response 75 of 142:

Oct 6 20:20 UTC 2003

It is my understanding that the only time this particular procedure 
(D&X) is routinely used on a live baby is when the baby develops 
hydrocephalus in the womb. This is a condition that causes the head the 
swell so much a regular vaginal birth is impossible. While there is 
some research going on to do surgury in the womb for this condition, it 
currently is not available. There is no treatment. Babies with this 
condition always die shortly after birth if they are delivered by C-
section. The D&X procedure is less harmful to the health of the woman 
and to her future child bearing than a C-section so, since the baby is 
going to die anyway, the "partial birth" procedure is considered the 
best option. 

The problem with the legislation is that it might *require* that women 
have C-sections in this case since as long as that option is available 
it is only the "health" of the woman that is at stake and not 
her "life" 

response 77 of 142:

Oct 6 20:45 UTC 2003

Re #75: I mentioned this before, but no one has pursued it: the fetus
could be killed by injection prior to D&X (or ID&X), and apparently
the law would not apply, since it only applies to a procedure following
the delivery of *part* of a live fetus. Is this really the case?

response 79 of 142:

Oct 7 04:54 UTC 2003

resp:67 the real deal comes out.

Now, I think if abortions are done, earlier is more ideal... so I 
think RU-486 is probably a good thing.  Do I think it makes abortions 
easier to get?  Now, the women are still like scared rabbits because I 
think they still have to receive some counseling when they get it.

response 81 of 142:

Oct 7 17:42 UTC 2003

I only weigh in on abortion once in a great while, but here goes.

> I believe that any fetus who's viable after that cut off is "really" a baby.

It is my view that the current "up to the 2nd trimester" limit is a matter of
technology.  I believe that some day technology will have advanced to the 
state where virtually any conceived fetus (zygote etc.) will be viable outside
the womb, growable in an incubator, if you will.  The law will change so that
any conceived "pre-human", "human under construction" will be required to be
given that chance, and that abortion as convenience will be outlawed.

I believe that some time in the future after that people will look back on
these times as an age of butchery, viewed with the same disdain and outrage
as we look back on ignorant "medical" practices of the past.  The notion of
"rights of the woman" will be dismissed out of hand.  Sometimes it is a 
necessity that the law reflect the limitations of current technology, but that
doesn't mean that morality and behavior must similarly be limited.

There, that's my once in a great while opining, I've had my say.

response 83 of 142:

Oct 7 19:17 UTC 2003

re 82:  Hmmm.  That's in direct contrast to a recent case in Britain where
the egg and sperm sources of some frozen embryos were suing each other over
what to do with them.  The woman had been sterilized as a side effect of
cancer treatment after having the embryos created with her then-husband's
sperm; she desperately wanted children and these embryos were her only 
chance for biological children.  Her ex-husband fought to keep them embryos
from being carried to term, and won.  The judge ordered that the embryos
be destroyed.
While not an abortion case, it bears some very interesting parallels. How
much control should we have over allowing our genetic material to be carried
on?

response 85 of 142:

Oct 7 19:46 UTC 2003

The problem with all those "somebody else wants the baby" is that in
real life, this simply isn't true.  The demographics of our society are
such that a lot of those "babies" come out of poor backgrounds [having a
baby *is* a luxury: it's a considerable expense not to mention the time
involved], most of the people who want babies come out of considerably
more affluent backgrounds.  Therefore, blacks and other minorities are
disproportionately represented, and there aren't that many rich people
willing to settle for children with different color skins.

response 87 of 142:

Oct 7 19:54 UTC 2003

Oh, well, I did say this was a novel, and it was a lovely concept. It was also
a multi-species sf novel, and one of the "fetal adoptions" was between
species, which I know ain't gonna happen. It is simply one of those things
which in a more perfect world would happen.

response 89 of 142:

Oct 7 21:40 UTC 2003

> albaugh (#81) is looking forward to a "fascist" future, when individual
> rights are subjugated to an oppressive government.

What utter bullshit.  Whether or not I'm looking forward to it is irrelevant.
But if you want to talk about rights, let's talk about a future where every
human's rights - whether a born human or a pre-born human under construction
- are treated equally.  I maintain that the only reason that those born humans
who want their "rights" to supersede the rights of the not-yet-born to *be*
born are because they can currently say "hey fetus, you have no rights, let's
see you survive outside the womb", like a fish flopping on the dock.  When
that is no longer the reality because of technology, where is the arbitrary
"2nd trimester" limit going to stand?  It will have no legs to stand on, and
any born human's claim that the fetus doesn't have the right to be born will
simply be a denial of the right to live, which wouldn't be tolerated for born
humans.

The Chinese tradition holds that the person's development in the womb is his
"pre air life", and that at birth the person is considered "one year old".
That viewpoint acknowledges that the fetus is a human in the making, where
every living person came from.  To deny it life requires that it be
de-humanized, ironic as that expression is, and that is what such arbitrary
limits as "2nd trimester" accomplish.

Once it becomes possible for any fetus to obtain life, no matter how young,
what can any claim of "infringement of rights" be other than "I don't want
'it' to live"?

response 91 of 142:

Oct 8 02:18 UTC 2003

Re #62:  Given your atrocious spelling and utter lack of social
graces, you're the poster child for the view you oppose.

Re #67:
>I cannot argue that position.

As I thought.  You're not even going to try to dissect my stand.
I'd be thrilled if you'd show that you understand it, though.

>It will become murder after the law is changed.

Q:  If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A:  Four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

Calling an embryo a person doesn't make it one either, but
that's the goal of most of the groups trying to ban abortion.
Equating abortion with murder will also be completely without
precedent in the history of the USA.  It's ludicrous.

>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.

Guess what, Bruce:  I AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT.  In general.  In
specific, I agree that any fetus which is capable of surviving by
breathing air and feeding on milk is morally no different from a
neonate at the same level of development.  That's what babies do.

>For certain in the last trimester, abortions should be banned.

Here I very much DISagree with you.  Here's why:

1.)     The boundary for consciousness is about 30 weeks.  This
        is well into the third trimester, and without consciousness
        there is nobody there.  Babies are definitely conscious at
        least part of the time, so I have to class something that
        does not yet have the capability as not-quite-a-baby.

2.)     There are a lot of fetal abnormalities which aren't discovered
        until late.  Lots of these are either deadly or mean serious
        problems.

        The longer the pregnancy continues, the more physical effects
        there are.  Infertility is a relatively common consequence of
        birth.  No woman or couple should ever have to sacrifice their
        hope for a healthy child by being forced to have an unhealthy
        one.  Abortion is often the best way out.

If third-trimester abortions are the only thing which bothers you,
rest easy.  They are vanishingly rare.  According to the CDC, some
55% of all abortions are performed in the first 8 weeks, and 88%
within 12 weeks.  Only 1.4% are performed after 20 weeks, and if
you think there aren't 15,000 cases of severe fetal defects per
year in the USA you should check out some special-ed classrooms.

response 93 of 142:

Oct 8 14:36 UTC 2003

Re #81:
> It is my view that the current "up to the 2nd trimester" limit is a
> matter of technology.  I believe that some day technology will have
> advanced to the state where virtually any conceived fetus (zygote
> etc.) will be viable outside the womb, growable in an incubator,
> if you will.  The law will change so that any conceived "pre-human",
> "human under construction" will be required to be given that chance,
> and that abortion as convenience will be outlawed.

This would also outlaw test-tube fertalization as it's currently done.  

It also brings up a lot of odd moral questions...for example, it's
common for pregnancies to fail at very early stages, sometimes before
the woman even realizes she's pregnant.  Should a woman be sued for
negligence if this happens, in your world?

Re #85: People also have a way of insisting that they only want a baby
with their genes.

response 95 of 142:

Oct 9 08:09 UTC 2003

waaaayyyb back there ... 6 month without a pregnancy clue is not belivable.
  
smarmy denial, perhaps. that we have yo here and now is a benefit.
  
ignorance can reap benefits, but rarely. your case is teh exception.

response 97 of 142:

Oct 9 16:38 UTC 2003

96 is true.  Every day you come aross more evidence of the power of the
human mind to flat-out ignore what's in front of the corresponding face;
why should this be any different?
FWIW, irregular periods are not uncommon at all.  Last time I was at the
doctor's office, they had a supply of brochures on them.  Some forms of
birth control suppress periods.  One of my friends had normal periods one
half of the year and none at all the other half.  I went a year between
my first period and my second, and am still irregular enough that I could
easily get up to 5 months without noticing anything--and then it would be
more likely weight gain that would tip me off.
I find it interesting that there are no laws in place on what a woman can
do while pregnant.  F'rinstance, smoking and drinking are not legally
proscribed; neither are horseback riding, playing hockey, boxing, or
working in a lab with toxic, teratogenic or carcinogenic chemicals.
Any of these things can lead to miscarriages, birth defects, or other 
problems.  Not that I'm advocating such laws, but their absence suggests
a deeper conviction that the freedom of the woman is more important than
the life or health of the fetus.