response 51 of 142:

Oct 5 15:49 UTC 2003

Yes, a D&C is a treatment procedure for uterine lining disfunctions.  It can
also be used as an early abortion procedure.

response 53 of 142:

Oct 5 19:16 UTC 2003

Leaving aside Bruce's cavalier dismissal of the trauma of an
unwanted pregnancy in #49 (abortion is the "cheap way out"?),
people are showing confusion about medical terms and what they
mean.  I'll try to clarify within my knowledge (IANAdoctor).

D and C:  Dilation and currettage.  In this procedure the cervix
is dilated and the uterus lining is scraped with a spoon-shaped
device called a curette.  This procedure removes growths on
the uterine lining, including embryos and placentas.

D and X:  Dilation and extraction.  The cervix is dilated and
the fetus (usually) is cut apart and removed in pieces.  The
"sectioning" is often done with a wire loop rather than a sharp
instrument.  Here's how the results look (do NOT follow this
link if you are squeamish):
http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/PRENATAL/PREN020.html

I D and X:  Intact dilation and extraction, or "partial-birth
abortion" to the zealots.  Rather than cut the fetus into pieces, 
it is maneuvered into a position where the skull can be pierced,
evacuated with a vacuum curette and collapsed.  The rest of the
corpse can be removed in one piece.

A ban on ID&X which does not affect traditional D&X not only
means greater health risk to the woman (there is more messing
around inside her with instruments), it will hurt people who
wanted a baby only to have the pregnancy go badly wrong.  An
ID&X leaves a body that they can hold and say goodbye to, but
a table-full of parts is far too traumatic for most people to
look at.  A woman who just wants the fetus to go away for rape
or other reasons can have a regular D&X, albeit at greater risk.

In short, this ban on "PBA" is anti-family.  Not that I expect
Bruce to show any understanding of the above, or acknowledge
it in any way.  He'll go right back to his mantra, repeating
the lies he swallowed as if they'll save him from... something.

response 55 of 142:

Oct 5 21:24 UTC 2003

These children aren't being aborted because parents decided they don't
want a child, or because the sex is wrong.  They are almost always going
to die soon after birth or be burdened with short painful lives or
profound disabilities. 

Do you, Bruce, believe it would be okay to have these babies born a few
weeks later, and, at that time, withhold all medical care except for
comfort measures?  Or are we obligated to try to save them, no matter how
expensive and futile the effort, even if the parents want the life to end
quickly? 

Late term abortions are seldom about the mother.  They are about
the soon to be born infant.  The decision to spare the child
birth and a short miserable life is more difficult than any of
us can imagine.

Yet it's exactly that personal crisis that's being exploited
for political gain.  How shameful.

response 57 of 142:

Oct 6 02:44 UTC 2003

"Society" doesn't pay for that child; the family does.  

Is there an alternative to IDX?  I can think of two: Ceasarean section
and vaginal delivery.

response 59 of 142:

Oct 6 02:50 UTC 2003

(I don't think it's less expensive, that is.)

response 61 of 142:

Oct 6 03:11 UTC 2003

Re #54:  Oh, really, Bruce?  Tell you what.  If you will try to
answer questions about your position fully and completely, I'll
do the same for mine.  We'll see who's thinking and who's a parrot.

My first question for you:  Given that murder is "the unlawful
killing of a human being with malice aforethought", and there has
not since the Civil War been a precedent that one person has to
serve another in person (involuntary servitude is un-Constitutional
except as punishment for a crime), how can you maintain that
abortion is murder?  Don't forget that you have to support every
element of the definition, not just one.  Also don't forget that
you have to acknowledge and refute any element of modern medical
or legal practice that would undermine your argument.

Especially, how can you maintain this when late abortions are
almost always:

1.)     For severe fetal defects, many of which would kill the
        fetus at birth anyway, or
2.)     For health reasons of the woman (self-defense)?

response 63 of 142:

Oct 6 04:39 UTC 2003

If I'd been scraped from a uterine lining, I'd not be supporting anything at
all.

response 65 of 142:

Oct 6 11:23 UTC 2003

Exactly, gelinas:  Just as thought you were shot in the head with a gun.  Same
thing.

response 67 of 142:

Oct 6 14:30 UTC 2003

My first question for you:  Given that murder is "the unlawful
 killing of a human being with malice aforethought"

I cannot argue that position.  It will become murder after the law is changed.
It is murder in my mind because I consider abortion in general as murder once
you have passed a certain point in the development of the fetus.  For certain
in the last trimester, abortions should be banned.

Abortions in the 1st trimester I do not at this point consider as wrong
because I do not believe substantial nervous system or cranial development
has occurred.  But I could be wrong.

The 2nd trimester is where the problem occurs.  I do not know when the infant
begins to feel or think, but believe it is somewhere in this stage of
development.

As for the argument about slavery, it is a non sequitur.  I do not equate
pregnancy with slavery.  Nor do I believe the infant is a parasite.  Pregnancy
is a natural biological process resulting from sexual activity.  No birth
control program is 100% effective, and as such pregnancies will result.  If
an individual is old enough to make a decision that they are ready for sex,
then they are old enough to deal with the consequence.

Rape is an entirely different problem.  All individuals should report rape
as soon as it occurs, and action to prevent pregnancy should occur shortly
thereafter.  Some individuals are too ashamed to report their rape.  This is
not a social stigma, but something deeper, more ingrained in the nature of
humanity.  Individuals need to make that decision as soon as they are aware
of the problem, and action taken to protect them and the unborn if required.
That action may be an abortion or requirement that the fetus be carried to
term.

Each case is unique and requires a judicial decision.  Only a judge should
be able to decide if a life is to be forfeit for whatever reason.

response 69 of 142:

Oct 6 17:02 UTC 2003

So we should ignore all scientific/medical data and go with bru's "beliefs"?
Gee, you've got me convinced.  I think *all* pregnancies should be terminated
by the 3-month mark, I'm sick of sitting next to crying children on airplanes.
Since I believe this, it must be true.  Let's pass a law.

response 71 of 142:

Oct 6 19:12 UTC 2003

A baby is capable of feeling at the time of birth. A "foetus" on the 
other hand...

response 73 of 142:

Oct 6 20:02 UTC 2003

I should also say that I have seen the cases  that were brought to Congress
such as the woman whose child was developing without a brain, and which would
have had very basic life functions if it could live without a brain, which
were used to say that "partial birth" abortions were sometimes medically
necessary. In those cases, well, yes, it is probably a mercy to the child and
to the mother to abort as soon as it's discovered that the child is so
terribly wrong. My objection is not to something that might be medically
necessary -- but to killing someone who could be viable outside of his or her
mother's womb. It's hard to say what factors made it possible for me to live
without massive brain damage and/or crippling physical problems, but I think
it's wrong to choose death for those who *might* be able to survive as I did.
That's why I have trouble with post-second-trimester abortions in the sense
of "a choice". Pre-then, I feel that it's indeed a choice, because the fetus
isn't remotely viable.