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.

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.

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?

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.)

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.

response 47 of 142:

Oct 5 06:33 UTC 2003

stop it, you guys are upsetting bruce.

response 49 of 142:

Oct 5 13:43 UTC 2003

does it require a D & C or is it just the cheap way out?

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.)