|
Grex > Agora47 > #52: House passes ban on "partial birth" abortions | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 142 responses total. |
russ
|
|
response 31 of 142:
| 
Oct 4 03:17 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 32 of 142:
|
Oct 4 03:36 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 33 of 142:
|
Oct 4 04:55 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
bru
|
|
response 34 of 142:
|
Oct 4 07:14 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
other
|
|
response 35 of 142:
|
Oct 4 07:44 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
scott
|
|
response 36 of 142:
|
Oct 4 13:04 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
keesan
|
|
response 37 of 142:
|
Oct 4 16:59 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
bru
|
|
response 38 of 142:
|
Oct 4 18:30 UTC 2003 |
I don't have all the answers. Never did and probably never will.
BUt that does not change the fact that abortion is murder.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 39 of 142:
|
Oct 4 20:11 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
other
|
|
response 40 of 142:
|
Oct 4 20:18 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
bru
|
|
response 41 of 142:
|
Oct 4 23:30 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
gull
|
|
response 42 of 142:
|
Oct 5 00:11 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
gull
|
|
response 43 of 142:
|
Oct 5 00:12 UTC 2003 |
(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.)
|
russ
|
|
response 44 of 142:
|
Oct 5 04:59 UTC 2003 |
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.)
|
polygon
|
|
response 45 of 142:
|
Oct 5 05:07 UTC 2003 |
Actually, given that Bruce's side is winning this war, I appreciate that
he's not gloating about it.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 142:
|
Oct 5 06:12 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 47 of 142:
|
Oct 5 06:33 UTC 2003 |
stop it, you guys are upsetting bruce.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 48 of 142:
|
Oct 5 06:45 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
bru
|
|
response 49 of 142:
|
Oct 5 13:43 UTC 2003 |
does it require a D & C or is it just the cheap way out?
|
slynne
|
|
response 50 of 142:
|
Oct 5 15:38 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
cmcgee
|
|
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 52 of 142:
|
Oct 5 19:15 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
russ
|
|
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.
|
bru
|
|
response 54 of 142:
|
Oct 5 20:42 UTC 2003 |
seems like russ has swallowed the party line, not me.
I still say there is a better way than killing a chilep
|
mary
|
|
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.
|