posted on March 14, 2001 06:51:06 PM
mzalez, What planet are you from? Where on earth do you get information like "abortions were safer before Roe v Wade" ? Apparently you have never heard of all the women who had no access to those really safe abortions and died from the filthy tools used on them. Or the methods they ,out of desperation tried on themselves.
Also, the people that I know that have had abortions in the distant past are not wringing their hands and crying about it. They did what they had to do for whatever reason and moved on.
Seems to me some of the loudest female opponents of abortion in any form are those that had an abortion and later regreted it. Perhaps those women did not give it enough thought. The ones I know gave it grave consideration before hand.
edited to add the word female.
[ edited by rawbunzel on Mar 14, 2001 07:58 PM ]
posted on March 14, 2001 07:12:34 PM
I didn't know how a PBA was performed and at the risk of sounding less macho than I would like, I was sitting here minding my own business with my son on my lap surfing through the round table and happened to open this thread.
A 29 year old man sitting at his 'puter with tears in his eyes because of a post on a message board.
I am not pro-choice but I also don't have the ego to force my opinions on others. PBA is horrific, yes. Should it be allowed? IMHO, no.
I agree with toke, you knew the reaction you would get by posting the details in the manner you did.
I hate the fact that abortions go on, and do beleive that PBA's shouldn't be allowed but I am a man, I can't put myself in a womans place who has to make such a terrible decision, nor do I think I can force my opinions on anyone.
Educate, Educate, Educate so the need for abortions goes down, if not away completely. Instead of picketing and harrassing abortion clinics, take that time and money and fund it into adoption programs and sex education. Provide birth control for young people. They are going to have sex, no matter what you tell them. I did, most, if not all of my peers did.
Stop the problem at its root instead of using a barbaric band-aid when it's too late.
posted on March 14, 2001 07:38:02 PM
Well, we are 'sort of' having a 'nice', polite discussion...considering that this is a 'highly flammable' topic. Anyway, the purpose of this thread is being fulfilled. Thanks for the opportunity to help those who can't speak up for themselves.
Anyway, many of the posters have been polite and fair, and that is very much appreciated. I did learn lots of new things in this thread, and continue to learn even more.
rawbunzel, the next time I go back to the library I will look for the book by the pro-abortion lady so you can read what she said for yourself. She really did say that the illegal abortions back then were better than the ones now. I don't doubt that some of the back alley abortions were nightmares. The author said that the illegal abortionist would be stopped and jailed only if they killed someone--so they had to be really good at their job. But today, women are still subjected to filthy clinics, and some still try to do abortions on themselves. Women still die from legal abortions.
kraftdinner, "What should be done?" We could start by getting the truth out, or at least both sides of the argument. Seems like some here would like to squash any information on PBA that doesn't put a good spin on it.
Thanks Linda_K for your posts. As you can see it takes some guts to talk truth about certain subjects.
jamesoblivion, also your fair and level-headed comments are always appreciated.
By the way, I found some clear illustrations and photographs of the PBA procedure and victims if anyone needs further information.
posted on March 14, 2001 07:51:19 PM
TTH, thank you for your reply. The sort of reply this thread would get I wasn't sure of, because I'd never seen or started a thread like this before. PBA seems to be one of those taboo subjects.
I don't agree my opinions are forced others, because it just isn't possible to force an opinion on someone else. As you can see many posters here don't agree with and have rejected the post. If anything, those who legalized and participate in PBA have forced it on the children killed by it.
"Stop the problem at its root instead of using a barbaric band-aid when it's too late."--I agree. Unwanted children are a challenge but killing them like this is not the answer.
Something new I just learned:
It takes 3 to 5 days to prepare the women for PBA. Dilating the cervix can take 3 to 5 days. Approximately 12 special ‘sticks’, called seaweed-type laminaria, are inserted into the cervix a few at a time over this 3 to 5 day period. They swell over time, forcing the cervix open. Each successive day, a few more are placed, until the cervix is properly dilated to perform the PBA. These are some of the details and complications that can occur with this unnatural dilatation of the cervix:
It is very painful.
The mother is exposed to life-threatening infection.
Incompetent cervix can be a long term problem, making it difficult for the women to have children in the future.
The uterus can be perforated, causing hemorrhaging, and amniotic fluid embolism.
Life long mental anguish.
Is this a truly life saving procedure, or is it just another means of abortion? In the real world, when a mother's life becomes endangered during pregnancy, a C-section or induced labor are performed.
posted on March 14, 2001 08:03:16 PM
hepburn you said "Should I post graphic horror stories about the women who did give birth, even with advice to not go through with it, and how they lost their lives; the baby was left in a home with staff members who chained it to a crib; the horrors shown to this being that did come forth, with the loss of its mother and the family members who wanted no part of "it"? " Why is it OK for you and not for me?
zazzie, actually, we are looking for a larger house for our adopted child.
posted on March 14, 2001 08:12:10 PM
mzalez, I could read the book but it would still be the words of one person. One person that may have had some agenda when writing it. One book does not make me believe anything. My own research,my own observations are what I generally go by. A sheep I am not.
Sheep are usually led to slaughter don't cha know!
Another thought,just my own-This is a barbaric procedure no doubt but all surgical procedures are to a degree barbaric. Think about heart surgery where they cut open your chest and break your ribcage to get at your heart and then hold it in their hands to try to fix it.Brain surgery where they drill into your skull to get to your gray matter.Even a C-section is quite barbaric don't you think? Barbaric but necessary to achieve the outcome. Sometimes things like this are necessary in order to save one life even at the cost of another possible life. This is true because we have no better way ...yet.Same thing here .We have no better way yet.
I'd say I'm leaving but I know I'll be back so.....I'm not leaving.
posted on March 14, 2001 08:17:07 PM
Surgery in itself is barbaric, the difference is the surgeries you mentioned are performed to save a life, every time. PBA's, from what I gather and I may be wrong, aren't used just to save the mothers life in every case.
mzales, I mentioned my opinion being forced on others, this wasn't a direct attack on you. I was making a generalization of the anti-abortion activists I've had experience with.
posted on March 14, 2001 08:27:08 PM
TTH What you say is true,the surgeries are performed every time to save a life [well, assuming they haven't made one of those infamous mistakes where they do the wrong surgery..but I digress..]. PBH should only be used in cases of the mothers life in danger or where there are severe problems with the fetus. Because there are times it is necessary to utilize the procedure it should not be banned.Apparently they have had some trouble curbing its use in NJ and that is giving all states a bad rap. I do not think it is used to that degree everywhere from anything that I have read about it.There are people who would have you belive that it is done on demand and I do not believe that to be true...except maybe there in NJ for a while.
posted on March 14, 2001 08:33:24 PM
thanks TTH, I'm getting kinda touchy here! (smile)
rawbunzel, I'm glad you will stick around. The author of the book, her agenda was very pro-abortion. She was looking at the history of abortion up to the present today. The book was a collection of essays by different people throughout the history of abortion. Her point was that abortions now are not as good for the women as they were back before Roe vs Wade. Back in the day women really took care of each other. Now she says women go high production clinics like cattle, and that many of the clinic owners care only about the money and not the clients.
pattaylor, don't worry...so many were complaining about the initial post's verbal description...I just wanted them to know there are photos that could have gone up but did not.
posted on March 14, 2001 08:43:52 PM
rawbunzl - I think you are correct in that PBAs are not done "on demand", there generally has to be a valid medical reason for it.
It is an awful, horrendous procedure which should not be used as a mere convenience, but only in the most dire situations.
posted on March 14, 2001 08:44:01 PM
Frankly I don't know why y'all are arguing with a person who consistently misquotes statistics and data to further her own religious agenda. This is someone who is not satisfied with making her own decision regarding her own body, but wants to involve the government in controlling our own bodies. Banning D & X procedures (and why don't you call it by it's true medical name mzalez?) will not satisfy this person, nor will it satisfy any of her pals in the Religious Right. The only thing that will satisfy these people is for women to give up the right to determine their own lives and that of their own bodies. And it's the law, and it's not going to change. Our bodies, our decision.
KatyD
[ edited by KatyD on Mar 14, 2001 08:45 PM ]
posted on March 14, 2001 08:55:03 PM
I always hear the women's right to choose what happens with their own bodies argument. I'm curious, what does everyone think of the child's choice.
Before I grab my fire-suit, I just want to say I am not trying to provoke anyone, I honestly am curious what everyone thinks of this. I see the woman deserves a choice. I can't say I understand the ramifications of that choice, being male and wouldn't ever want to be in the situation.
Just something I read somewhere and it made sense to me, the woman has a choice, a choice to have sex, a choice to use birth control, a choice to have the baby or abort it but the baby has no choice.
posted on March 14, 2001 09:06:25 PM
Yes, TTH. And until Men make some "choices" of their own, women will always have the choice of determining what happens to their bodies.
posted on March 14, 2001 09:19:18 PM
Nah, robin. That's how you tell it's a male. Males have those horns. It's alot easier than looking under the tail.
posted on March 14, 2001 09:34:02 PM
"Just something I read somewhere and it made sense to me, the woman has a choice, a choice to have sex, a choice to use birth control, a choice to have the baby or abort it but the baby has no choice." TTH, ain't that the truth.
"Our bodies, our decision." What did the baby say about her body?
krs, hee hee!
hepburn, for wanting to get this 'gross torture' thread stopped, you sure are posting lots!!
--------------------------------
Reason To Shudder
By Richard Cohen, July 4, 2000
I am pro-choice. I think the government has no right telling a woman she must have a child she does not want. Having said that, though, I found myself nodding in agreement while reading the dissents in the Supreme Court case that overturned Nebraska's ban on late-term abortions. If these procedures are not murder, they are sometimes just days short of it.
In his dissent, Clarence Thomas referred to late-term abortion as something "that millions find hard to distinguish from infanticide." Antonin Scalia, another of the dissenters, called late-term abortions "so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion." As far as I'm concerned, he is right. See if you don't shudder, too:
The woman's cervix is dilated so that a delivery of sorts is begun. Most of the fetus is delivered legs first, as in a breech birth, but then the head is pierced, its contents extracted and the collapsed skull removed from the woman.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that some witnesses report "seeing the body of the fetus moving outside the woman's body. At this point, the abortion procedure has the appearance of a live birth."
This is gruesome stuff. But the abortion-rights people tell us that it is rarely performed and then only when the life of the mother is at risk or the fetus is severely damaged. Some 600 of these procedures are performed every year, an infinitesimal portion of all abortions. Dr. Warren Hearn, a physician who provides late-term abortions, wrote back in 1996 that he has never done one for any reason other than a dire emergency. Often the choice is either the woman or the fetus. Something had to be done.
If that's the case--and I assume it is--then what would be wrong with a tightly written law that banned late-term abortions for any reason except the health of the mother or the condition of the fetus? This is what the state of Nebraska said it was doing, but the Supreme Court found it had failed. There was insufficient provision for "the preservation of the life or health of the mother," Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority.
We all know, of course, that most of the people who want to outlaw late-term abortions want to outlaw abortion altogether. That's one of the reasons these statutes are written so broadly and, it turns out, unconstitutionally. It is also the reason why the pro-choice people battle these restrictions as energetically as they do. They fear the slippery slope--first late-term abortions, then all of them.
But the fact remains that the antiabortion people are on to something. Late-term abortions may be necessary, but you cannot read about them without feeling diminished as a human being. Something awful has happened, and simply as a matter of principle we ought to be opposed. We ought to say, in short, that this procedure cannot be used--that late-term abortions cannot be permitted at all--unless we absolutely have no choice. I leave it to lawyers to come up with the wording.
And I leave it to the abortion-rights people to understand that what they see as a slippery slope back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days is actually a slippery slope of another sort. Unless they can understand and share our revulsion at this procedure, they will seem both extreme and heartless--solicitous of the woman, coldly indifferent to the "child" within her.
At the moment, though, you hear no expression of regret from the abortion- rights people, no expressions of sorrow that, from time to time, late-term abortions need to be performed. Instead, they cheered the Supreme Court decision and talked as if late-term abortions affect only the woman--no mention of the fetus-child with the collapsed skull. They sounded like the National Rifle Association, which never met a weapon it could not love. This zealotry has endeared the NRA to many gun lovers, but it has left the rest of us wondering about its values, not to mention its sanity. It seems to cherish its supposed rights more than human life itself.
The abortion-rights movement gives a similar impression. In so doing, it distances itself from people like me, people who read the dissents of Scalia, Kennedy or Thomas and find more in common with them and their outrage than with the business-as-usual tone of the other side. Late-term abortion is an abomination--maybe unavoidable, maybe a medical necessity but surely a procedure that "evokes a shudder of revulsion."
I shudder about the people who don't shudder at all.
[ edited by rawbunzel on Mar 14, 2001 07:58 PM ]
My my, what pink, err, nostrils you have!