• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Senate Passes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

corplinx

JREF Kid
corplinx
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
8,952
Don't know where to begin with this. I am pro-privacy so usually I say abortion is an issue between you and your respective deity or lack thereof. However, the partial birth procedure has always struck me as barbaric in an uncivilized way and I am against it.

That said, there are some prickly issues with this:

A. Does anyone actually perform this procedure? Its particularly gruesome and probably is against the hippocratic oath. Is the only time this is performed when the mother's life is in danger and a c-section can't be performed?

B. Women's reproductive "rights". First it was the "right to choose" and now its "reproductive rights". Is there a problem with "privacy rights" ? I think the clever use of words reveals a sly agenda of inventing new rights and ingratiating them in the culture. I have seen two strains of thoughts from activists on this bill. One is that this bill is just a stepping stone for further abortion limits. I find this to be misleading. Who cares? The question is "should it be allowed or not" not "will banning it make people write more bills that won't pass". The second strain of thought I see are from the "reproductive rights" crowd. They see reproduction as a right of course. Don't know where to even begin with that brilliant viewpoint.

Now, I hate generic abortion debates so let's try to keep this one ontopic.
 
Diogenes said:
Do you have a link to the bill?

It could be a lot of double talk without any teeth...
Click to expand...

You have just described 80% of all legislation, with another 10-15% being double talk with too many, and usually hidden, teeth.

NA
 
corplinx said:
Don't know where to begin with this. I am pro-privacy so usually I say abortion is an issue between you and your respective deity or lack thereof. However, the partial birth procedure has always struck me as barbaric in an uncivilized way and I am against it.

That said, there are some prickly issues with this:

A. Does anyone actually perform this procedure? Its particularly gruesome and probably is against the hippocratic oath. Is the only time this is performed when the mother's life is in danger and a c-section can't be performed?

B. Women's reproductive "rights". First it was the "right to choose" and now its "reproductive rights". Is there a problem with "privacy rights" ? I think the clever use of words reveals a sly agenda of inventing new rights and ingratiating them in the culture. I have seen two strains of thoughts from activists on this bill. One is that this bill is just a stepping stone for further abortion limits. I find this to be misleading. Who cares? The question is "should it be allowed or not" not "will banning it make people write more bills that won't pass". The second strain of thought I see are from the "reproductive rights" crowd. They see reproduction as a right of course. Don't know where to even begin with that brilliant viewpoint.

Now, I hate generic abortion debates so let's try to keep this one ontopic.
Click to expand...

Abortion is the most incredible matriarchal totalitarian deception ever. Late-term abortion is a war-crime since abortion is a leftist tool of warfare against democracy and the nation-state using cultural terrorism.

Women say: "Gosh, don't take abortion away...it protects a woman's health."

Isn't unprotected sex with dozens of partners every week leading to pregnancy the most unhealthy act there is?

JK
 
Personally I believe there should be a sliding scale on abortion. It would go like this:

Yes to any and all requests for 1st trimester abortions. Big fat YES to the "morning after" pill.

Maybe to 2nd trimester. This is the grey area....and should be defined by physicians based on the health risks to the mother.

No to third trimester abortions. No to "partial birth" abortions unless a physician can verify that the mother's health is in extreme and imminent danger.

Why can't there be a coherrent policy such as this that makes a sensible compromise between pro and anti abortion arguments???

-zilla
 
I agree, riz. That is what I've always said about the issue as well. I think abortion is fine until there is a functioning brain in that womb. Up to this point, the baby is a clump of human cells, and the abortion can be ethically compared to a person removing a family member with a working body but no brain activity from life support, IMO. After that, the practice is quite disgusting, IMO, and exactly on par with infanticide. Of course, in my area, no abortions later than 1st trimester are allowed anyway. Not sure if it's the law or simply the policy of the doctors who do it. On a tangent, people who don't want the 'morning after' pill circulating really tick me off. They claim that it is the equivelent of an abortion(does not allow a possibly fertilized egg to attach), yet there are methods of actual birth control(not emergency contraceptives) that do exactly this each and every time they are utilized. bleh.

Back on topic, I've always heard that so-called 'partial-birth' abortions are more of a righty scare tactic than anything. An urban legend, if you will. They have been performed, but the rate at which they are performed is so low that all of the media attention this bill got was probably nothing more than a publicity stunt. I also think that it was a no win issue for the democrats who voted against it. It's one of those, "Why do you hate babies?" votes. The majority of those against the bill probably had no problem with the banning of the procedure(unless they are really uneducated on the subject, which I wouldn't doubt either), but like everything else, the bill was probably porked to the extreme. You vote no for reasons of pork, and you look like somebody who agrees with the procedure. For this reason, whoever authored the bill could've put anything they wanted in there and the people voting against it would be screwed both ways. A yes vote would be giving the green light to enemy pork, a no vote would be looking like a baby killer. Tough choice, but in the long run, I think the democrats would've been better off if they just bit their lip and voted yes, while already planning the massive pork that will be in the next "save our forests" bill, which I am sure some were already doing. bleh.

-Baggle
 
Re: Re: Senate Passes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

Jedi Knight said:


Abortion is the most incredible matriarchal totalitarian deception ever. Late-term abortion is a war-crime since abortion is a leftist tool of warfare against democracy and the nation-state using cultural terrorism.

Women say: "Gosh, don't take abortion away...it protects a woman's health."

Isn't unprotected sex with dozens of partners every week leading to pregnancy the most unhealthy act there is?

JK
Click to expand...

The most impressive Pro-Choice argument I've heard to date...;)
 
rikzilla said:
Personally I believe there should be a sliding scale on abortion. It would go like this:

Yes to any and all requests for 1st trimester abortions. Big fat YES to the "morning after" pill.

Maybe to 2nd trimester. This is the grey area....and should be defined by physicians based on the health risks to the mother.

No to third trimester abortions. No to "partial birth" abortions unless a physician can verify that the mother's health is in extreme and imminent danger.

Why can't there be a coherrent policy such as this that makes a sensible compromise between pro and anti abortion arguments???

-zilla
Click to expand...

To: rikzilla

You may not know it, but what you outlined is essentially the Roe v. Wade decision.

In the first trimester, the fetus in invaible outside of the womb, therefore abortion can be considered a medical procedure; as such, it is a privacy issue and must therefore be permitted.

In the second trimester, because of medical advances, the fetus may be viable outside of the womb, so the states were given some flexibilty in regulating it. Abortion on demand would not be allowed, however abortion in the case of rape, incest, or health dangers it would be permitted.

In the third trimester, the fetus is reasonably viable outside of the womb, so abortion would only be permitted if the life of mother was at risk, or if the fetus was in such bad shape that it would not survive outside of the womb. Note: this is about the only time partial-birth abortion is done.

> Good call guy!
 
"Partial birth abortion" is not a medical procedure. You won't find this term mentioned in a medical textbook. This is a political term.

Politicians are attempting to practice medicine without a license.
 
Re: Re: Re: Senate Passes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

I seem to recall an incident that happened in the early sisties while I was in the Army at Fort Sill, Ok. A man in our platoon was awaiting word from the Red Cross that his wife, who was in South Carolina, had delivered their baby. When the word finally came and he was given emergency leave to go home, he was told that his wife had a lot of trouble with the delivery, was in a lot of danger and they had to "take the baby." I've heard the term several times. I assume that this is not necessary as much as it was in years past; I hear more and more of C-section deliveries. If this is what the propaganda term "partial birth abortion" is referring to, I can think of a lot of things much more important that Congress should be spending time on.
 
Crossbow said:
The medical term is 'Dialation and Extraction'.
Click to expand...

[nitpick]
Dilatation and extraction
[/nitpick]

It's a procedure necessary for the health of some women.
 
DrBenway said:
"Partial birth abortion" is not a medical procedure. You won't find this term mentioned in a medical textbook. This is a political term.

Politicians are attempting to practice medicine without a license.
Click to expand...

No, its just more descriptive than dialation and extraction. I am not a politician and I think its a fairly descriptive term to the layman.

Can you think of a better terminology for the layman? Something with no connotations one way or the other.
 
Re: Re: Senate Passes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

Jedi Knight said:

Isn't unprotected sex with dozens of partners every week leading to pregnancy the most unhealthy act there is?

JK
Click to expand...

HAHAHAhahahahaha. You made me snarfle my TAB.
 
From USA Today's article on the Senate vote:
The legislation's significance may be more political than practical. Leaders on both sides of the issue said the ban is unlikely to reduce the number of abortions. "There are alternative procedures, and those will be legal," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a physician who supports the ban.

Dilation and extraction, the medical term for the practice that would be banned, was used in an estimated 2,200 of 1.3 million abortions performed in the USA in 2000, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research group that backs abortion rights. Proponents of the ban say the figures are higher.

Abortion rights advocates predict the Supreme Court will rule the ban unconstitutional because it makes an exception to protect a woman's life, but not her health. "It directly inserts the government between a woman and her physician," said Kate Michelman of the National Abortion Rights Action League.
Click to expand...
 
Corplinx:

. . . and probably is against the hippocratic oath.
Click to expand...

Abortion of all forms is against the Hippocratic Oath. However, surgery is also forbidden, along with having sex with members of your patient's household--male or female, free or slave.

I found it hilarious that years ago then Congressman Charles "ScrewLoose" Schumer declared that banning abortions would force doctors to "break their Hippocratic Oath."

Apparently, he did not know what he was talking about, Heavens to Betsy.

Nevertheless, what is missing in the debate is the "why" these procedures are performed.

--J.D.
 
Abortion should not be used as birth control.

Suck it up if you are gonna fnck it up.

That's what I say and I am an athiest who loves cooter.
 
corplinx said:
No, its just more descriptive than dialation and extraction.
Click to expand...

"Dilatation" refers to spreading or dilating the cervix using instruments. "Extraction" means removing the contents of the uterus using instruments. I don't think these terms are too complicated for the average person to grok. Certainly, the lay public has learned a great deal about a number of medical procedures in the press over the years.

Further, the law is directed at physicians, not the lay public. The lay public aren't in danger of breaking this law. The language of the law ought to be consistent with the language of medical practice, if doctors are to understand it and obey it.

"Partial birth" connotes a baby about to be born, or in the process of being born. In most cases, the D&E procedure is done well before a viable birth would be possible. Thus the "partial birth" term is misleading and emotionally inflammatory.

If a fetus dies late in the pregnancy, a D&E might be the only way to remove it.
 
Doctor X said:
Corplinx:
Abortion of all forms is against the Hippocratic Oath. However, surgery is also forbidden, along with having sex with members of your patient's household--male or female, free or slave.--J.D.
Click to expand...

My medical school class took the oath of "Louis Lasagna," in place of the outdated Hippocratic Oath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom