From wire reports: House approves ban on controversial abortion procedure Senate to take up measure Thursday, October 2, 2003 Posted: 12:59 PM EDT (1659 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Thursday to ban a type of abortion that for years has been at the center of the debate over a woman's reproductive rights. President Bush has promised to sign the bill into law and opponents say they will immediately challenge it in court. The drive to stop what opponents call partial birth abortion "will finally become law and the performance of this barbaric procedure will finally come to an end," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin. Critics said the partial birth ban, twice vetoed by President Clinton, was part of a larger agenda to undermine the 1973 Supreme Court decision supporting a woman's right to end a pregnancy. It's "an attempt to whittle away at a woman's constitutional right to her privacy and control of her body," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-New York. The bill, passed 281-142, could be taken up by the Senate as early as Friday. Bush's signature would make it the first federal law since Roe v. Wade in 1973 to restrict a specific abortion procedure. Some 30 states have varying versions of partial birth bans, and opponents have successfully challenged most of those laws. Most significantly, in 2000 the Supreme Court, on a 5-4 vote, ruled that a Nebraska law was unconstitutional because it did not have an exception for the health of the mother and was so vague as to leave unclear what medical practices were being prohibited. Clinton, in his two vetoes, also argued that there must be a health exception. Supporters of the ban, led in the House by Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, said the House-Senate compromise bill being considered has tightened the definition of the banned procedure and contains findings to prove that the practice is never needed to protect a woman's health. Partial birth is not a medically accepted term, but as defined by the bill it is a procedure in which the fetus is killed after the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother or, in the case of breech presentation, "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother." Doctors who perform the procedure would be subject to up to two years in prison. There's disagreement about how often such abortions are performed. Defenders say it is sometimes the safest way to protect the health and future fertility of the mother when an abortion is found to be necessary during the second and third trimester of a pregnancy. Both sides agree that the symbolic importance of the ban would be enormous. Anti-abortion groups say it would give momentum to other limitations on abortion, while abortion rights groups say the ultimate goal is to erode support for that 1973 decision on abortion rights, known as Roe v. Wade"142 responses total.
Okay here we have another example of the right wing agenda that will become law because Bush is president now and will sign the bill. Clinton vetoed it twice, but he isn't there anymore to block it. Statistics would seem to indicate that this procedure is performed so seldomly that it hardly seems worthy of having congress pass an act to outlaw it. If the mother's life is in danger, what are doctors supposed to do? Clearly this particular procedure is being used as a rallying point for the overrall agenda, which in this case is to ban abortions altogether. If we don't vote Bush out next year, we're headed back to the dark ages. A republican congress will pass all sorts of right wing political legislation, and Bush will appoint more conservative judges who will not block such things from becoming law.
george bush = 70's smileyface taliban. sorry, that was a mean thing to say about our hawkish war hero leader...oh wait...
In a similar vein, the Michigan legislature just passed a measure that would ban this procedure by another route, by defining the moment of birth as when any part of the baby emerges from the mother. Gov. Granholm is expected to veto it, and it's not clear if there are enough votes to override the veto.
This response has been erased.
no...cute kitten art and precious moments collectibles at the christian bookstore. mandatory .
"Partial birth" is a term coined by anti-abortionists to gain sympathy for the fetus and call it murder. It is not a birth in any way. If they don't put a "protect the mother's health" clause in there, I'm going to go absolutely ballistic. Would they rather have women DIE than allow a doctor to perform a medical procedure? Asshats.
This response has been erased.
re #6...sarah, there isn't and won't be a clause allowing exception in cases to "protect the mother's health" why, because protecting the mother's health is 99.9% of the time the reason this procedure is even done in the first place. If they put that clause in the bill, there's really no point in the bill in the first place. This is going to become law and it will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to decide if it stays on the books.
re: "#1 (richard): Okay here we have another example of the right wing agenda. . . ." Mr. richard, Are you being serious? Did your article not state that this bill passed the U. S. House of Representatives with over 280 votes?? Based upon any reasonable arithmetic calculation, passage of legislation by a margin of two to one hardly seem to qualify it as "right wing." Much to the contrary, that ought to be considered mainstream. Or this this another example of your left wing Democratic mathematics? klg
I say way to go. Lets get this passed and move on to the next right wing political agenda item. With any luck we will make this a great country again.
We'll discuss it when YOU have a uterus, bru...
Actually, men do have uteruses. They just don't use them.
how do we get 'extremely rare, but legal' into teh law? 'to save teh life of teh mother, only' would *seem* to satisfy.
klg it passed with such a majority because there's an election next year and a lot of congressmen, particularly in conservative southern states, don't want it being an issue in their re-election. Do not look at the vote totals as some indication of true and deep support.
Bruce - if my baby is going to KILL ME, then I would get a D&C (fuck that religious reich term for it) and claim "self-defense" if they tried to say I murdered my kid. It's not like I'd be happy about it. Too many right-to-lifers assume that us pro-choice people LOVE the idea of abortion. It's not true. We just realize that there are times when it is necessary. If 99% of the D&C procedures are done to save the life of the mother, and that stupid Congress and even more stupid President voted AGAINST them, then this country is NOT getting better. If Bush gets re-elected, I'm moving to Canada. That is not a joke. I'm not going to let someone else's pompous, self-righteous, religious viewpoints rule my life any longer. I'm sick of seeing religion forced down kids' throats in school, and now it's going to affect womens' health. Do you people ever THINK when you aren't beating your Bibles and misinterpreting the words to fit your agenda? I cannot begin to describe how much this pisses me off. By the way... my biological mother was raped, but she chose not to abort me. I'm thankful she went the adoption route, but I'm even more thankful she had that choice. I can't imagine how she would have felt if she'd been forced to carry me to term and deliver me because some assholes in the government used their religion as reasoning for forcing that torture on her. This country is going backwards, not forward, Bruce, and all of you sheep are too blind to see it.
You're not moving to Canada. If you were pissed off enough to do that, you'd do something useful instead and mount a campaign to educate and motivate people who value their rights to go to the polls and boot the fascists out of office.
Amen, Eric. With Bush starting to look like Nixon Jr. there's a lot of work to do in making the US a free country again.
Re #16: I know at least one person I actually do expect to move to Canada. He feels that it's essentially a lost cause, and that he's spent enough of his life trying to push back against the country's drift to the right. He sees little hope for substantial improvement in his lifetime. Time to cut his losses and leave. I have to admit I can understand that reasoning.
This response has been erased.
I think it's going to be a long time before the Zapatistas have enough control over Mexico to forge into Texas. Personally, I'm looking to the Free State Project as a model. While I object to several of the points of their philosophy, their goal is realistic and their reasoning sound. Basically, they say, "This country is too obsessed with big government, both on the left and on the right, and getting even 1% of the vote in a national election for a Libertarian (or even libertarian) candidate is obviously ludicrous. Therefore, let's get together--literally--and concentrate our influence in one state, where we have a realistic chance of effecting some of the changes we want." They've got 5400 people signed up and committed to moving to New Hampshire within 5 years, where those people are going to fight tooth and nail for change at the state and local level. I love their methods, but I still think they're aiming big. I think a city is a good level to start at--it's an easy level to effect change at, even if you're still bound by state and national laws, and getting some change to happen is necessary for keeping morale up and for showing people what you're really about. So, michaela, get yerself some likeminded people and figure out what you can do about it other than throwing up your hands and moving to Canada. Meanwhile, watch for my name on the ballot for A2 City Council sometime in the next few years. :)
re: "#14 (richard): . . . it passed with such a majority because there's an election next year and a lot of congressmen, particularly in conservative southern states, don't want it being an issue in their re- election. Do not look at the vote totals as some indication of true and deep support." In other words, it passed because a lot of congressmen realize a majority of their consitituents support it? Ain't democracy wonderful, Mr. richard? Get on board! To all of you gmoving to Canada next year: Bye, and don't forget to write!
This response has been erased.
I hadn't thought of that option. Along those lines, learning Basque and hanging out in Mondragon territory for a while would be a nice change...
"dark old days" - what histrionics.
Backing up a ways: As I understand it, this bill (and Michigan's bill) is almost identical to a Nebraska bill that was tossed by the USSupreme Court a couple of years ago in that it doesn't include a "health of the mother" exception. The bill tries to skate this constitutional roadblock by declaring that "partial-birth" abortions are never medically necessary and that, in fact, "A ban on the partial -birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy." I find this strategy of simply declaring it so to be of rather dubious value (much like GWB's attempt to end the war in Iraq by simply declaring it over). I'm guessing that abortion opponents are hoping that the Supreme Court will add another anti-Roe judge by the time this case works its way up the line, and that this law can be the vehicle to end the whole deal. And, as an aside, while this bill specifies that a woman who has a PBA will not be prosecuted under this law, it does allow the woman's husband to sue her in civil court (or her parents, if she was not 18 years old at the time of the abortion) if he did not consent to the abortion.
Husband? Or sperm donor regardless of other legal status (assuming donation performed the old-fashioned way)?
(Hmm... I kinda like New Hampshire. I may have to move there to oppose the FSP. Why can't they pick on someone I don't particularly care about? Utah would be nice. Or maybe Puerto Rico. Or Guam. Either of them would make a good 51st state.)
re #26: The bill specifies husband. I reckon that's 'cuz, you know, a woman doesn't actually become a man's property until he makes it all legal and stuff.
resp:10 I get so tired of that endless dogmatic crap: "this great nation of ours" or "let's make America great again" paraphrased any number of ways and the moralism implied in it, i.e., only a certain way will accomplish it. Gaaahh. Couple of comparisons: I'm religious, but I don't support shoving it down other people's throats... about the same way I support environmentalism but deplore eco-terrorism. (The ends don't justify the means, baby.)
Once again everybody misses the big picture. I say Go right! You say Go Left! and we end up basically driving down the middle of the road with a swerve to the right and to the left now and again. But yes, I am against abortion, and your attitude that anything other than the right to murder another human being because of your mistake is forcing me to take a sterner position thn I would normally like to take just to keep us from ending up with gass chambers to remove the parasites on our society that you don't want to deal with. (parasites being infants, handicapped, elderly, mentally deranged, and the ugly.)
I find it terribly amusing that the proponents of this act think they can avoid having to take anyone's health under consideration in the law by saying that said procedure is never necessary to protect health. This is tantamount to Congress awarding itself a collective MD, without bothering to go to school or even study. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. It would be nice if all laws had to state their rationale and could be challenged and thrown out if the rationale could be proven wrong. We've got so many misconceived laws on the books that it would be great to have a mechanism to discard them without having to move the legislature to reverse itself.
resp:30 ummm... no. I am generally against abortion. As far as my personal views, the decision, should it be made, should be very carefully thought out, even by prayer, if you will. Not taken lightly. Let's put it this way, bru. My religious leaders spoke that way on the topic, so I feel safe taking that position.. and generally, their view is otherwise conservative on the matter. Therefore, any other moralism is prone to fall on deaf ears.
Re #30: bru wants the big picture: the big picture is that not he nor anyone else has an absolute right to control the lives of women.
If we don't have the right to pass legislation regarding the rights of people to act under specific conditions in specific ways, then I gues we can't pass any laws whatsoever.
The notion that abortion is muder is predicated on a BELIEF that is not universal. Making any laws which proscribe any abortion practices is tantamount to the state dictating morality based on one belief system in direct opposition to another. That is exactly what the founders were trying to prevent with the establishment clause. By the way, the same is true of laws which prevent Native Americans from using peyote in traditional rituals.
31 through35 missed bru's most important qualifier: "because of your mistake" Bruce, how do you plan on handling rape-induced pregnancies? Is being rape the woman's fault?
People who have been raped are not likely to wait 6 months to abort. Some late abortions are because the mother's health is threatened by the pregnancy, and some because of genetic testing which is done late in pregnancy to detect genetic defects. As Jim understands things, it is safer for the woman to wait and have an induced labor (premature) at some point, rather than an earlier in utero abortion.
I don't have all the answers. Never did and probably never will. BUt that does not change the fact that abortion is murder.
So is killing in war or in self defense also "murder"? "Murder" is entirely a legal construct, and means what you want it to mean, if "murder" and "killing" are not synonymus. Sure, abortion is killing - of living tissue at least - but that doesn't make it "murder" unless it is categorically outlawed. But it is categorically permitted by the Constitution, so it is only killing, not "murder". Women must have the right to have time to decide to kill their own fetuses at least up to some appropriate time or under appropriate circumstances, or they do not have the social freedom ensured by our Constitution.
The first sentence of #37 is patently false. The trauma of rape causes all sorts of psychological responses ranging from the undetectable to full-blown psychosis. Included in that spectrum are several responses such as confusion, a sense of helplessness, and denial, any one of which can and do lead to the passage of many months before any responsible medical action is taken in response to the attack.
where did you get the idea that killing someone who is out to kill you is murder? When that baby comes out with a knife in his hand, talk to me about self defense. Now, if the doctor does decide that the life of the baby is indeed a threat to the mother with no other option, then he should be allowed to remove the child from the womb. But doe that necessarily requirea a D & C or partial birth abortion?
Sometimes it does, according to the articles I've seen. Do you feel Congress is qualified to decide this is absolutely never medically necessary, or do you think maybe that should be left to people who are actually doctors?
(Incidentally, there's some confusion over what procedures "partial birth abortion bans" actually cover. "Partial birth abortion" isn't a medical term; it was invented by anti-abortion groups for PR purposes.)
I've got to give Bruce points for persistence. You can explain why he's wrong a dozen times and he'll be totally silent when you ask him to justify his assertions, then he returns to his mantra: >BUt that does not change the fact that abortion is murder. Ignorance is strength, Bruce. Ignorance is strength. (A closed mind is only a virtue if you've fastened it onto the product of logic and reason. Holding blind dogma is a vice.)
Actually, given that Bruce's side is winning this war, I appreciate that he's not gloating about it.
Actually, bru's side *can't* win this "war". There will be abortions no matter what laws are passed, many still in the USA and many abroad. Women will not give up their rights as humans because of some stupid laws. It will just be more expensive and probably more deaths of women will occur.
stop it, you guys are upsetting bruce.
resp:35 good point-- not all situations are so cut and dry... I think that's why the position I stated is why it is-- to account for that possibility. More or less, the decision is left a personal one. resp:44 Blind dogma. That's a way to put it. Again, I say, my religious leaders stated the position I said earlier: they didn't state what bru said. Ideally, one would do what they were able to stop things before the point of an abortion, (i.e. prevention-- all things that led to the pregnancy and any other baggage surrounding it) but once at that point, the option would be considered very, very carefully. No, it's not an easy one. And again, not all pregnancies *were* planned, especially in the case of rape.
does it require a D & C or is it just the cheap way out?
Ok, It might be useful for this dicussion if the proper medical terms were used. As someone has pointed out "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term. I also want to point out to bru re: resp:49 (but I have noticed others using this term) that D & C refers to "dilatation and curettage" which a procedure where the lining of the uterus is scaped. It is usually used as a diagnostic tool when a woman has abnormal periods or to treat an incomplete abortion or miscarriage. It can be used for abortions but only very very early term ones (up to 16 weeks). It is not the procedure people usually think of when they think of "partial birth abortion". That procedure is called D & X which stands for "dilation and extraction". This procedure, btw, is almost never used on a live fetus and is more commonly used to deliver dead fetuses with less trauma then a regular birth. I assume that these laws against partical birth abortions do no include a ban against the the use of D&X when the fetus is already dead.
Yes, a D&C is a treatment procedure for uterine lining disfunctions. It can also be used as an early abortion procedure.
There should be no problem ensuring that the fetus is dead prior to a D & X, so the outlawing of a D & X for a initially live delivery is pointless.
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.
seems like russ has swallowed the party line, not me. I still say there is a better way than killing a chilep
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.
No one is answering my question. Is there another way to do this, or have they just decided to use this method because it is the cheapest method? Yes, there are further difficult questions to be dealt with after a birth, but if there is a functioning brain, no matter what other problems may exist, what right do we have to end that existence? Certainly other cultures have made allowances for dealing with the problem of the drain on society of unfunctional infants. In ancient cultures, tehy were left out to die. In some 3rd world cultures, they probably still are. But we are not third world. The viability of an infant is not going to kill off our society if we allocate resources to it. But not doing so, asnd taking the easy way out, will degrade our humanity.
"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.
If you're asking if this is being used because it's cheaper than other abortion methods, bru, I don't think so.
(I don't think it's less expensive, that is.)
Pardon me, but in #56, bru is expressly advocating socialized health care, and I'm wondering if that contravenes earlier opinions he's expressed...
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)?
Let me ask you a question: How would you've felt to've been scrapped from a uterean lining? Don't support abortion so much now, fucker, huh, do you?
If I'd been scraped from a uterine lining, I'd not be supporting anything at all.
Re: Bruce's statement regarding 'if the woman is raped, she would know before she was six months along' Not always. My mother didn't know she was pregnant with me until she was pretty darn close to six months along. She just thought she had a touch of the flu, and the missed periods weren't noted because she had irregular cycles. As Mary stated so well, these are primarily, if not always, used for MEDICAL reasons. This bill is being passed just to make some people God themselves over other people. It's ridiculous. This bill will CAUSE deaths since the doctors won't be able to help the mothers. Anyone who supports it is as much of a murderous, selfish bastard as you portray the mothers to be.
Exactly, gelinas: Just as thought you were shot in the head with a gun. Same thing.
I doubt many deaths will result from this bill, though a few are certainly a possibility. What bothers me more is that many anti-abortion groups have acknowledged that this is meant to be the thin end of the wedge and it will help them in eventually getting *all* abortions banned.
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.
A judicial decision? This has also been an anti-abortion tactic, turning it over to the judge... often a means to just delay the procedure. Them silly wimmens can't decide what to do for themselves! Better let a judge handle that! First you said the decision was individual. Then you said it was judicial. I don't think a woman who is raped says "Gee, I'd report it, but I'm just SO embarrassed!". Try scared, alone, worried no one will believe her, scared to see it go to trial and she'll have to relive it over and over again, terrified to even leave her house or go to work. Not all rapists are strangers in the woods. What if it's a relative, an employer? What if you're only 9 or 13?
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.
Did I say anything about ignoring medical or scientific data? nope, I did not. wimmens is just like the men folk. they try to get out from as much responsibility as they can. Thats why we get babies dimped in trash cans rather than taken down to the police station and dropped off as covered under michigan law. prove to me when a baby is capable of feeling, and lets set the cutoff there.
A baby is capable of feeling at the time of birth. A "foetus" on the other hand...
A fetus is certianly capable of feeling things and percieving them before birth. (I also have an emotional problem with later-term abortions, because I was born at six months gestation. In the 1950s. Yes, even back then, some of us lived. And thrived. So I really have problems with abortions after the second trimester, because I believe that any fetus who's viable after that cut off is "really" a baby. YMMV. I have a rather pragmatic view of when it stops being a non-person, and that's when it's viable outside the womb and will survive. I didn't have a lot of high-tech intervention, btw, so I know some babies born that early can have normal lives. I do.)
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.
So bru and anderyn aren't opposed to abortion, they just want to argue with the Supreme Court about the cut-off date for abortions. I wouldn't have understood that from much they have posted here, so it is good to finally get the point cleared up. They must also not really think abortion is "murder", since it's OK up to some point they would like to pick. The only difference, then, between them and me is the cut-off period. I support that chosen by the Supreme Court (or something like it), while they have a different idea on this. This doesn't seem to be a basis for an argument - what we do in this country is ultimately put the question to the Supreme Court, and then *mostly* accept their decision. But what we see is an enormous amount of argument and even violence based upon ... just the selection of a cutoff date? We should, though clear up the question of termination of pregnancy in the third trimester when the woman's health is threatened. Do bru and anderyn accept this as OK too?
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"
Don't lump me with bru. We do not share the same views. I am my own person. He is his own person. He is more conservative and religious than I am, and he stands up for that. I am more, ah, waffly, since I try to reconcile what I think is right/wrong that pull me in different directions. I don't say that I have the right to tell people what to do, but I can say what I think. And I think that up to three months, a fetus isn't viable. Therefore, it's a choice that the mother should have to abort or not. Between three months and six months, I don't know. On the early end, it's probably still okay. On the further end, I start feeling like it's a person, it's separate, and to kill it would be murder. After six months, it's definitely wrong. But of course, I can't go out and legislate that. I'm not a congresscritter or a judge. So it's me, private person, saying what I think. You can disagree with me, or agree with me, but don't push me in with Bruce. I'm not him. I don't always agree with him. But I do admire that he's standing up for what he believes.
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?
I was wondering that too, Rane.
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.
re 76: That was an excellent, clearly worded, non-confrontational statement or what you think. Thank you for clarifying, twila.
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.
I think that the trend will go the other way. Eventually, we'll all have the same rights, unless we have lots and lots of money (and of course power), in which case we'll have all the rights everybody else doesn't have (i.e. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). For those who didn't follow, that means that when we all have the same rights, the sum total of those rights will be the right to choose between doing what you're supposed to do (as determined by those in power) and facing unpleasant consequences.
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?
I recall reading a very cool book a while back in which albaugh's ideas were "realized" -- the zygote/fetus/whatever stage could be taken from a woman and put into storage for people who WANTED to carry them -- it was rather like pre-birth adoption. If that could be so, it would be very good. Oh, Rane, btw, after re-reading your comments to me above, I also meant to say that I DID say that I supported abortions after the second trimester if it was medically necessary -- as in the case of the woman whose child would be born with only a brain stem and no other parts of its brain. But luckily for everyone, those kinds of cases where a child would have to be aborted in the third trimester are very rare.
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.
albaugh (#81) is looking forward to a "fascist" future, when individual rights are subjugated to an oppressive government. other seems to foresee that also, although with less pleasure. I look forward to a more liberal future, when individual rights are strongly supported and governmental oversight is the minimum necessary for a safe and civil society.
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.
A former girlfriend of mine came from a large family which took in hydrocephalic and anacephalic babies, one at a time, and cared for them until they died. (The woman of the house was an obstetrics nurse.) In most cases, the parents had no interest in them, and it was cheaper to pay my friend to care of them than to leave them in the hospital. I remember one anecephalic baby they had, who was a real mess. I didn't like to look at him. He had really no recognizable face above the chin. He was fed through a tube, not specifically through nose or mouth since there wasn't any distinction between the two. He had noisy seizures pretty frequently. The family, which had a sense of humor about this parade of dying infants, called him "Jonathan It". My girlfriend's mom, a defiantly unusual person, would coo over poor Jonathan, telling in the sweetest voice how disgusting he was, and would hold him in her arms and rock him to sleep at night. Had she left him alone in his crib, he would have kept us all awake with his cries and seizures. (Big family, crowded house.) On the other hand, without any physical affection, he would have died much more quickly. She also loved the expression on the bank teller's face when she took welfare department checks to the bank and deposited them in savings. I think Jonathan set some kind of record for months of life for an anacephalic. Supposedly they bought a new truck with the money they made.
> 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"?
I think there was a Mary Higgins Clark novel about an abortion doctor that was removing fetuses from women who had signed up for an abortion and implanting them in women who had fertility problems. It was a scary thought when I read the book, not only because the fictional doctor was doing this without the knowledge or consent of his patients and with a large dose of coercion. I think there's a deeper issue beyond the "inconvenience" of being pregnant, which concerns control over one's genetic material. We place a great deal of emphasis on this as is--witness paternity suits, court cases where the natural parents almost always win custody over adoptive parents, etc. I would not willingly sign over any product of my genetic material, and I find the concept of being coerced into this absolutely nauseating. *This* is your ideal world?
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.
Back in #81, Kevin Albaugh wrote: >It is my view that the current "up to the 2nd trimester" limit is a >matter of technology.... 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. It is my view that an enlightened future will look at the true nature of the thing "under construction" and say "If it doesn't have enough of a brain to have thoughts or feelings, it is only worth something if someone wants it. Mere cells do not a person make." By the time we have real uterine replicators, I'll bet that we'll flush the incurable deformities with as little moralizing as we now associate with warranty returns. Nature screws up, Man makes the judgement calls.... and everyone wants their kids to have the best. Or would you induce spina bifida or cerebral palsy just so that we have people to be compassionate for? In your own kids? >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. Watch out, because one powerful force of history is pushing the other way. The whole concept of "life regardless of the consequences" is rejected wholesale by the hospice movement, the Right-to-Die movement, and millions of others who (gasp) take *quality* of life into account. These people are not going to let you elevate the rights of an unthinking, unfeeling *potential* above that of the people making the decisions and bearing the burdens. And the harder you push, the harder they push back. They do NOT want to be forced to live in YOUR world, and the best way to prevent your ideal world is to keep trying to force it on them; they'll eliminate it in self-defense.
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.
Um, no, what I wrote in #88 is fact, not fiction. Sorry if it confused you.
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.
No. It's not uncommon for a woman who was unaware she was pregnant show up in an emergency room with labor pains -- ask anyone who works in obstetrics. Perhaps they are not well educated, and not very petite to begin with, but there is plenty of ignorance to go around.
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.
(Are you aware of the relatively famous labor law case in which women sued to be able to work, I believe, in a battery manufacturing area? The employer had refused to place women there due to the likelihood of causing fetal abnormalities. Naturally, the women won in our upside down courts. Now, the employer is probably liable for any fetal damages that result from that insanity.)
This response has been erased.
what's THAT suppose to mean? /takes a gigantic swaller of pete's wild irish rose
This response has been erased.
#99 is just not true. There are things you, as an adult, can do that will only be mildly harmful that would cause major and permanent harm to an infant or fetus. Alcohol is a simple and obvious example, or, do you remember thalamide babies in the 50's?
This response has been erased.
Actually, I was just noticing that #99 was a blanket assertion with no qualifiers, and #98 is not necessarily specific (one never knows with the klg's); #97 is specifically non-specific. Obviously you meant #99 much more specifically than you indicated, but I suspect even there it's still wrong -- you did say "just as", indicating it's equally harmful to both. However, perhaps #103 is true with #99 being false, if lead poisoning were harmful to both, but more harmful to children. I believe this is in fact the case, though I couldn't quite you any legal casework or medical research to prove that (although given the scopes trial, I cannot consider legal casework to be the final word on human biology.)
What's harmful for the 50+ adult's brain is generally more harmful to a fetus, often by orders of magnitude. Besides which, if you're over 50 and female, you're likely past the inclination and/or ability to be carrying a fetus. When I started at Uni-Tuebingen I had to sign a form absolving the university of any responsibility for potential prenatal damage--SOP for women of childbearing age. Can't quite recall, but I'm sure I signed one at MIT as well and that such agreements are standard where applicable. I therefore reject klg's whiny final sentence in 98. In general, chemical companies will give you a desk job for the duration of your pregnancy anyway because they don't need the adverse publicity that might occur.
Jim (jdeigert) is the 6th surviving child of 7. The 6th child was born severely defective but survived a few months - long enough for his mother to have a nervous breakdown and be hospitalized for it.
Ms. lynne, We are not being "whiny." Perhaps you are out of touch with reality. It actually is a catch-22 situation for employers: "But protecting a fetus from occupational hazards isn't as easy as removing pregnant women from specific jobs. Companies that have taken that approach have been hit with discrimination lawsuits and lost. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that battery maker Johnson Controls' practice of restricting women from certain jobs on the basis that lead exposure could harm the fetus amounted to sex discrimination." . . . "'If the employer warns the mother, and if she goes in and says she has a right to do this job, and the fetus is exposed, is the employer responsible?' asks Eugene Brodsky, a San Francisco lawyer who represented a child who sued over birth defects. 'The fetus didn't agree to be at risk. These are questions that will have to be addressed.'" For the complete article . . . http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/26/usatcov-birth- defects.htm
Ah, so klg is in favor of children suing their parents?
(How one could draw that conclusion is truly remarkable - but hardly beyond Mr. scott's abilities.)
heh heh. The fetus by definition has no rights as yet, and the mother has already signed an agreement that the employer is not responsible. Since parents have the right to make decisions for the child until it is 18, the agreement the mother signed is binding. Indeed, scott is right: the only logical approach for this maligned child is to sue its mother.
(Are you truly prepared to bet that the government will take a logical approach? Based upon past performance, one ought to expect otherwise. In this particular instance, please note that attorney Brodsky is from the loony left coast.)
We are not discussing the government, but rather the legal system. Please be more precise. Unless and until the agreement between employer and mother is ruled illegal or immaterial, the employer is not to blame. Judges are required to adhere to the letter of the law; in the case that they do not do so, any decision is subject to appeal.
Maybe the answer for those companies would be to give pregnant women the option of being reassigned to a less hazardous job but at their same pay rate. Of course, then some man will probably sue the company claiming that women are getting better treatment. Ok. Maybe the real answer is for these companies to clean up their act and create safer workplaces.
all the responoses to #95 - sorry, but they don't pass teh smell test. what they do, however , is promote teh 1:1000 probability upto sometihg like 10:1 probability. hope against hope. *P L E A S E* get real! with 6 billion humns on the face of the earth at the moment, .. adn growing .. what is the probability that sex does NOT result in pregnacy? throw every 1:1,000,000 probability into the wind and *pray?* gimme a fscking break! check your damn file system! <prayer might be worthwile .. although futile ..errr, fertile>
you are a drunkard.
re 113: "Maybe the answer for those companies would be to give pregnant women the option of being reassigned to a less hazardous job but at their same pay rate." This is standard operating procedure for most companies--in fact, I think it may be mandatory for pregnant women to be reassigned until after they give birth. re114: It's not a common occurrance by any means, but it does in fact happen. <shrug>
re: "This is standard operating procedure for most companies--in fact, I think it may be mandatory for pregnant women to be reassigned until after they give birth." It is??? We have never seen it in a union agreement. (You may wish to reread response #107 for what is actually happening in the workplace.) Please provide some examples to support what you are saying. Thank you.
re 116, 117: I was referring specifically to chemical/pharmaceutical companies, as they are the only ones of interest to me. I'm not sure that there is a union for chemists. However, I am sure that this is company policy at Merck. Be warned that I am now adding Mr klg to my twit filter, since I find their writing style more irritating than their content justifies.
How come folks often seem unable to add anyone to their twit filter without announcing it to everyone else.
There might be lots of folks who filter people but who never announce it. Of course, by definition that's something that we'll never get a handle on in a public forum.
Yeah, I know. My original comment was "how come folks always seem to..." and then I thought about it. I mean, if someone adds someone to their twit filter and doesnt announce it, I wouldnt notice.
It's fun to tweak the filteree by announcing that you're filtering them, which makes their response to the announcement tantalizingly invisible.
That's it! I am putting *everyone* on my twit list. Now all responses in grex will be tantalizingly invisible which means, of course, that they will all be tantalizing. Whew. Is it getting HOT in here?
that didn't tweak me, slynne. sorry...and i still love you even though you're mean. oh wait, you can't read this because you're filtering and stuff. HA HA HA! (p.s. we miss you, buy a plane ticket please...)
(I heard that slynne soaks her false teeth in beer overnight.)
(only when she sleeps nekkid on the front porch)
Oooh Ooh. Grex is sooooo tantalizing and exciting all of a sudden.
Somehow, it seemed rude not to let klg know I was ignoring he/she/it/them. :) (man, the things you miss not living in Ypsi...) :)
We are crushed!
If I were filtering I wouldn't tell the filteree, but that's because I'm paranoid enough to worry about what they would say about me behind my back.
We are crushed, too!
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:56:05 -0400 From: CNN Breaking News <BreakingNews@MAIL.CNN.COM> Senate passes legislation to ban what critics call "partial-birth" abortion. President Bush has said he will sign bill.
This response has been erased.
This was inevitable.
This response has been erased.
The Kurds probably think that the Jeb Bush situation is more disgusting...
This response has been erased.
Odd question I had: Does Jeb Bush's order effectively also force the husband to keep paying for her care?
This response has been erased.
Re#138 I think there is some money ($1.7 million) she was awarded as part of a law suit that is designated for her care. I dont know how much of that money is left but I imagine that enough is that her husband wont be financially burdened by her continued care. But that does bring up an interesting issue. I mean, what if there wasnt a law suit. Who *would* be responsible for paying for on going care?
I think she was removed to a different facility. If I remember correctly, it gives the courts the opportunity to also appoint a different gaurdian. The hopice is supposedly caring for her for free currently.
maudlin whores.
You have several choices: