The Great Abortion Compromise!

[nt250]

Educate yourself please.
http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/pba.shtml

http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/

And if it's MY child, I dmaned sure do have the right to tell the woman what I think about it. If positions are reversed and she wants the child and I want it aborted, guess what I get to pay for for the next 18 years?

You want to give the woman an escape from the consequences of her actions ....where's MINE?

I've seen all that stuff before, it's propaganda.

I agree completely with you about men not being responsible for a baby they never intended to have and don't want. No single man should be force to pay for the decision a woman makes to have a baby. If she can't support it by herself she should abort it or give it up for adoption.

No single man should be forced to pay for a 30 second mistake for 20 years. If he married the mother? That's entirely different. Marriage is a commitment and children are a part of the marriage contract. Any man who walks away from his financial responsibilty for his children from a marriage should be legally responsible to provide for them and any that don't are pond scum.

But if a single woman chooses to have a baby, and the man doesn't want it, he should not be forced to pay for it or have any obligation at all.

 

[MtnBiker]

If you look at the wikipedia link I posted, it lists the procedure she desribes as also being considered partial-birth abortion. I somehow don't think it is that particular procedure anyone gives a hoot about.

One procedure is an extraction, the other is an abortion.

 

[MtnBiker]

I've seen all that stuff before, it's propaganda.

The Library of Congress is in the business of propaganda?

 

[Gunny]

I've seen all that stuff before, it's propaganda.

WHAT-ever. LMAO. The procedure as described is fact. I can't do anything about you not looking at the truth.

I'm not in the business of propaganda, and don't need any to support my argument.

I agree completely with you about men not being responsible for a baby they never intended to have and don't want. No single man should be force to pay for the decision a woman makes to have a baby. If she can't support it by herself she should abort it or give it up for adoption.

No single man should be forced to pay for a 30 second mistake for 20 years. If he married the mother? That's entirely different. Marriage is a commitment and children are a part of the marriage contract. Any man who walks away from his financial responsibilty for his children from a marriage should be legally responsible to provide for them and any that don't are pond scum.

But if a single woman chooses to have a baby, and the man doesn't want it, he should not be forced to pay for it or have any obligation at all.

My belief is BOTH parties are responsible and have a child to raise or put up for adoption. Abortion as a means of birth control so people can escape the consequences of their actions is bull, plain and simple.

I support abortion only as a lifesaving procedure of last resort. That is justifiable. Abortion for convenience is not, IMO.

 

[Gunny]

One procedure is an extraction, the other is an abortion.

Hey, I agree with you. I don't know why they have it listed as a partial-birth abortion. Everything I have ever read concerns the procedure being done to third term, living babies.

Extracting a stillborn seems to be a logical procedure to me.

However, didn't President Bush make it illegal to perform partial birth abortions except as a matter of medical necessity? I believe it is no longer a procedure of choice at the individual level.

 

[MtnBiker]

Hey, I agree with you. I don't know why they have it listed as a partial-birth abortion. Everything I have ever read concerns the procedure being done to third term, living babies.

Extracting a stillborn seems to be a logical procedure to me.

However, didn't President Bush make it illegal to perform partial birth abortions except as a matter of medical necessity? I believe it is no longer a procedure of choice at the individual level.

Agreed.

 

[dilloduck]

I've seen all that stuff before, it's propaganda.

I agree completely with you about men not being responsible for a baby they never intended to have and don't want. No single man should be force to pay for the decision a woman makes to have a baby. If she can't support it by herself she should abort it or give it up for adoption.

No single man should be forced to pay for a 30 second mistake for 20 years. If he married the mother? That's entirely different. Marriage is a commitment and children are a part of the marriage contract. Any man who walks away from his financial responsibilty for his children from a marriage should be legally responsible to provide for them and any that don't are pond scum.

But if a single woman chooses to have a baby, and the man doesn't want it, he should not be forced to pay for it or have any obligation at all.

 

[Dr Grump]

Not true.

http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/pba.shtml

Your link is from an admittedly pro-life site. Also, the nurse in question did not state why the abortion was being performed. Also, it's using three citations, two of which are minor and hardly bear any help for the partial birth abortion cause. However, it is the last citation that piqued my curiosity. They cite Dr Warren Hern saying Partial Birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the women's health. Really. Check out this link re evidence he gave on Nov 17th with regard to D&E (he doesn't even call the procedure PBA).

http://www.drhern.com/senatestatement.html

Here are a few nuggets:


The bill under consideration, S. 939, is called the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act," but there is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion." This is an operation which has never been described in the medical literature, and as far as I know, it does not exist.

Since the fetus is usually dead by this point, whether due to an induced abortion or miscarriage.

Again, the fetus is usually dead at the point at which this occurs. I think fetal death is often brought about by infarction (death) of the placenta as the result of other kinds of treatment such as those that cause uterine irritability.

A common approach to abortion by some obstetricians who have discovered a severe fetal anomaly

The principal purpose of an abortion is to end a pregnancy which threatens a woman's life or which she wants terminated. The considerations for the fetus are secondary to the safety and welfare of the woman seeking the abortion.

It is simply not possible for others to second guess the surgeon's judgment in the operating room. That would be dangerous and unacceptable.


Duration of pregnancy and reasons for late abortion
While about 1% of all abortions are performed after about 20 weeks of pregnancy, only about .03%, or fewer than 500, are performed after 26 weeks. The majority of these are now performed by me or one of my medical colleagues. These abortions are almost always performed for the most tragic reasons of severe fetal anomaly, genetic disorder, or immediate risk to the woman's life. They are not performed for frivolous reasons, contrary to statements by those opposed to abortion.


This means that a woman is ten or more times likely to die if she carries a pregnancy to term than if she has an abortion. For women at high risk of pregnancy complications, the risk of death may be 100 times greater for carrying the pregnancy to term.


The women who seek late abortion always do so for serious reasons. My experience has been that the women who seek my services are experiencing great pain and anguish, along with their family members, as the result of a very difficult decision.

The doctor, within the link, gives examples of when he had performed D&E...

 

[Gunny]

Your link is from an admittedly pro-life site. Also, the nurse in question did not state why the abortion was being performed. Also, it's using three citations, two of which are minor and hardly bear any help for the partial birth abortion cause. However, it is the last citation that piqued my curiosity. They cite Dr Warren Hern saying Partial Birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the women's health. Really. Check out this link re evidence he gave on Nov 17th with regard to D&E (he doesn't even call the procedure PBA).

http://www.drhern.com/senatestatement.html

Here are a few nuggets:


The bill under consideration, S. 939, is called the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act," but there is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion." This is an operation which has never been described in the medical literature, and as far as I know, it does not exist.

Since the fetus is usually dead by this point, whether due to an induced abortion or miscarriage.

Again, the fetus is usually dead at the point at which this occurs. I think fetal death is often brought about by infarction (death) of the placenta as the result of other kinds of treatment such as those that cause uterine irritability.

A common approach to abortion by some obstetricians who have discovered a severe fetal anomaly

The principal purpose of an abortion is to end a pregnancy which threatens a woman's life or which she wants terminated. The considerations for the fetus are secondary to the safety and welfare of the woman seeking the abortion.

It is simply not possible for others to second guess the surgeon's judgment in the operating room. That would be dangerous and unacceptable.


Duration of pregnancy and reasons for late abortion
While about 1% of all abortions are performed after about 20 weeks of pregnancy, only about .03%, or fewer than 500, are performed after 26 weeks. The majority of these are now performed by me or one of my medical colleagues. These abortions are almost always performed for the most tragic reasons of severe fetal anomaly, genetic disorder, or immediate risk to the woman's life. They are not performed for frivolous reasons, contrary to statements by those opposed to abortion.


This means that a woman is ten or more times likely to die if she carries a pregnancy to term than if she has an abortion. For women at high risk of pregnancy complications, the risk of death may be 100 times greater for carrying the pregnancy to term.


The women who seek late abortion always do so for serious reasons. My experience has been that the women who seek my services are experiencing great pain and anguish, along with their family members, as the result of a very difficult decision.

The doctor, within the link, gives examples of when he had performed D&E...

Whether or not the sites or pro-life or pro-choice -- I just went down the line posting links -- it isn't about reading the political ideology.

We posted links that describe the procedure itself for the purpose of proving what the procedure it is.

You're going off on a tangent for no reason.

 

[MtnBiker]

Whether or not the sites or pro-life or pro-choice -- I just went down the line posting links -- it isn't about reading the political ideology.

We posted links that describe the procedure itself for the purpose of proving what the procedure it is.

You're going off on a tangent for no reason.

Quite right.

I believe it would be quite reasonable to think that the partial birth abortion procedure was rare and done under extreme circumstances. However I also believe it would be reasonable to think that the procedure has been done without extreme circumstances pending, other than the fact that the mother did not want to bring the pregnancy to term.

 

[jillian]

Whether or not the sites or pro-life or pro-choice -- I just went down the line posting links -- it isn't about reading the political ideology.

Of course it is. Pro-life sites routinely misstate the reasons for the procedure.

We posted links that describe the procedure itself for the purpose of proving what the procedure it is.

You post links that are self-serving and unscientific because the scientific community is pretty unanimous about wanting any medical decision to be between the woman and her doctor.

You're going off on a tangent for no reason.

I don't think it was going off on a tangent. What troubles me about this entire debate is the intention of one group of people to force everyone else to accept and live by a moral code derived from particular religious beliefs. While I support everyone pursuing their own beliefs, I don't believe those beliefs should be imposed on the rest of us.

No one has a lock on morality....

 

[Dr Grump]

Whether or not the sites or pro-life or pro-choice -- I just went down the line posting links -- it isn't about reading the political ideology.

We posted links that describe the procedure itself for the purpose of proving what the procedure it is.

You're going off on a tangent for no reason.

Going off on a tangent? I've just shot your whole PBA argument to shreds, and I'm going off on a tangent? Did you even read the link? This is a doctor that the pro-life site, which Mtnbkr linked to, said PBA's were rarely performed to save the life of the women, when in fact he said the exact opposite! Not only did he say the exact opposite, he gives three examples of where he performed the abortion to SAVE the woman's life. Please read the link before answering because if everybody reads the link and then your answer it makes you look silly - and I know you ain't silly...

 

[dilloduck]

Of course it is. Pro-life sites routinely misstate the reasons for the procedure.



You post links that are self-serving and unscientific because the scientific community is pretty unanimous about wanting any medical decision to be between the woman and her doctor.



I don't think it was going off on a tangent. What troubles me about this entire debate is the intention of one group of people to force everyone else to accept and live by a moral code derived from particular religious beliefs. While I support everyone pursuing their own beliefs, I don't believe those beliefs should be imposed on the rest of us.

No one has a lock on morality....

I'll give you credit for at least being able to cut to the chase on the abortion issue. You just don't like being told what to do.

 

[MtnBiker]

this entire debate is the intention of one group of people to force everyone else to accept and live by a moral code derived from particular religious beliefs.

Conjecture.

 

[Dr Grump]

Quite right.

I believe it would be quite reasonable to think that the partial birth abortion procedure was rare and done under extreme circumstances. However I also believe it would be reasonable to think that the procedure has been done without extreme circumstances pending, other than the fact that the mother did not want to bring the pregnancy to term.

Again, the doctor's own examples, he had no time to think, he had to perform the procedure straight away.

So reading both yourself and Gunny's answers are you both saying, it's not the fact the abortions are peformed that it is how they are performed? If it is that they are performed, then my argument stands, if it is the procedure, I doubt any doctor is happy about performing it and if there was a better method I'm sure they'd use it.

 

[dilloduck]

Again, the doctor's own examples, he had no time to think, he had to perform the procedure straight away.

So reading both yourself and Gunny's answers are you both saying, it's not the fact the abortions are peformed that it is how they are performed? If it is that they are performed, then my argument stands, if it is the procedure, I doubt any doctor is happy about performing it and if there was a better method I'm sure they'd use it.

You're lost in details---check with your pard--she's on the right track.

 

[Gunny]

Of course it is. Pro-life sites routinely misstate the reasons for the procedure.

Let me try this again for the s-l-o-w kid ..... it isn't about the reasons at all. It's about the procedure itself.


You post links that are self-serving and unscientific because the scientific community is pretty unanimous about wanting any medical decision to be between the woman and her doctor.

Try reading my post again. I went down the line. Google it up yourself and you will see I did. Nothing self-serving about it. I was looking for descriptions of the procedure itself.




I don't think it was going off on a tangent. What troubles me about this entire debate is the intention of one group of people to force everyone else to accept and live by a moral code derived from particular religious beliefs. While I support everyone pursuing their own beliefs, I don't believe those beliefs should be imposed on the rest of us.

No one has a lock on morality....

No threat of you libs getting a lock on morality.

It is going off on a tangent because nt250 was trying to say partial birth abortions were performed only on dead fetuses. The purpose of the links was to disprove THAT, not sell anything.

Try looking past your partsian bullshit and accept the simple English for what it is. I don't need any links, religion, nor anything else to argue against partial birth abortion. It's barbaric, and if it isn't due to medical necessity, it is a barabric act perpetrated by barbarians. Simple as THAT.

 

[MtnBiker]

THE PROCEDURE
Thousands of partial-birth abortions are performed each year primarily in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy on the healthy babies of healthy mothers. The child involved in a partial-birth abortion is not unborn. His or her life is taken during a breach delivery. The breach delivery, a procedure which obstetricians use in some circumstances to bring a healthy child into the world, is perverted when a partial-birth abortion is performed to result in a dead child. The physician, traditionally trained to do everything in his power to assist and protect both mother and child during the birth process, deliberately kills the child in the birth canal. While every abortion takes a human life, the partial-birth abortion method takes that life during the fifth month of pregnancy or later as the baby emerges from the mother's womb. H.R. 929 would end this cruel practice.

One abortionist described the partial-birth abortion procedure that he uses primarily in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy:

The surgeon introduces a large grasping forceps * * * through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus. * * * When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity [leg]. The surgeon then applies firm traction to the instrument * * * and pulls the extremity into the vagina. * * *

With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities [arms].

The skull lodges at the internal cervical os.

At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left had [sic] along the back of the fetus and `hooks' the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).

While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.

[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.1

[Footnote]

[Footnote] 1Martin Haskell, M.D., `Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortions,' Presented at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar (September 13, 1992), in Second Trimester Abortion: From Every Angle, 1992, [hereinafter Haskell] at 27, 30-31.

This method is particularly brutal and inhuman. Brenda Shafer, a registered nurse who witnessed a partial-birth abortion procedure while working for an Ohio abortionist, conveyed the abhorrent nature of the procedure in a letter to Congressman Tony Hall. Nurse Shafer wrote that witnessing the procedure was `the most horrible experience of my life.' She described watching one baby:

The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. All the while his little head was still stuck inside. Dr. Haskell took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head. Then he opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out.

Next, Dr. Haskell delivered the baby's head, cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta.2

[Footnote]

[Footnote] 2Letter from Brenda Shafer, R.N., to Congressman Tony Hall (July 9, 1995) (on file with the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary).


Clearly, the only difference between the partial-birth abortion procedure and homicide is a mere three inches.
The partial-birth abortion procedure is performed from around 20 weeks to full term.3

[Footnote] It is well documented that a baby is highly sensitive to pain stimuli during this period and even earlier.4

[Footnote] In fact, in a study conducted on fetuses between 20 to 34 weeks of gestation at the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital in London, researchers concluded:

[Footnote] 3There are several abortion techniques employed between 20 weeks and full term. The techniques fall under the general categories of partial-birth abortion, dilation and evacuation, and amnioinfusion. In the dilation and evacuation procedures the baby is dismembered and removed from the uterus in pieces. See, D.A. Grimes and W. Cates, Jr., `Dilation and Evacuation,' Second Trimester Abortion--Perspectives After a Decade of Experience (G.S. Berger et al. eds., 1981). Amnioinfusion requires the injection of saline or other solutions into the amniotic cavity. The solution kills the baby, and labor is induced. See, Warren M. Hern, M.D., M.P.H., Abortion Practice (1984).

[Footnote] 4See, e.g., K.J.S. Anand and P.R. Hickey, `Pain and Its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus,' 317 The New England Journal of Medicine, 1321; V. Collins et al., `Fetal Pain and Abortion: The Medical Evidence,' Studies in Law and Medicine (1984); S. Reinis and J.M. Goldman, The Development of the Brain (1980).

Just as physicians now provide neonates with adequate analgesia, our findings suggest that those dealing with the fetus should consider making similar modifications to their practice. This applies not just to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures on the fetus, but possibly also to termination of pregnancy, especially by surgical techniques involving dismemberment.5

[Footnote]

[Footnote] 5Xenophon Giannakoulopoulos et al., `Fetal Plasma Cortisol and b-Endorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling,' The Lancet, July 9, 1994, at 77, 80.

In his testimony before the Constitution Subcommittee on June 15, 1995, Professor Robert White, Director of the Division of Neurosurgery and Brain Research Laboratory at Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, stated, `The fetus within this time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond, is fully capable of experiencing pain.'6

[Footnote] After specifically analyzing the partial-birth abortion procedure, Dr. White concluded, `Without question, all of this is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.'7

[Footnote]

[Footnote] 6Hearing on Partial-Birth Abortion Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., (1995) [hereinafter Hearing] (testimony of Robert J. White, M.D., Ph.D.).

[Footnote] 7Id.

Library of Congresshttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp105jaC4x&refer=&r_n=hr024.105&db_id=105&item=&sel=TOC_6334&

 

[Gunny]

Again, the doctor's own examples, he had no time to think, he had to perform the procedure straight away.

So reading both yourself and Gunny's answers are you both saying, it's not the fact the abortions are peformed that it is how they are performed? If it is that they are performed, then my argument stands, if it is the procedure, I doubt any doctor is happy about performing it and if there was a better method I'm sure they'd use it.

You can read my response to Jillian, or in a nutshell, the argument was concering what the actual procedure is, not the politics behind it. nt250 said it's performed only on dead fetuses, and anything else is propaganda. We were trying to give her proof of what the actual procedure is.

 

[Dr Grump]

You're lost in details---check with your pard--she's on the right track.

And yet the post from Gunny following this one (I am replying to) suggests otherwise (check out his first answer to her)