It doesn't work that way as any of my detractors will tell you. You make a claim of fact, you support with data. Plain and simple.
The posters here have been remarkably polite with you, as you have made note of several times in this thread. I'm sure that if your arguments are as viable as the fetuses you mean to protect you will be happy to direct these polite listeners to the hard cold facts. As it is you appear to be little more than a sensationalist content to waggle your finger and say 'shame shame' without really knowing what you are talking about.
You say that there is no reason for the performance of a PBA. Some say that the life and or health of the mother would justify such a procedure. There is a mighty weight of medical data already presented to you in support of that premise. Yet you, all knowing, deny that need. Well, I don't know how many children you've born, if any, and of course I have not born any. But I have attended a few births with the accompanying trauma of labor for the mother and I know enough of the dangers to health of such trauma to feel that yes, in some cases, there is areason for the procedure. You counsel induced labor without consideration to the possibility that that very labor may well kill a mother who is otherwise in an unhealthy condition.
posted on March 15, 2001 09:58:18 AM"About 650 of the 1.4 million total abortions in 1996 were D&X procedures, according to the health policy group Alan Guttmacher Institute. The procedure, most common between 20 and 24 weeks, is used most often in cases where the woman suffers from life-threatening illnesses such as heart disease or diabetes."
I personally hope that I never have to make such a decision. That being said, I would rather have my doctor, not a bunch of politicians decide what is the best option for my situation.
posted on March 15, 2001 10:05:51 AM
I have a few questions of all the medical and civil liberties scholars here.
When was D&X, as it's now used, developed? What methods did doctors use before that to terminate the lives of 6-month-old fetuses?
I'm confused by some of the information in the posts here, so I'll ask: Is D&X available on demand--at the request of the mother--in the U.S.? In all states? Are any time limits imposed by state or local law anywhere in the U.S.? Health requirements justifying its use?
The quote from the JAMA that I posted in the first page of this thread suggests that D&X cannot be performed legally on a fetus that has emerged from the mother (hence the "partial birth" requirement). Does this mean that fetuses that are removed from the uterus for surgical procedures (to correct neural tube defects, etc.) are considered to have been "born" then, despite being replaced in the womb? Would the subsequent D&X of such a fetus be infanticide under the law?
posted on March 15, 2001 10:10:02 AM
What's really ironic is that, though I'm most definitely pro-choice...I was anti-PBA. Until this thread.
I now realize there ARE times it is called for out of medical necessity, gruesome though it is, and therefore should not be banned.
I doubt the conversion of my belief was the desired result of this thread.
And though the rationale that convinced me to change my mind wasn't yours, mzalez, your opening post irritated me enough to actually look at yet another miserable abortion thread.
So yeah, your 'shock value as weapon' cost you an ally. I was sure surprised.
note that there is a distinction made in almost every state which notes that the destruction of a living non-viable fetus is NOT infanticide. Before birth there is no infant.
posted on March 15, 2001 10:17:23 AM
Doctors Say Partial-Birth Abortion Not Necessary, Unsafe
This week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association features articles on late-term abortion that editor Dr. George Lundberg notes are sure to be controversial. All address partial-birth abortion. Two are point-counterpoints, and one is "a scientific discourse with abundant references." Lundberg writes: "We anticipate a flood of protests from many points of view on this issue. Nonetheless, we believed it important for JAMA to serve again as a forum for responsible discussion and debate on even this troubling and divisive issue" (JAMA, 8/26/98 issue).
In "Rationale for Banning Abortions Late in Pregnancy," Dr. M. LeRoy Sprang of Northwestern University Medical School and Dr. Mark Neerhof of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, argue that partial-birth abortion is unsafe for pregnant women, painful for unborn children and unethical because of questions about fetal viability. They also note that "[a]n extraordinary medical consensus has emerged that [partial-birth abortion] is neither necessary nor the safest method for late-term abortion."
The authors note that in its policy statement on partial-birth abortion, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said 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." In addition, the American Medical Association backed federal legislation to ban the abortion procedure. Public opinion and state Legislatures also back banning the procedure, the authors note.
They conclude: partial-birth abortion "should not be performed because it is needlessly risky, inhumane, and ethically unacceptable. This procedure is closer to infanticide than it is to abortion." (Sprang/Neerhof, JAMA, 8/26/98 issue).
Dr. Koop Comments on Partial Birth Abortion Veto
Dr. C. Everett Koop, who served as surgeon general in the Reagan administration but has supported several initiatives by President Clinton, says Mr. Clinton was "badly misled" in claiming that partial-birth abortion saves women's lives and fertility.
"The president was badly misled by the people who advised him when he got up before television [cameras] and said these wonderful women have had this procedure done to save their lives and their fertility. It never saves a mother's life and it may very well endanger her fertility," Dr. Koop says in an interview with James K. Glassman on the PBS program "Technopolitics."
posted on March 15, 2001 10:21:16 AM
The Horror of Partial Birth Abortion
By Randi Sue O'Dette
" Wow, I can not believe it, Lord. After waiting all this time, I will finally be able to meet my mom. God, how come I do not hear my daddy's voice? I thought you said that all children have mommy's and daddy's. Yet, I have never heard my daddy's voice. Where is he? The last time I heard Grandpa's voice, he was angry about me. Why? What did I do to make Grandpa so angry? I didn't kick Mommy too hard, did I?"
"Mommy, why are we in Grandma's car? Where are we going? Why am I so scared? Where are we going, Mommy? Be careful Mom, I do not want you to fall getting out of Grandma's car. Why did you and Grandma not talk in the car? Did I make her mad like Grandpa? Why are you so sad today? Whose voice is that? I have never heard his voice before. Why does Grandma call him doctor? He does not sound like the doctor who told you I was in here. Why can't we go visit him? I do not like the way this guy talks. Mommy, what is an abortion? Why do you tell the doctor you want one? Why are you so sad when you say that? Mommy, guess who is here with me, my angel. She says that God sent her to be with me. I know that God normally sends angels when it's time for birth. But, she is early. She says that what you decide now will affect me for the rest of my life.
Mommy, why is that doctor talking about abortions again? Why do I get so scared every time he says it? I do not like him, Mommy; lets go to the other doctor. I like the other doctor better. Mommy, why is the doctor's hand in here with me? Why is he turning me around so I am feet first? My angel says everything will be okay. But I do not want his hand in here with me. I am trying to kick him so he will get out. My angel says I will not get to meet you Mommy, why? I have been looking forward to meeting you all this time, why can't I? Mommy, my angel says I have to go back to heaven with her. I don't want to, Mommy. I want to meet you. That doctor, he is pulling me down now, why Mommy, why? It is too early for me. I am not done growing yet. Mommy, I am almost out know. It will not be long until I get to meet you. I can't wait. Ouch, Mommy that hurts. Why is the doctor hurting me? My angel tells me that I have to go back to heaven again. Why? Mommy can't you stop this? Mommy, I have not even gotten to meet you and now I have to say goodbye. Why? I LOVE YOU MOMMY. Goodbye."
"Mommy, I am in heaven know. I know you can not hear me. But my angel says you often think about me. She says you are sorry for aborting me. So, I guess what the doctor did to me was an abortion. Mommy, why are things as cruel as that legal?"
posted on March 15, 2001 10:24:20 AM
US Supreme Count and Partial Birth Abortion Decision - 2000: How they voted
----------------------------------
This year the U.S. Supreme Court voted for partial birth abortion and struck down a state law. The following justices voted to strike down the law (that is, voted in favor of partial-birth abortion):
John Paul Stevens (Appointed 1975 by Gerald Ford)
Sandra Day O'Connor (Appointed 1981 by Ronald Reagan)
David Souter (Appointed 1990 by George Bush)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Appointed 1993 by Bill Clinton)
Stephen Breyer (Appointed 1994 by Bill Clinton)
-----------------------------------
The following justices voted not to strike down the law (that is, voted AGAINST partial-birth abortion):
William Rehnquist (Appointed 1972 by Richard Nixon)
Antonin Scalia (Appointed 1986 Ronald by Reagan)
Anthony Kennedy (Appointed 1988 by Ronald Reagan)
Clarence Thomas (Appointed 1991 by George Bush)
If you would like to write to the Justices:
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
posted on March 15, 2001 10:31:00 AM
Doctors Say Partial-Birth Abortion Necessary, safe
Last week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association features articles on late-term abortion that editor Dr. George Lundberg notes are sure to be controversial. All address partial-birth abortion. Two are point-counterpoints, and one is Lindberg writes: "We anticipate a flood of protests from many points of view on this issue. Nonetheless, we believed it important for JAMA to serve again as a forum for responsible discussion and debate on even this troubling and divisive issue" (JAMA, 8/26/98 issue).
In "Rationale for allowing Abortions Late in Pregnancy," Dr. M. LeRoy Sprang of western University Medical School and Dr. Mark Neerhof of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, argue that partial-birth abortion is safe for pregnant women, ethical because there are no questions about fetal viability. They also note that "[a]n extraordinary medical consensus has emerged that [partial-birth abortion] is necessary and the safest method for late-term abortion."
The authors note that in its policy statement on partial-birth abortion, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said it "could identify several circumstances under which this procedure ... would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." In addition, the American Medical Association backed federal legislation to allow the abortion procedure. Public opinion and state Legislatures also back allowing the procedure, the authors note.
They conclude: partial-birth abortion "should not be performed with patient discretion but that it is sometimes medically justified. (Sprang/Neerhof, JAMA, 8/26/98 issue).
Dr. Koop Comments on Partial Birth Abortion Veto
Dr. C. Everett Koop, a newly born again Christian who served as surgeon general in the Reagan administration but has supported several initiatives by President Clinton, says Mr. Clinton was "correct" in claiming that partial-birth abortion saves women's lives and fertility.
"The president was completely correct when he said that said these women have had this procedure done to save their lives and their fertility. interview with James K. Glassman on the PBS program "Technopolitics."
posted on March 15, 2001 10:32:27 AM
The Horror of Partial Birth Abortion.
Mommy, I have not even gotten to meet you and now I have to say goodbye. Why? I LOVE YOU MOMMY. Goodbye.
Oh, puh-leeeeeze.
Has rational argument failed you so much that you've gotta trot out emotional blackmail? What crap!
And there you go with those incomplete quotes again. Yes, they said D&X wasn't the only option. They also said, though, that it was sometimes the best option.
Lisa
posted on March 15, 2001 10:38:43 AM
mzalez, The information in your posts is becoming more and more ludicrous as this thread progresses. Your post of 10:21:16 is the most offensive thing I have seen here yet. Playing on peoples emotions is the way of the religious right. Thank your for finally confirming where you are coming from.
Oh yes, if that child in there talking had say- no brain [yes that does happen]do you think would be fair to the mother to read that garbage trying to make her feel bad?Heartless that is.
posted on March 15, 2001 10:39:36 AM
I've been waiting for just such a post. I'm surprised it took so long. After the opening salvo, it was only a matter of time.
posted on March 15, 2001 10:44:56 AM
I'm like toke--this thread made me think more about this procedure, which I hadn't really considered before.
I'm more convinced than ever that this procedure should not be banned, and any restrictions MUST include provisions to protect the health of the mother...
Taking a closer look made me conclude that there ARE legitimate reasons for the procedure to be done. I'm glad this thread made me think, although I doubt the outcome in my case at least, was the intention of the thread's originator.
Lisa
posted on March 15, 2001 10:46:30 AM
Remarkable restraint.
mzalez, now that you've made plain the roots of your claims consider this thought:
First, God forms Adam, he forms of dust, a flesh and blood body. SECOND, he "breathes into his nostrils the breath of life" and THEN man became a living soul. Man did not become a living soul when God first formed the IDEA of creating Adam, in Genesis 1:26. Man did not become a living soul when God created his BODY. Not until God gave man his first BREATH did he become a living soul. Life comes from God. It does not come from human conception. To believe that the entry of a sperm into an egg constitutes a human soul is BLASPHEMY. To believe this is to eject God from the mystery of birth and put the power of the male ejaculation above the generative power of God.It is nothing less than idolatry, elevating the status of mere man, his sperm and his ejaculation above the power of God to give life.
posted on March 15, 2001 10:55:07 AM
When will the religious right learn that you can't change someone's mind, or win an argument by using smarmy, predictable tactics coupled with useless sentiments and hollow compassion?
posted on March 15, 2001 11:03:21 AM
mzalez, the medical sources you quote are hardly the unbiased medical practitioners you infer that they are. Here's an url that is interesting. Note who the President of this organization is, and what their stated agenda. Also, have a look at the Membership Directory.
http://www.aaplog.org/
And Dr.Martha Shuping, of whom you are so fond of quoting is not an obstetrician nor gynecologist. She is a psychiatrist who besides providing her so-called expert opinion on the abortion issue, is also affiliated with this Catholic website http://www.catholicity.com/
So why don't you try providing some references by professionals who don't have a religious agenda to push?
posted on March 15, 2001 11:03:56 AM
"The main reason why there are so many second-trimester abortions in the US (12% of
abortions, far more than in any other country where abortion is legal) is because the "pro-life" movement has done all it can to make first-trimester abortions hard to get, and second-trimester abortions are no harder to get than early ones.
There is no national health care system providing abortions, uneven public funding for poor women seeking abortions, a lack of abortion providers thanks in part to continuous harassment and violence (including murder) against doctors and clinics, all kinds of state laws that make
women wait to have an abortion and hear propaganda against it, to say nothing of state laws making teenagers get parental consent...all of this no matter when an abortion takes place.
Many women have trouble getting together the money for a pregnancy test, let alone money and time for an abortion, and 30% of women live in a county where there is no abortion provider. A US woman can't drop in at any gynecologist's office or family medical clinic and get a first-trimester abortion, the way women can in European countries.
First-trimester abortion is no more available on Medicaid than second-trimester abortion is—but then, most gynecologists
don't accept Medicaid patients anyway. "
"I'm glad this thread made me think, although I doubt the outcome in my case at least, was the intention of the thread's originator."
I have been debating discussing dialoging the abortion issue for decades. I don't know about anyone else but if people -in my opinion- who are pro-choice stay silent the religious political extremist will throw Roe vs Wade out the window.
Partial Birth Abortions is a "recent" issue. When I studied the issue, it reminded me of the 80s piece about the fetus "screaming." It was -in my opinion- propaganda on the anti-choice side. When the pro-choice provided facts to refute the "scream" the piece silently disappeared.
Then up comes the PBA. Amazing.
The religious right has a tendency to find a particular issue within the bigger issue that will either divide or unite the opposition. This is a strategy that is so obvious but sadly it oftentimes works with some in many other issues other than abortion or PBA. Not me.
We need to remember also the days before Roe vs Wade where women/girls were not allowed to keep their babies. Society "pressured" them -peer pressure- to get rid of them either by adoption, abortion or give over to Grandma to raise or move and claim the Father died. At the time it took great courage for females to proudly keep their babies under the circumstances. She didn't have always have a good reputation.
posted on March 15, 2001 11:11:14 AM
I believe the answer to Zazzies question lies here- posted by mzalez on Mar.14 at 11:56:48 :"hi mivona, I missed your post...the thread is not condemning anyone (the shoes you speak of, I've been in them!). "
That was in answer to Mivonas post at 11:55:32 mar 14: "This is not easy for anyone, mzalez, and thrusting it into people's faces does your stand no favours. People KNOW it is unpleasant,
but sometimes... sometimes...
Never condemn until you have stood in their shoes."
posted on March 15, 2001 11:22:08 AM
Yes rawbunzel, I believe it is so, too. Mzalez is on a mission. To relieve her own pain or decision or lack of decision somewhere else. And Im sure the other question as to an able bodied adoption she is in the process of, is not what she wants to admit. That yes, the child IS perfect. Healthy. No handicaps or disfunctions. Hence the avoidance of answering. I think its called passing the buck.
Toke, you called it from the beginning. Just took two very large threads for her to show it finally. The more against her, the more desparate she becomes (Mommy post).
[ edited by Hepburn on Mar 15, 2001 11:23 AM ]
