What Can You Not Understand?

I have to go now, have a fun rest of the discussion.

 

yes. in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed before the fetus is viable outside of the womb, or when the fetus is at best marginally viable -- 20,21,22 weeks.

btw, i'm not arguing about the procedure itself...just pointing out that it's slightly misleading to talk as if this were a full-term baby...

 

I don't appreciate the derogative nature of your post MM and the fact you continue to focus on the most vile and extreme forms of LT abortions. The only purpose of this is to portray any individual who would support this procedure as some sort of evil blood-thirty monster. To clarify my personal position I absolutely do not support any sort of late term abortion for reasons other than the well being of the Mother is jeopardy. I seriously doubt there are many people who support a women’s right to end a pregnancy late in the term simply because the child is no longer wanted. Obviously adoption is the best way to go and a doctor who would perform or encourage this type of procedure is disgusting. To ignore what the true purposes of the religious right are in regards to this issue is extremely naïve.

 

In a previous abortion thread you stated that you would not consider it murder even if the woman was shot in the stomach and the baby killed the day she was due for delivery. You wrote that you would consider charges against the shooter for assault/battery against the woman but that you would not consider a murder charge against the soon to be born baby.

Have you changed your opinion about that?

 

Thanks MM we are really on the same page on alot of this -- my main arguements against this ban are:

1. The leaders of the movement to ban the procedure are using inaccurate information and promoting the most horrific form PBA as the mean for all of the procedures.

2. This has little to do with protecting innocent unborn children, it is simply a veiled political move by the religous right.

3. Banning all LTA will cause injury and death to women in the future who truly need the procedure.

4. There are better ways to stop unnecessary LT abortions through stricter regulation of the procedure and better promotion of benefits of adoption than simply banning all LTAs outright.

5. The definitions of late term abortions and partial birth abortions have been manipulated to create the image that these abortions are extremely common and that the most horrific types are part of a normal routine.

"Partial-Birth Abortions", The American Federal Courts and a Woman's Constitutional Right to Abortion

In particular, two myths propagated by anti-abortion sponsors of legislation have misled the public. First, sponsors of bills banning "partial-birth abortion" focused their rhetoric and graphic demonstrations of what the bills would ban on a medical procedure that is a variation of dilation and evacuation, or "D&E" abortion,15 the most common method of second trimester abortion.16 This variation of the D&E is sometimes called, variously, intact D&E or dilation and extraction abortion ("D&X").17 Following President Clinton's veto of a federal ban on "partial-birth abortion" in 1996, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ("ACOG")18 proposed a definition of the term D&X.19 Recognizing that the D&X is a variation of the D&E, ACOG stated that while it "could identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman," the procedure "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance" in the doctor's judgment.20

D&X procedures, as defined by ACOG, are generally not used until at least 16 weeks into pregnancy,21 and accordingly are quite rare.22 Physicians' testimony has established that D&X is an important medical procedure with health benefits for some women.23 For example, the plaintiff physician in Carhart established at trial that "the D&X that Dr. Carhart performs is the safest procedure to use when he uses it,"24 and that even banning the D&X procedure alone would force some patients to endure "an appreciably greater risk of injury or death than would be the case if these women could rely upon" the D&X.25

However, despite this focus on the D&X procedure by sponsors of legislation, by the media and, consequently, by the public, the statutes themselves make absolutely no mention of the D&X or intact D&E.26 Instead, they ban what they call "partial-birth abortion," a term which itself has "no fixed medical or legal content."27 Although the statutes' definitions of "partial-birth abortion" vary somewhat, the definition of "partial-birth abortion" in the Wisconsin statute is typical of the language used in the federal and most of the state bills. That statute defines "partial-birth abortion" as "an abortion in which a person partially vaginally delivers a living child, causes the death of the partially delivered child with the intent to kill the child, and then completes the delivery of the child."28 In other words, any abortion procedure in which the fetus is still "living" at the time it is partly in the uterus and partly in the vagina is banned if the fetus is then "killed" before it is completely removed from the woman's body. As one federal district court held in examining a similar statute:29



Act 984 defines partial-birth abortion as "an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before taking the life of the fetus and completing the delivery." None of those terms are further defined. Act 984 does not limit its applicability to later term abortions. There is no specific exclusion of other procedures such as suction curettage or D&E. "Deliver" has a broad meaning in medical terms and "partially" means anything less than whole or complete, so Act 984 can be read to apply if any small portion of the fetus is moved to the vagina before the life is taken and the delivery completed.


Virtually all abortion procedures may involve elements that could be described as partial vaginal delivery,30 that is, part of the fetus is brought through the woman's cervix and into her vagina before or as the fetus is killed. Thus, courts addressing the issue have held almost without exception that the statutes ban far more than the D&X procedure and would prohibit physicians from performing the D&E procedure,31 the safest and most common procedure used in the second trimester, and even in some cases the suction curettage procedure.32

Second, the bill sponsors and the media have repeatedly referred to procedures banned by the bills as "late term abortions," a term which is itself undefined. The implication in speeches and pamphlets supporting passage of the bills is that the only abortions banned by the bills are post-viability abortions, ones in which the fetus could otherwise survive on its own outside the mother's body, fetuses that, in the words of one ban proponent, are "inches from enjoying life."33 Again, though, none of the statutes banning "partial-birth abortion" include such a limitation.

http://www.crlp.org/pub_art_pbajwhl.html

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm
http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=4998&c=148
http://www.cdc.gov

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090201/

Here are a couple of sites and articles I was looking at. And I have been following the debate very closely.

In regards to the Kansas study and the fact that most of the pregnancies were viable:
I think the procedure is awful, horrendous, horrible, etc. Like Underoverup wrote, I don't support late-term abortions for any reason other than that the life or health of the mother is in danger.

That being said, I believe there absolutely has to be an exception wrt the health of the mother, and as I posted before, it can be an exception restricted only to severe physical (not mental) complications.

And there is another reason why I believe that the rights of the woman must be addressed in this law...we have seen in the past attempts by pro-life groups to legislate a fetus as a person as a first step to banning all abortion. As someone who believes deeply in the rights of women to control their bodies and their reproductive choices, this is of great concern to me.

But that's not what this thread is about, and I don't want it to go there. I just want to voice my concerns with a ban in which the health of the mother is not considered, because as a woman, my health and my choices are a pretty fundamental concern.

 

Nope, mostly because it is a legal distinction that the pro-lifers would love to make in order to begin to define a fetus as "life" and abortion as murder.

 

I cannot find a single major organization of physicians that support a complete ban on LTAs, this is the overriding opinion that I have read:

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ("ACOG"), which represents 39,000 physicians and the American Medical Women's Association ("AMWA") oppose bans on "partial-birth abortion." The ACOG Statement of Policy: Statement on Intact Dilatation and Extraction40 ("ACOG Statement") provides:

It is difficult to respond to [questions regarding "partial-birth abortion"] because the descriptions are vague and do not delineate a specific procedure recognized in the medical literature. Moreover, the definitions could be interpreted to include elements of many recognized abortion and operative obstetric techniques.41

Accordingly, ACOG opposes the bans as "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous".42 AMWA also opposes the ban stating that it is "gravely concerned with governmental attempts to legislate medical decision-making through measures that do not protect a woman's physical and mental health, including future fertility, or fail to consider other pertinent issues, such as fetal abnormalities".43
Similarly, the AMA issued a report on "partial-birth abortion" stating:
[T]he language. . . - "partially vaginally deliver a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery" - does not refer to a specific obstetrical/surgical technique, nor does it refer to a specific stage of gestation (i.e., pre- or post-viability). In fact, [this language] could be interpreted to include many recognized abortion and obstetric techniques (such as those used during dilation and evacuation (D&E)), or other procedures used to induce abortion.44

 

That doesn't seem to jive with the following statement you made in this thread:

"Well, I don't see abortion as murder unless it is performed so late that the fetus could live outside the womb. I understand that you see it differently, but that doesn't automatically make it true."

It reads like you WOULD consider abortion murder if the fetus could live outside the womb, yet you don't consider it murder if the child is killed by a gunmen the day it is due to be delivered.

 

How about this. If you could guarantee that the pro-lifers would not be able to use it as a way to try to ban abortion, I would agree with prosecuting said gunman for murder. Since that cannot be the case, I would not support such a prosecution.

 

The view that playing a weak non-BCS college football schedule and going undefeated proves a team deserves a shot at a BCS game.

How people can enjoy watching AL "baseball" games. DHs have no place in baseball and thus any game featuring a DH is not baseball. I only watch WS games played in NL parks. I may be a little biased growing up in Houston.

Good idea MadMax.

 

That sounds like a wonderful organization. It is good that women have resources like that out there if THEY (the women) decide to bring to term and bear the child.

 

MM I don't think all religious organization are evil most do great things, i'm sure the people you work with are of high moral standing. However in this case though I believe that powerful religious organizations are using manipulated facts to promote and force their moral beliefs through less than honorable means.

You simply cannot read all the facts about this procedure and not see that banning it is a bad idea. A small minority of those who want this ban lifted support the procedure in any circumstance. The vast majority are against the procedure if it is used for the convenience of the mother.

The religious right has set out to make anyone who supports any form of abortion out to be a criminal, which is wrong. This ban ignores volumes of medical evidence as well as the opinions of the majority of physicians. Like any sweeping ban of this type there are undoubtedly numerous loopholes doctors will use to in order to preserve the health of mothers who must have the procedure. Making innocent women feel like criminals when the majority would rather have a healthy baby rather than abort is immoral. It is also mistaken to support this procedure simply because the mother has changed her mind and wants a quick way out of her pregnancy instead of having the child.

 

So I guess it all boils down to "wording".

If I follow correctly, everyone agrees that PBAs are bad.

Andymoon contends that the wording should allow for major heath concerns to the woman because to it would take away the woman's right to choose to abort if the wording only allowed PBAs that meant certain/possible death to the woman.

MadMax contends that the wording should only allow PBAs if the womans life was in danger because "major health concerns" opens the door for many reasons that have nothing to do with the survival of the woman.

Andymoon has repeatedly said that he would side with his woman no matter what she chose. What about the Father's choice? What if the woman chose to abort her child late because she might be adversely affected for the rest of her life, but she most likely would live? What if the Father felt like the child's life was worth it? Sure it's not his body, but it is his baby. Fathers are held equally responsible for the baby after it is born. Why not before?

Most parents that I know would be willing to give their life if it meant that their child could go on living. It's kinda like "taking a bullet" for your kid. Most parents would be willing to die in order to save their kids.

I see both sides here. I agree with Andymoon that we need to be very careful how much power we give the government. I also fear that this is one step closer to the right-wing agenda of outlawing all abortions. But on the other hand it saddens me how many babies (they are not fetuses this late in pregancy, they could live outside of the womb in most cases) are aborted when there is no danger to the Mother.

When I think about that story about the Mom who chose not to abort here baby and ended up dying from cancer, I feel for the Husband but am positive that he too will feel very proud of his Wife's decision. That child may grow up to become something quite special. In the end, the Mom's decision may very well be justified.

 

I'm just trying to understand why you would see it as murder if an abortion is performed on a viable fetus, but NOT murder if a gunmen kills a baby the day it is to be delivered. In both cases they are viable.

Incidentally, in some states (24?) it is murder to kill an unborn child via a direct or negligent act (such as murdering the mother or vehicular homicide). As a matter of fact, I believe Scott Peterson is charged with 2 counts of murder.