posted on December 6, 2000 07:54:49 PM
considering all that has transpired on these boards recently, it may be naive of me to think this can be discussed without getting into hostilities and name calling but let's see what happens. there are those who feel that virtually all abortions are o.k and those who perhaps feel that none are justified. but what if abortions were made illegal once a heartbeat was detected? yes, there could be falsifications by unethical doctors and there are issues regarding the health of the mother, but are there those who think this should be the primary criteria for a legal abortion? let's try to be civil folks!
posted on December 6, 2000 07:59:08 PM
There is almost always a middle ground and that is almost always the correct course. The problem is defining what the middle ground is.
posted on December 6, 2000 08:20:41 PM
I remember when abortions were made legal. We were tricked into believing it wouldn't be used for birth control...and yet it is.
I have no sorrow for anyone made sterile by having too many abortions.
No one speaks for the unborn, who can't speak for themselves.
This PARTIAL birth abortion is plain murder..and I would not go to a doctor who does abortions. Why? Because how do I know he would do everything he could to save my baby...and yet go in the next room and kill one.
posted on December 6, 2000 08:22:17 PM
Well, your "heartbeat detection" is one of the definitions of "life" and it may be as good as any. Personally, I think "viable fetus" is the definition, but there are surely opinions all along the continuum from conception to full term birth.
For me, there is no middle ground when it comes to the right of a woman to choose whether or not to carry and bear a child. Whether or not it is my choice, I will always believe that it is a choice that a woman should have available to her.
Many serious, life-altering and life-depleting birth defects cannot be detected as early as can a heartbeat, and I would be opposed to making "heartbeat detection" the determinant.
posted on December 6, 2000 08:22:20 PM
Here you have been on all threads that do not relate to auctions telling people that the topics should not be discussed and now you are opening this thread?
Adding my Opinion: Partial Birth Abortion is outright murder. The right to an abortion will never be taken away so I my opinion does not really matter at all. Too may people use it as birth control, I know many people who have had several. If you are too stupid to use birth control you are too stupid to be having sex.
[ edited by snowydays on Dec 6, 2000 08:26 PM ]
posted on December 6, 2000 08:32:22 PM
I don't know how to make links, but didn't you just say this a little while ago in a political thread? I was just there before you brought this subject up.
you 'guys'(non-sexist) just don't get it!! many of you have seen my posts about religious and political discussions on the ebay outlook board and may have felt that i am into some kind of censorship. i am not. there is a right time and/or place for everything.
posted on December 6, 2000 08:32:36 PM
Stusi has been actively objecting to any thread or post in which racial or ethnic slurs as he (or she) perceives them are contained, but has not been objecting to any thread that is not auction related in the round table.
Could someone define the term "partial birth abortion" for me? I haven't heard of it before yesterday.
posted on December 6, 2000 08:43:59 PM
KRS, It's a euphemism for "aborting a viable fetus really late in the pregnancy".
I really couldn't find anything purely clinical and unbiased about partial birth abortion, this site definitely has an agenda as almost any dealing with this issue will, but here is a diagram of the procedure, presumably an accurate depiction:
posted on December 6, 2000 08:45:53 PM
A baby is partially born, a whole is drilled in its skull and its brains are sucked out. Called partial birth because the baby is viable and is too big to be aborted the normal way.
posted on December 6, 2000 08:48:21 PM
Although this is from the National Right to Life website, the description of this type of abortion is accurate. With this particularly heinous procedure the only difference between "fetal material" and a human being is the 3 inches or so of the baby's head that remains in the mother.
posted on December 6, 2000 08:49:29 PM
Can someone tell me how to make links and put things in italics and make smiley faces? IS there a site that tells how to do this?
posted on December 6, 2000 08:50:59 PM
i strongly objected to religious and political discussions on "ebay outlook" because i saw no relevance whatsoever, and to demeaning ethnic slurs on all boards. abortion , although very strongly tied to religious and/or political beliefs by many people, is not thought of in these terms by many others. i never had a real problem with non-auction issues being discussed on the "roundtable", but rather the tendency to hostility caused by getting into religion and politics. i have always been curious as to whether or not there was a large number of people who might have a moderate stance on this sensitive issue. the moderate stances are not newsworthy and therefore the numbers are rarely known. so far this chat has been civil.
posted on December 6, 2000 08:51:41 PM
Partial birth abortion is a hideous thing, but it is my understanding that it is rarely done. Only if the mothers life is in serious jeopardy. It is not done as often as the anti-abortionists would have people believe.
posted on December 6, 2000 08:51:46 PM
* Although usually used in the fifth and sixth months, the partial-birth abortion method has also been used to perform abortions in the third trimester -- that is, the seventh month and later -- most notably by the developer of the method, the late Dr. James McMahon. In a written submission to the House Judiciary Committee in June, 1995, McMahon explicitly acknowledged that he performed such abortions on babies with no "flaw" whatever, even in the third trimester, for such reasons as mere youth of the mother, or for "psychiatric" difficulties. Indeed, even at 29 weeks -- well into the seventh month -- one-fourth of the babies that McMahon aborted had no "flaw," however minor. McMahon's submission showed that in a "series" of about 2,000 such abortions that he performed, only 9% were performed for "maternal [health] indications," and of that group, the most common reason was "depression."
I think it has not been banned in some States unless the mother's life is in jeopardy.
posted on December 6, 2000 09:01:44 PM
Didn't Clinton and the Republican congress haggle over legislation concerning this issue? He wanted provisions made to save the life of the mother, and congress said "No, all or nothing."
[*i]Can someone tell me how to make links and put things in italics and make smiley faces? IS there a site that tells how to do this?[/i*]
If I wanted to italisize this all I would do would be to remove the *'s and it would then show up italisized, for bolding the ubb code is [*b]without the stars and make sure there are no spaces in between the first and last words next to the ubb code[/b*]
posted on December 6, 2000 09:04:19 PM
From: National Right to Life
For immediate release: Thursday, September 26, 1996
Clinton Succeeds in Keeping Partial-Birth Abortion Unrestricted
WASHINGTON-- President Clinton today succeeded in keeping partial-birth abortion legal at any point in pregnancy, as the Senate sustained his veto of the bill to ban partial-birth abortion except to save the life of the mother. A 57-41 majority of senators voted to override the veto, but this was 9 votes short of the two-thirds majority required.
"Mr. Clinton and 41 senators have guaranteed that healthy babies, in the fifth month or later, will continue to be pulled alive feet-first from the womb and killed," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), an organization that has strongly backed the bill.
President Clinton and Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) say that they would favor a "ban" on partial-birth abortions except for "serious health" reasons. "For purposes of political cover, Mr. Clinton and some senators are proposing a sham law that would not really prevent any of the thousands of partial-birth abortions that occur each year," said NRLC's Johnson. "The Clinton proposal would ban no partial-birth abortions in the fifth or sixth months, and even after that, would allow partial-birth abortions because of the emotional state, or youth, of the mother."
President Clinton's position was formally stated most recently in response to a questionnaire sent to candidates by the U.S. Catholic Conference, published on September 16, which asked, "What is your position on a law banning partial-birth abortion?" The Clinton campaign responded: "If Congress sends the president a bill that bars third-trimester abortions with an appropriate exception for life or health, the president would sign it." [emphasis added] Most partial-birth abortions are performed before the "third trimester" and for entirely non-medical reasons. As the Washington Post accurately reported in its Sept. 17 investigative report on partial-birth abortions, the Supreme Court has defined "health" abortions to include those performed "in the light of all factors-- physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age."
The Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT), a group of over 300 medical specialists, including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, states emphatically that "partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility." Dr. Koop's views are set forth in an op ed in The New York Times today (Sept. 26), titled "Why Defend Partial-Birth Abortion?"
posted on December 6, 2000 09:04:55 PMSnowy here is a link that covers the basics of UBB. I don't beleive the Quote function works here at AuctionWatch.
posted on December 6, 2000 09:05:27 PM
I watched an eye-opening segment last night--either on Dateline or Primetime Live, can't remember which. It showed that here in the US the "person on the street" has been deprived of a plethora of birth control methods. These methods are many and varied--and the kicker is that while most were developed in the *US* they are not available for use here.
IMO, abortion would not be the issue that it is if birth control was more widely touted & available. The silly thing is that there are people out there who say that making it available would "make kids run out & have sex." Newsflash: they will anyway, whether the parent likes it or not. I seriously doubt that the genie is going back in the bottle any time soon. Society has done a 180 on attitudes toward unmarried sex and parenthood & until *that* changes back, birth control should be a top priority.
posted on December 6, 2000 09:07:09 PM
snowy-wasn't there a public outcry over dr.mcmahon's admissions? did he actually say that he performed some of these abortions in the 7th month on otherwise healthy fetuses solely because the mother was depressed?
posted on December 6, 2000 09:12:57 PMKen, the procedure as detailed in the link provided by JamesO is essentially correct (although the "scissors jam" is a not accurate). It is a horrifying thing from any viewpoint. The procedure is most typically performed with fetuses between the gestation of 20 and 24 weeks...generally "second trimester" and generally not yet "viable". And the procedure is most typically done due to life-threatening/ending health issues (either the mother or the fetus). Certainly, there are medical practitioners who do not adhere to any standard (of "life-threatening" ), so truthfully, such abortions are available if one is determined, regardless of the underlying reasoning for the decision to abort.
Several states have passed legislation to outlaw partial birth abortions; most of this legislation has been challenged, and some of those challenges have been heard at the US Supreme Court, which typically takes a dim view of such attempted restrictions/modifications of the original USSC 19973 ruling on Roe v. Wade. Twice, bills which had provisions to restrict/outlaw partial birth abortions have made it through Congress. Both were vetoed by President Clinton, and supporters could not muster Congressional support sufficient for an override.
posted on December 6, 2000 09:14:22 PM
Bunnicula, how can you say that birth control is not widely enough available? You can go into any drugstore or Wal-Mart and find something. You can also go to your local Health Department and get free Birth Control Pills. People do not use their God given common sense when it comes to sex. Abortion is any easy way out. Although I do think that abortion is preferably to parents who would abuse a child, I don't agree with it.
stusi: I am not real sure what happened over that. It is a truly disgusting procedure that should not be allowed. An abortion only cost less than $200 if the woman in in her thrid trimester and under. Many people can get them for free. No reason to wait months and months to have one and do this to a baby.
[ edited by snowydays on Dec 6, 2000 09:22 PM ]
posted on December 6, 2000 09:16:45 PM
Krs: Yes, that is what I meant, am typing to fast and not checking myself to see that my spelling and grammar is correct. Sorry.
posted on December 6, 2000 09:23:24 PM
I believe that life begins at the moment of conception. I believe that to deliberately terminate at any point afterwards is murder.
In my eyes, saying that a woman has "a right to choose" an abortion is no different than saying we all have a "right to choose" whether to kill people on the street.
I go out of my way not to kill spiders, you know? There's no way I can condone killing a baby at any stage of development.
posted on December 6, 2000 09:24:28 PM
Many HMOs and insurance companies won't even cover birth control...yet, of course, Viagra is covered.
I would think with most late-term abortions, the women's health has gotten progressively worse, and it is unforseen in the beginning that she will require an abortion, or a fetal defect is discovered late in the pregnancy. Something like spina-bifida (sp?) can't be detected till the second trimester.
It is beyond me why people think a woman would take a decision, such as this, during any trimester, so lightly. Why not leave it up to a woman and her doctor?
posted on December 6, 2000 09:28:09 PMI go out of my way not to kill spiders, you know?
Bad example, Spaz. We all know of your affinity with things that are denizens of science fiction and horror movies. Can you say the same of cockroaches?
