there was no clause for allowing it to happen when a mother's life is in danger. Those who say that it "never happens" are either fools or pushing an agenda seperate but related to the issue.

I would not force a woman to carry a baby to term that was likely to suffer and then die, or one that was the product of rape or an incestuous union. This issue cannot be painted black and white.

 

[JetsFanatic]

I have no view....


I haven't seen one yet

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
"Why, if it's dangerous to the mother's health to do this when your intent is to deliver the baby alive, that this should suddenly become...the safe method when your intention is to kill the baby?" Dr. Pamela Smith, testimony to Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, cited in Johnson, p. 11.

What Kage said and I agreed with is that Partial Birth abortion should only be allowed when the Mothers life is in danger or the Baby will be born severly retarded of will die shortly after/at Child Birth. If you would open your eyes you'd see we agree with you that it should not be allowed for Birth Control ever!
[/quote]
But it's NEVER necessary for this reason. Why is that so hard?
[/quote]

Will you excuse everyone if they don't take your word or the articles made by religious peoples over what the medical community is saying?

You are trolling this article made by "new scientists" so hard it isn't even funny.

Give some proof that the medical community as a whole agrees that it is NEVER necessary for that reason or shut the fvck up about it.

 

[Genx87]

He provides quotes from medical doctors who know more about this stuff than anybody here. Yet everybodys pre-concieved notion that this gruesome procedure is done to protect the mother life is still correct?

I have done a little research on this subject a few years back and from what I can tell there is very little evidence to backup the theory these procedures are done in order to save a mother life. I dont have my sources in front of me but a leading doctor in 1996 in front of congress who performed abortions over a 20 years period had done roughly 2000 of these procedures. He estimated upwards of 90% of them were done on a purely elected basis.

The simple fact was there were very little medical reason due to advances in medicine.

You have to ask youself this. What possible medical issue could harm the mothers life that would warrent this? The baby is delivered just like any other baby is. If the baby can be delievered in the fashion there is little reason to think it cant be born natually.

Also I think Abortion should be outlawed completely. But especially after the baby has developed the ability to feel pain and dream. The idea that we as a people have de-evolved to the point where we can mass murder the most innocent of our society has shown just how little we have progressed from thousands of years ago.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Genx87

The simple fact was there were very little medical reason due to advances in medicine.

You have to ask youself this. What possible medical issue could harm the mothers life that would warrent this? The baby is delivered just like any other baby is. If the baby can be delievered in the fashion there is little reason to think it cant be born natually.

Exactly. If the mother's in a critical life-threatening situation, the doctors are not going to mess around with inducing a vaginal birth just to do a D&X - they're going to do an emergency C-section, and there's no need to kill the baby at that point.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Genx87
He provides quotes from medical doctors who know more about this stuff than anybody here. Yet everybodys pre-concieved notion that this gruesome procedure is done to protect the mother life is still correct?

The opinions of a few individuals are only their opinions. Just because one member of a community says something is so does not mean all or even the majority agree.

I have done a little research on this subject a few years back and from what I can tell there is very little evidence to backup the theory these procedures are done in order to save a mother life. I dont have my sources in front of me but a leading doctor in 1996 in front of congress who performed abortions over a 20 years period had done roughly 2000 of these procedures. He estimated upwards of 90% of them were done on a purely elected basis.

Then 10% of them are not. Thus why many of us do not support the outright banning of the practice, at least not without a clause for exceptions. Your own research supports out position.

The simple fact was there were very little medical reason due to advances in medicine.

But there is still a reason.

You have to ask youself this. What possible medical issue could harm the mothers life that would warrent this? The baby is delivered just like any other baby is. If the baby can be delievered in the fashion there is little reason to think it cant be born natually.

I don't know the answer to that question. I'm not even really qualified to ask myself it, having no medical training whatsoever. I thought it was Bush that wanted "doctors in charge" of your healthcare, not the government...

Also I think Abortion should be outlawed completely. But especially after the baby has developed the ability to feel pain and dream. The idea that we as a people have de-evolved to the point where we can mass murder the most innocent of our society has shown just how little we have progressed from thousands of years ago.

And there's the agenda. The reason you support the outright banning is not because you disbelieve the possible exceptions that may may cause harm to the mother, but because you don't care about them. You feel all abortions should be outlawed, an opinion on the matter I can understand and respect. But just because you wish all abortions were without necessity does not make it so. You choose what you want to believe here, because it supports your opinion.

I believe its a brutal practice and should ideally never be performed. But I will not pretend to know better than all doctors on whether it is sometimes necessary or not. Thus, I cannot support its outright banning.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Genx87

The simple fact was there were very little medical reason due to advances in medicine.

You have to ask youself this. What possible medical issue could harm the mothers life that would warrent this? The baby is delivered just like any other baby is. If the baby can be delievered in the fashion there is little reason to think it cant be born natually.

Exactly. If the mother's in a critical life-threatening situation, the doctors are not going to mess around with inducing a vaginal birth just to do a D&X - they're going to do an emergency C-section, and there's no need to kill the baby at that point.

C-sections are hardly easy on the mother. Without knowing much on the subject, I would tend to think they could easily kill some one in a very weakened state. I could be wrong though.

 

[kage69]

The idea that we as a people have de-evolved to the point where we can mass murder the most innocent of our society has shown just how little we have progressed from thousands of years ago.

I got news for you - abortion isn't a recent development. One of the facts many choose to ignore is that women have been undergoing and performing abortions for a long, long time. What modern clinics do in sterile, safe, and professional environments, young women and midwives have ben doing for centuries with sticks, stones, herbs and ungents on dirtfloors. Some native tribes of South America, Africa and Australia to this day opt for a sister or mother to actually jump up and down on the swollen abdomen of the pregnant woman in order to injure the fetus and expell it, usually alongside a liberal amount of stabbing with a twig to irritate the cervix and induce a miscarriage.
Desperate women in the US, Europe and Asia will opt for crude back-alley or hotel room abortions where an untrained individual will use dangerous instruments and chemicals to abort a fetus, often times later killing the women via blood loss, embolisms, or infection.

You see where I'm going with this? As reprehensible at it may be, it is a necessary evil. The desire to preserve life is oddly one of the strongest arguments to relegate the practice to a safe, sterile, and professional environment. Outlawed abortion will result in mother's dying along with the fetuses.

What possible medical issue could harm the mothers life that would warrent this?

I recall seeing on the news a few years ago (this really stuck with me) a news commentator ending off with a story from someplace out West. A mother who was several months pregnant was diagnosed with a malignant type of cancer, requiring immediate chemotherapy and some other procedure which escapes me at the moment, in order to survive. Anyway, the doctors basically told her the fetus would not survive and that she had a choice to make. Rather than abort the fetus and save her own life, she brought the child to term and delivered, only to pass away mere weeks after the birth of her daughter. The news guy ended with 'the doctor telling the father to tell the child later, 'Your mommie loved you very, very much.'

In an age when many young women abort due to 'not being ready for the responsibility' or 'being too young,' this act really touched me. I wish I had a link for you guys, but like I said I caught it on the news.

 

[kage69]

Please, demonstrate my ignorance, if you can. I made no assumptions in the above statement. I, however, demonstrated the complete idiocy of your previous statement.

This is still causing me to chuckle. :laugh:

 

[kage69]

It just occured to me that no one with a uterus has sounded off on this yet. I think us guys should shut up for a bit. :clock: