posted on March 14, 2001 09:58:59 AM
I know many of you that post here are 'pro-choice', but this is not posted to start a huge argument. (a nice discussion would be great, though...emphasis on 'nice')
As you know, the President says he is all for a ban on partial birth abortion (PBA)--a form of infantcide most Americans would like to see outlawed. Because their 'pro-choice'-slant, the media won't give the details of PBA, many people don't have a clue to what partial birth abortion entails. Here are some facts you might like to pass on...
The procedure:
Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the unborn baby’s legs with forceps. The baby’s legs are pulled out into the birth canal. The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head. By keeping the baby’s head in the birth canal, the baby is not ‘legally born’.
Holding the baby’s head in position in the birth canal, the abortionist jams scissors into the bottom back base of the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed from the birth canal, legally ‘born dead’. In addition, the baby’s body is now available for sale to research labs.
This procedure can be performed on babies in the uterus from 4 1/2 months old up to 9 months old.
Registered nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer, once admittedly pro-choice, now works against partial-birth abortion. The change in her perspective began when she personally attended three partial-birth abortions. Her description of the death of a baby, age 6 months: “The doctor kept the baby’s head just inside the uterus. The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a ‘startle’ reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out...”
In addition, the American Medical Association’s Council on Legislation voted unanimously to support a ban on partial-birth abortion. The council reportedly designated the procedure “basically repulsive.” The doctors also agree this brutal procedure is extremely painful to the baby, and risky for the mother.
If you would like to see PBA banned, there are many petitions circulating--literally hundreds. A quick search on 'partial birth abortion ban' will bring up many you can sign electronically. You can also contact your Senators and Congressmen.
By the way, this goes both ways...I'm sure there must be many pro-PBA sites, too. But if this post can reach just one person's heart and conscience--the purpose of this thread is fulfilled.
posted on March 14, 2001 10:10:18 AM
When all anti-abortionists will come forward and adopt or feed or cloth or someway insure that children who may have been aborted are cared for and cherished--I will come and support them in their fight to make abortion not just another means of birth control.
This list of children will not always include the 'adoptable' kids
posted on March 14, 2001 10:23:00 AM
Zazzie,
I have to tell you...I LOVE YOUR POSTS!!!
On Ebay Outlook you are a tough cookie, but here...
I am a SUPERFAN!!!!!
Many who are pro-abortion are opposed to Partial-Birth Abortion because of its brutality. It IS possible (and quite common) that one can support abortion rights in general and abhore Partial Birth Abortion.
In a civilized society there is no place this type of legalized inhumanity. PBAs should be banned ASAP. (IMO of course).
posted on March 14, 2001 10:33:19 AM
I don't buy it.
As far as I know, there are legal limits to the gestational age that abortion can be performed, unless there are special circumstances. I cannot believe that an "abortion" would be performed on a fetus that is past the age of independent survival (e.g. 24 weeks) unless there are special circumstances, beyond just the desire to not have a child.
The idea of having an abortion on a fetus that is nearing birth IS abhorrent, I am sure, for those that perform the abortions as well as those who have them. I know of no woman who flippantly has an abortion, particularly when they have carried it, felt it move, know it is capable of independent life.
We don't need more laws that constrain abortion - there are already limits on what can and can't be done, and rightly so. We need more REAL support given to the babies of women who find themselves pregnant and are not capable of looking after a baby.
To try to garner opposition to abortion by trying to ban a practice that will be used in a miniscule number of pregnancies and in accordance with other circumstances related to the particular pregnancies is just wrong. Yes, the procedure is not pleasant, but growing up unwanted, or handicapped, or in "care" is pretty unpleasant too.
posted on March 14, 2001 10:37:40 AM
Hi mzalez - I am basically pro-choice, but would like to see a ban on partial birth abortions, unless the life of the mother is at risk. PBAs are cruel and barbaric, and using them as a form of birth control is unconscionable.
Zazzie - there are many people who would love to adopt, but it's very difficult, and the number of infants available for adoption is much lower than the number of couples wanting them. Hence the long waiting lists and expensive hoops they are forced to jump through. It's also why so many couples adopt children from other countries.
You've decided that the Round Table is a good place for a "nice"discussion of PBA's, yet you assume we don't know what they are? You feel we need a tasteless and disgustingly graphic surgical description, so we will be informed enough to intelligently debate the topic?
posted on March 14, 2001 10:47:38 AM
tootsiepop...
actually it's caucasian babies that are highly coveted to the degree that women will sell their eggs etc.
if folks would realize that there are a number of non-white children that are adoptable then perhaps it would be a moot point. Or children that are a little older etc.
It takes a village to let go of the vanity of pretending that they are the birth parent of a child.
posted on March 14, 2001 10:48:53 AM
thanks Toke
it's an obvious ploy, designed by the religous cults that seem to forget that a woman has a right to her own body.
typo
[ edited by capriole on Mar 14, 2001 10:50 AM ]
posted on March 14, 2001 10:51:00 AM
Myth: PBA is rarely done, and only for the most serious of reasons.
Fact: It was testified before Congress that approximately 1,500 of these were done in New Jersey alone. 80% of these were done on healthy mothers and babies. No one knows the exact total number of these abortions--but even if it were only 500 per state (500 times 50) it would be at least 25,000 babies per year.
((mivona, I guess that would be miniscule compared to the 1.2 million plus regular abortions performed each year in the U.S.))
Practitioners report that the vast majority of these PBAs are elective and the some are done to prevent the live birth of a child with handicaps.
--from testimony of Pamela Smith, MD in U.S. Senate Hearing Report 104-260 (Testimony of Nov. 17, 1995)
posted on March 14, 2001 10:54:06 AM
Capriole - Agreed, however there are many white couples willing to adopt children of other races, but they are not allowed to. There are many black kids kept in foster care for years because there are not enough black families wanting to adopt, while there are plenty of white families who would want them.
posted on March 14, 2001 10:57:01 AM
See what happens?
Who is minding the store?
Is it any wonder Ralph Reed (sp) and his ilk are in high position in govt?
Pay attention folks. Misinformation is dangerous.
It causes extreme factions to rise to credibility.
It's called choice. It's called the right to chose. It's called get your govt out of my body. But as soon as I hear that the anti choicers are pushing for healthier adoption policies, funding foster homes/care, etc I don't buy a word of it.
It's propaganda, torn from context.
Media education: Learn the entire context of a post like that.
Don't automatically extrapolate numbers.
New Jersey...Montana...waaaaay different populations.
posted on March 14, 2001 10:58:21 AM
toke, you are right, PBA is a tasteless and disgustingly graphic surgical procedure.
Yes, I decided to post here--should I not have? The procedure is described for those who don't know what PBA is. If you know, well, then you already know.
posted on March 14, 2001 10:59:09 AM
Tootsiepop.
I hear you....more people need to realize that this is a major issue. Also economic justice so that all people are able to adopt.
posted on March 14, 2001 11:03:35 AM
Uh-huh, mzalez, and how many of these NJ abortions were done on >24 week gestations for "elective" reasons?
Abortion is unpleasant, in WHATEVER form it occurs. If you disapprove of this particular form of abortion, by choice, for fetus <24 weeks, what other sort would you approve of? How will your chosen method be superior to this type of abortion?
If your numbers are correct, I would suspect that this procedure is commonly done for elective early gestational abortions, and also for late-term abortions done in special circumstances. To try to get this procedure banned is simply an attempt to curtail abortions.
Abortion is a tragedy, for ALL concerned, but it doesn't mean that the need for it will go away by trying to ban it. We know that. Those who want to stop abortions should put their energy into social change - promoting GOOD sex education and making contraception easily available, providing women with real support to keep their babies if they wish or adoption/fostering opportunities that they feel will really benefit their children instead of just keeping them alive.
[ edited by mivona on Mar 14, 2001 11:05 AM ]
Ethical Considerations.—Intact D&X is most commonly performed between 20 and 24 weeks and thereby raises questions of the potential viability of the fetus. Information from 1988 through 1991 indicates a 15% viability rate at 23 weeks' gestation, 56% at 24 weeks, and 79% at 25 weeks.[14] Recent data from our institution indicate an 83% survival rate at 24 weeks and an 89% survival rate at 25 weeks (Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, unpublished data, 1998).
Beyond the argument of potential viability, many prochoice organizations and individuals assert that a woman should maintain control over that which is part of her own body (ie, the autonomy argument). In this context, the physical position of the fetus with respect to the mother's body becomes relevant. However, once the fetus is outside the woman's body, the autonomy argument is invalid. The intact D&X procedure involves literally delivering the fetus so that only the head remains within the cervix. At this juncture, the fetus is merely inches from being delivered and obtaining full legal rights of personhood under the US Constitution. What happens when, as must occasionally occur during the performance of an intact D&X, the fetal head inadvertently slips out of the mother and a live infant is fully delivered? For this reason, many otherwise prochoice individuals have found intact D&X too close to infanticide to ethically justify its continued use.
---------------------------------------
Mivona, from the same article:
In newspaper interviews, physicians who use the technique acknowledged performing thousands of such procedures a year. One facility reported that physicians used intact D&X on at least half of the estimated 3000 abortions they perform each year on fetuses between 20 and 24 weeks' gestation.[3] In another report, Dayton, Ohio, physician Martin Haskell, MD, who had performed more than 700 partial-birth abortions, stated that most of his abortions are elective in that 20- to 24-week range and that "probably 20% are for genetic reasons, and the other 80% are purely elective."[4] The late James T. McMahon, MD, of Los Angeles, Calif, detailed for the US Congress his experience with more than 2000 partial-birth abortion procedures. He classified only 9% of that total as involving maternal health indications (of which the most common was depression), and 56% were for "fetal flaws" that included many nonlethal disorders, some as minor as a cleft lip.[5]
-----------------------------
Mzalez, as repulsive as I find this topic, I find your admonition about having a "nice argument" about it utterly revolting.
You understand me correctly. You should not post tasteless and graphic descriptions here, IMO. Many things exist, in fact, which would be too disgusting to post on this board.
Try a link to the info instead. Then, those who wish to, can go there and read it. Don't post here merely to shock. Surely you needn't descend to that level to make your point.
posted on March 14, 2001 11:09:45 AM
zazzie, if you are willing to look a little deeper, there is much time, effort, and money put out by pro-life groups for the children they help save. I personally know many families (including my own) in the process of adopting.
capriole, yes of course we all have a right to our bodies. That being true, doesn't that mean the baby has a right to her body? Or is she not a human being to you?
BTW, which religious cult am I being compelled by?
posted on March 14, 2001 11:12:51 AM
Mzalez's whole post is revolting, and as Toke points out, would have been better served by posting the link for those who choose to read it. Your point could easily be made without the graphic and offensive description that was designed merely to incite and inflame in your desire to continually promote your religious agenda in these forums.
posted on March 14, 2001 11:15:28 AM
pareu, sorry you are revolted by my request for a 'nice' discussion. Would 'polite' or 'civil' discussion be better? I will change that word if you like. Do you have a better word I could use?
posted on March 14, 2001 11:16:13 AM
If the post is revolting, how much more so the procedure. I think a ban on PBA, except in instances where the mom's life is endangered (or her health will greatly suffer) is within the spirit and the letter of Roe v. Wade.
posted on March 14, 2001 11:19:24 AM
mzalez, I agree, your post is revolting. A link would have been more appropriate. I think that most of us here already know what a partial birth abortion is and we all have opinions on it.This is really not the place to voice them as it always turns ugly and you have been here long enough to know that!
posted on March 14, 2001 11:22:12 AM
katyD, what religion being promoting here? You have said the same thing in other threads, but how come you won't answer the above question?
Anyway, yes, PBA is offensive and revolting. There is no getting around that. A link to the original post can't be made, because I wrote the thread. I don't know how to go about doing that?
The reason for the thread was not to incite or inflame, but to educate. How could the point about the true nature of PBA have been made without spelling it out? I'm open for suggestions.
posted on March 14, 2001 11:24:45 AM
If I were in your shoes I would examine my foundations. That's all.
If a child is born, it is born.
If it is aborted it is aborted.
It's not my place to judge.
I have volunteered for NARAL, Planned parenthood, United Way etc.
I am not going to enter into a subjective debate regarding abortion.
Walk in the shoes of a woman who's life is not your own.
Then maybe you'll cool your jets when you post the cr*ppola about partial birth abortions.
Otherwise, what can you expect? If you adopt, great, good on'ya.
But I have walked through lines of protesters to help women get into clinics.
It ain't pretty. It's like walking through a pack of rabid dogs.
I have seen harrassment. I am sure that you think this form of misinformation is fine. Passive agression.
It's nothing short of shooting at a Doctor or Bombing a clinic. It's cheap shots.
You know it.
Have a nice day
BTW I am catholic...but I am a small minority who does NOT agree with the church on this...I only pray that the church will grow and evolve as it has done over the last 2000 years. (don't tell me it hasn't changed...it has..a LOT)
posted on March 14, 2001 11:28:33 AM
Im at a loss for words on this one. Disgusting comes to mind. "Nice" debate doesnt. Nothing like shoving that in a face. Im an adult, and if I wanted such graphic details, I would have surfed the web for it, NOT have to read it here in RT. What was the purpose? Im in the same frame of mind as Toke. You wanted shock to push your own beliefs.
posted on March 14, 2001 11:29:18 AM
So you want revolting ? Ok then. I got this from a fairly reliable source several years ago word of mouth so I can't make a link. Sorry. This person worked maintainance in a Nuns Residence. Apparently they found lots of little baby parts in the plumbing there. Seems the Nuns weren't celibate after all. [I assume that means the priests weren't either]
posted on March 14, 2001 11:30:06 AM
Oh..I dunno, mzalez. How about the topics of returning to "prayer in school", "how school shootings are a result of godless schools" and the myriad other "christian prosletizing" post you make in response to nearly every topic brought up in this forum whether it has to do with "god" or not.
