|
Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 |
|
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
The one aspect of abortion that bothers me is the idea of multiple abortions. I have known women who had 3 abortions (3 that they admit to). I do not think that there is a realistic way to regulate that and I do not think that a woman who was a victim of rape should be denied an abortion, even if she has had them before.
The government should probably not get into regulating which circumstances justify a person having multiple abortions. However, it bothers me. I am pro-choice, without any doubt, but abortion is not the same as birth control.
I do not see the issue that I raised as a reason to regulate abortion across the board, it is just how I feel. I do wish we could regulate it, but the repercussions could be dangerous.
Message edited 4/18/2007 5:23:04 PM.
|
Posted 4/18/07 5:21 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
Maathy317
Grammie's Little Man
Member since 2/06 3235 total posts
Name:
D
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
It's about time. It's a barbaric practice that should not be legal in a civilized society.
I agree. If you deliver a child to the point where everything is out but the head, why can't you deliver the rest? This child is viable. This child can breathe on their own and they can feel pain and to perform this procedure is cruel and savage. As this poster said, this is a "civilized" society and this procedure should not be tolerated in any way. If a mother's health is in danger, an emergency c-section can be performed and this child can be removed from her in a very short period of time. I am not at all in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, but, this procedure is obscene.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 5:41 PM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Please read this and get the facts.
1.4% of all abortions are performed this way.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 5:49 PM |
| |
|
Woodsy
LIF Infant
Member since 6/05 241 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Interesting link.... It cites to a NYT article where a pro choice advocate acknowledges that "the vast majority" of PBAs are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies over 20 weeks. He admits that the procedure is "a form of killing" and the "ending of a life" but still zealously advocates the procedure. Nice, huh??
And 1.4% is a lot...about 5,000 a year! (even 1 is too many in a civilized society!!)
New York Times
|
| Posted 4/18/07 8:27 PM |
| |
|
~Colleen~
my loves...
Member since 5/05 9129 total posts
Name:
guess
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
Interesting link.... It cites to a NYT article where a pro choice advocate acknowledges that "the vast majority" of PBAs are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies over 20 weeks. He admits that the procedure is "a form of killing" and the "ending of a life" but still zealously advocates the procedure. Nice, huh??
And 1.4% is a lot...about 5,000 a year! (even 1 is too many in a civilized society!!)
New York Times
I find it hard to believe that this is an actual NYT article. In fact, if you read it further you will see that it is published by the NRLC. The "article" is littered with anti-choice rhetoric - "PBA" and "pro abortion" are not scientific terms nor are they accurate - both are politically charged and driven. You will be hard pressed to find a pro-choicer who actually advocates abortion - PC advocates choice.
Additionally, 1.4% equates to 2500-3000/year - not 5000.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 8:40 PM |
| |
|
Booklady1017
Information Goddess
Member since 5/05 4149 total posts
Name:
Michelle
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
I have an issue if they have a problem with a women getting one for health reasons. That IS WRONG!
|
| Posted 4/18/07 9:00 PM |
| |
|
nrthshgrl
It goes fast. Pay attention.
Member since 7/05 57538 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
This was debated before on the FHF board. I posted the article from the Boston Globe regarding late term abortions. For those of you who missed it & have plenty of time to read the article here is the link.
Unless this ruling allows for the quality of life issue for the baby & the health care exception for the mother, I consider the law barbaric.
I've stated this before but here it goes again:
I believe that life does not begin at conception, but the potential for life begins at conception. When weighing factors such as a mother's health vs. the potential baby's health, I believe the living, breathing human being's right supercede all rights. I also believe that we need allowances for the quality of life for the baby once it is born. Bringing a child into this world to suffer for its brief time on Earth needs to be the decision of the parents - not the goverment.
.....
Potential life vs Actual life. I've seen too many miscarriages in the first and second trimester to believe it's a life that has rights.
Posted by Maathy317
I agree. If you deliver a child to the point where everything is out but the head, why can't you deliver the rest? This child is viable. This child can breathe on their own and they can feel pain and to perform this procedure is cruel and savage. As this poster said, this is a "civilized" society and this procedure should not be tolerated in any way. If a mother's health is in danger, an emergency c-section can be performed and this child can be removed from her in a very short period of time. I am not at all in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, but, this procedure is obscene.
You stated if the mother's health is in danger - what if the child isn't viable? Should we cut the mother open then? Or do we force these women to go through their labor & deliver their child - some who will be stillborn, others that will live in agony only to die months later? Who is the government to take away this option to ease these women's ordeal?
I've seen my SIL labor for hours, knowing full well her baby would not survive. I've seen her struggle with the pain of a csection & have that scar as a reminder of that day (as if she needed one more). It is not humane to force these women to go through her last 2 trimesters, knowing she will be answering "how is the baby? Is he crawling yet?" questions from every well-meaning stranger. It is a choice that THEY, and only THEY should make.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 9:12 PM |
| |
|
stayandjohn
Our life is complete
Member since 5/05 5909 total posts
Name:
Stacey
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Your pregnant for 20+ weeks, obviously the baby has a fighting chance if delivered early. If the pro-choice is saying that PBA's are usually done to save the mothers life, why are the babys killed? It makes no sense, why doesnt the child have a chance?
The child cannot be kept alive? I'm sorry call me naive or whatever, but this whole PBA does not make an ounce of sense to me
|
| Posted 4/18/07 9:13 PM |
| |
|
nov04libride
big brother <3
Member since 5/05 14672 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by ~Colleen~
Posted by Woodsy
Interesting link.... It cites to a NYT article where a pro choice advocate acknowledges that "the vast majority" of PBAs are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies over 20 weeks. He admits that the procedure is "a form of killing" and the "ending of a life" but still zealously advocates the procedure. Nice, huh??
And 1.4% is a lot...about 5,000 a year! (even 1 is too many in a civilized society!!)
New York Times
I find it hard to believe that this is an actual NYT article. In fact, if you read it further you will see that it is published by the NRLC. The "article" is littered with anti-choice rhetoric - "PBA" and "pro abortion" are not scientific terms nor are they accurate - both are politically charged and driven. You will be hard pressed to find a pro-choicer who actually advocates abortion - PC advocates choice.
Additionally, 1.4% equates to 2500-3000/year - not 5000.
It's not a NYT article. I have access to a database with all of their articles and it's not there.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 9:25 PM |
| |
|
Bxgell2
Perfection
Member since 5/05 16438 total posts
Name:
Beth
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Well, I read through the entire opinion, and three things are clear:
1- The Supreme Court held that a health exception to the ban is not necessary
2 - The ban prohbits partial birth abortions PRE and POST viability
3 - The ban prohibits only "intact" partial abortions, not all partial birth abortions (intact is when the baby is partially delivered alive, and subsequently killed)
It's all semantics, really, which is the most frightening aspect of all. The court draws a line between a regular partial-birth abortion and an "intact" partial-birth abortion, claiming that the intact version violates a sense of humanity (and yet, somehow, killing the fetus in the mom and removing it limb by limb, re-entering the cervix upwards of 15 times isn't?)
I see our future here, and it's a little dismaying - this particular ban only addresses intact partial abortions. Pro-choicers, taking a clear and recognizable signal from the supreme court, will likely start drafting new bans covering a range of different types of abortions. When presented with the vast array of abortion options, I question what decision the Supreme Court will make, and how it will make that determination.
What's essential is that they have taken the first step in undercutting the rights and privileges afforded to women in the Roe, and Casey decision. Make no mistake - this decision squarely undercuts the Roe decision. In that, the court ruled that a woman has a right to choose an abortion BEFORE viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the state. It also ruled that a State retains the power to restrict abortions AFTER fetal viability, if, and only if, the law contains exceptions for pregnancies that endanger the woman's life or health.
These two elements are CLEARLY missing in the ban that was just validated by the Supreme Court.
What I find the most dismaying and disheartening in all of this is that something so significant to our lives, so meaningful no matter which side of the issue you stand on, and yet, it didn't make any significant headlines
|
| Posted 4/18/07 10:10 PM |
| |
|
monkeybride
My Everything
Member since 5/05 20541 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by nrthshgrl
This was debated before on the FHF board. I posted the article from the Boston Globe regarding late term abortions. For those of you who missed it & have plenty of time to read the article here is the link.
Unless this ruling allows for the quality of life issue for the baby & the health care exception for the mother, I consider the law barbaric.
I've stated this before but here it goes again:
I believe that life does not begin at conception, but the potential for life begins at conception. When weighing factors such as a mother's health vs. the potential baby's health, I believe the living, breathing human being's right supercede all rights. I also believe that we need allowances for the quality of life for the baby once it is born. Bringing a child into this world to suffer for its brief time on Earth needs to be the decision of the parents - not the goverment.
.....
Potential life vs Actual life. I've seen too many miscarriages in the first and second trimester to believe it's a life that has rights.
Posted by Maathy317
I agree. If you deliver a child to the point where everything is out but the head, why can't you deliver the rest? This child is viable. This child can breathe on their own and they can feel pain and to perform this procedure is cruel and savage. As this poster said, this is a "civilized" society and this procedure should not be tolerated in any way. If a mother's health is in danger, an emergency c-section can be performed and this child can be removed from her in a very short period of time. I am not at all in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, but, this procedure is obscene.
You stated if the mother's health is in danger - what if the child isn't viable? Should we cut the mother open then? Or do we force these women to go through their labor & deliver their child - some who will be stillborn, others that will live in agony only to die months later? Who is the government to take away this option to ease these women's ordeal?
I've seen my SIL labor for hours, knowing full well her baby would not survive. I've seen her struggle with the pain of a csection & have that scar as a reminder of that day (as if she needed one more). It is not humane to force these women to go through her last 2 trimesters, knowing she will be answering "how is the baby? Is he crawling yet?" questions from every well-meaning stranger. It is a choice that THEY, and only THEY should make.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I remember this debate before an the article. I can't say anything more because these debates make my head spin.
|
| Posted 4/18/07 11:18 PM |
| |
|
2girlsforme
LIF Adult
Member since 8/06 3071 total posts
Name:
XXXXXXXXX
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by monkeybride
Posted by nrthshgrl
This was debated before on the FHF board. I posted the article from the Boston Globe regarding late term abortions. For those of you who missed it & have plenty of time to read the article here is the link.
Unless this ruling allows for the quality of life issue for the baby & the health care exception for the mother, I consider the law barbaric.
I've stated this before but here it goes again:
I believe that life does not begin at conception, but the potential for life begins at conception. When weighing factors such as a mother's health vs. the potential baby's health, I believe the living, breathing human being's right supercede all rights. I also believe that we need allowances for the quality of life for the baby once it is born. Bringing a child into this world to suffer for its brief time on Earth needs to be the decision of the parents - not the goverment.
.....
Potential life vs Actual life. I've seen too many miscarriages in the first and second trimester to believe it's a life that has rights.
Posted by Maathy317
I agree. If you deliver a child to the point where everything is out but the head, why can't you deliver the rest? This child is viable. This child can breathe on their own and they can feel pain and to perform this procedure is cruel and savage. As this poster said, this is a "civilized" society and this procedure should not be tolerated in any way. If a mother's health is in danger, an emergency c-section can be performed and this child can be removed from her in a very short period of time. I am not at all in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, but, this procedure is obscene.
You stated if the mother's health is in danger - what if the child isn't viable? Should we cut the mother open then? Or do we force these women to go through their labor & deliver their child - some who will be stillborn, others that will live in agony only to die months later? Who is the government to take away this option to ease these women's ordeal?
I've seen my SIL labor for hours, knowing full well her baby would not survive. I've seen her struggle with the pain of a csection & have that scar as a reminder of that day (as if she needed one more). It is not humane to force these women to go through her last 2 trimesters, knowing she will be answering "how is the baby? Is he crawling yet?" questions from every well-meaning stranger. It is a choice that THEY, and only THEY should make.
Couldn't have said it better myself. I remember this debate before an the article. I can't say anything more because these debates make my head spin.
I too couldn't agree more nor said it better.
|
| Posted 4/19/07 9:16 AM |
| |
|
Woodsy
LIF Infant
Member since 6/05 241 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by nov04libride
[
It's not a NYT article. I have access to a database with all of their articles and it's not there.
Wrong. Your database must not go back far enough. (This is a 2/97 article.) It took me about 10 seconds to find this article on Westlaw. By the way, the other link I posted was linked from Wikipedia.
Obviously, it is easier to ignore these facts and to claim this article is a lie than to actually advocate such a position.
2/26/97 N.Y. Times A12
1997 WLNR 4829039
New York Times (NY)
Copyright (c) 1997 The New York Times. All rights reserved.
February 26, 1997
Section: A
An Abortion Rights Advocate Says He Lied About Procedure
DAVID STOUT
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of National Coalition of Abortion Providers, says he lied in earlier statements when he described intact dilation and evacuation, controversial form of late-term abortion, as rare and performed primarily to save lives or fertility of women bearing severely malformed infants; says he is currently convinced that issue of whether procedure remains legal must be based on truth (M)
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 A prominent member of the abortion rights movement said today that he lied in earlier statements when he said a controversial form of late-term abortion is rare and performed primarily to save the lives or fertility of women bearing severely malformed babies.
He now says the procedure is performed far more often than his colleagues have acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses.
Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, said he intentionally misled in previous remarks about the procedure, called intact dilation and evacuation by those who believe it should remain legal and "partial-birth abortion" by those who believe it should be outlawed, because he feared that the truth would damage the cause of abortion rights.
But he is now convinced, he said, that the issue of whether the procedure remains legal, like the overall debate about abortion, must be based on the truth.
In an article in American Medical News, to be published March 3, and an interview today, Mr. Fitzsimmons recalled the night in November 1995, when he appeared on "Nightline" on ABC and "lied through my teeth" when he said the procedure was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged.
"It made me physically ill," Mr. Fitzsimmons said in an interview. "I told my wife the next day, 'I can't do this again.' "
Mr. Fitzsmmons said that after that interview he stayed on the sidelines of the debate for a while, but with growing unease. As much as he disagreed with the National Right to Life Committee and others who oppose abortion under any circumstances, he said he knew they were accurate when they said the procedure was common.
In the procedure, a fetus is partly extracted from the birth canal, feet first, and the brain is then suctioned out.
Last fall, Congress failed to override a Presidential veto of a law that would have banned the procedure, which abortion opponents insist borders on infanticide and some abortion rights advocates also believe should be outlawed as particularly gruesome. Polls have shown that such a ban has popular support.
Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, has suggested a compromise that would prohibit all third-trimester abortions, except in cases involving the "life of the mother and severe impairment of her health."
The Right to Life Committee and its allies have complained repeatedly that abortion-rights supporters have misled politicians, journalists and the general public about the frequency and the usual circumstances of the procedure.
"The abortion lobby manufactures disinformation," Douglas Johnson, the committee's legislative director, said today. He said Mr. Fitzsimmon's account would clarify the debate on this procedure, which is expected to be renewed in Congress.
Mr. Fitzsimmons predicted today that the controversial procedure would be considered by the courts no matter what lawmakers decide.
Last April, President Clinton vetoed a bill that would have outlawed the controversial procedure. There were enough opponents in the House to override his veto but not in the Senate. In explaining the veto, Mr. Clinton echoed the argument of Mr. Fitzsimmons and his colleagues.
"There are a few hundred women every year who have personally agonizing situations where their children are born or are about to be born with terrible deformities, which will cause them to die either just before, during or just after childbirth," the President said. "And these women, among other things, cannot preserve the ability to have further children unless the enormity -- the enormous size of the baby's head -- is reduced before being extracted from their bodies." A spokeswoman for Mr. Clinton said tonight that the White House knew nothing of Mr. Fitzsimmons's announcement and would not comment further.
In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Mr. Fitzsimmons said. "The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else," he said in the article in the Medical News, an American Medical Association publication.
Mr. Fitzsimmons, whose Alexandria, Va., coalition represents about 200 independently owned clinics, said coalition members were being notified of his announcement.
One of the facts of abortion, he said, is that women enter abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. "It is a form of killing," he said. "You're ending a life."
And while he said that troubled him, Mr. Fitzsimmons said he continued to support this procedure and abortion rights in general.
---- INDEX REFERENCES ----
COMPANY: ABC INCO
NEWS SUBJECT: (Legislation (1LE97); Health & Family (1HE30); Government (1GO80))
INDUSTRY: (Healthcare Policy (1HE46); Bioethics (1BI56); Women's Health (1WO30); Healthcare (1HE06); Contraception (1CO66); Healthcare Practice Specialties (1HE49))
REGION: (USA (1US73); Americas (1AM92); North America (1NO39))
Language: EN
OTHER INDEXING: (Stout, David; Fitzsimmons, Ron) (ABC; AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; AMERICAN MEDICAL NEWS; CONGRESS; DEMOCRATIC; LIFE COMMITTEE; MEDICAL NEWS; NATIONAL; NATIONAL COALITION OF ABORTION; SENATE; WHITE HOUSE) (Clinton; Congress; Douglas Johnson; Fitzsimmon; Fitzsimmons; Fitzsmmons; Ron Fitzsimmons; Tom Daschle) (Abortion; Ethics; Biographical Information)
COMPANY TERMS: NATIONAL COALITION OF ABORTION PROVIDERS
EDITION: Late Edition - Final
Word Count: 1017
2/26/97 NYT A12
END OF DOCUMENT
Message edited 4/19/2007 9:37:03 AM.
|
| Posted 4/19/07 9:36 AM |
| |
|
Woodsy
LIF Infant
Member since 6/05 241 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by ~Colleen~
[
I find it hard to believe that this is an actual NYT article. In fact, if you read it further you will see that it is published by the NRLC. The "article" is littered with anti-choice rhetoric - "PBA" and "pro abortion" are not scientific terms nor are they accurate - both are politically charged and driven. You will be hard pressed to find a pro-choicer who actually advocates abortion - PC advocates choice.
Additionally, 1.4% equates to 2500-3000/year - not 5000.
Well, from my previous post you can see this is an actual article...so if you don't like the language, bring it up with the New York Times -- not "anti choicers."
As far as the #'s, I think 1 is too many....let alone 3,000!! I actually find it difficult to accept that anyone would be comfortable with 3,000!! Especially, given the fact that it has been conceded that the vast majority are done on healthy women/babies!!!
|
| Posted 4/19/07 9:40 AM |
| |
|
nov04libride
big brother <3
Member since 5/05 14672 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
Posted by nov04libride
[
It's not a NYT article. I have access to a database with all of their articles and it's not there.
Wrong. Your database must not go back far enough. (This is a 2/97 article.) It took me about 10 seconds to find this article on Westlaw. By the way, the other link I posted was linked from Wikipedia.
Obviously, it is easier to ignore these facts and to claim this article is a lie than to actually advocate such a position.
You're right, I just found it on the NYT database. It was not on my database.
But to say "it is easier to ignore these facts and to claim this article is a lie than to actually advocate such a position."  Please.
|
| Posted 4/19/07 9:41 AM |
| |
|
~Colleen~
my loves...
Member since 5/05 9129 total posts
Name:
guess
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
Well, from my previous post you can see this is an actual article...so if you don't like the language, bring it up with the New York Times -- not "anti choicers."
As far as the #'s, I think 1 is too many....let alone 3,000!! I actually find it difficult to accept that anyone would be comfortable with 3,000!! Especially, given the fact that it has been conceded that the vast majority are done on healthy women/babies!!!
Regardless of whether the article is valid or not (I'm honestly shocked that the NYT would print an article like that - you know, b/c they're so liberal  ). I still stand by the fact that it is litered with anti-choice rhetoric and propaganda. PBA is NOT a medical term nor are pro-choicers "pro abortion".
Everyone is entitled to their opinion - I was merely pointing out that your math was incorrect. If we're going to debate, the facts need to be stated as such.
Barbara (nrthshgrl) stated, very eloquently, how I feel about this topic so I obviously disagree with you and I will leave it at that.
|
| Posted 4/19/07 10:11 AM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
Interesting link.... It cites to a NYT article where a pro choice advocate acknowledges that "the vast majority" of PBAs are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies over 20 weeks. He admits that the procedure is "a form of killing" and the "ending of a life" but still zealously advocates the procedure. Nice, huh??
And 1.4% is a lot...about 5,000 a year! (even 1 is too many in a civilized society!!)
New York Times
I posted the link b/c it has information from various sources. I like to provide a larger picture, rather than just what I think/feel.
If you noticed, one of the reasons parents opt to perform this procedure, rather than other late-term abortion procedures, it is to be able to mourn over the whole body of THEIR child.
again I add, we are dealing with expectant PARENTS and their unborn CHILDREN here.
the ruling is very alarming, if you care about Roe v. Wade.
if you are anti-choice (I hate the term Pro-life...b/c I am pro choice, but certainly not pro DEATH) it's one step closer to the ultimate goal of having a court conservative enough to overturn R v W.
Barbara has stated personal experience and reiterated what I said in a prior post.
it's agree to disagree time.
|
| Posted 4/19/07 10:33 AM |
| |
|
Woodsy
LIF Infant
Member since 6/05 241 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Ophelia
[I posted the link b/c it has information from various sources. I like to provide a larger picture, rather than just what I think/feel.
If you noticed, one of the reasons parents opt to perform this procedure, rather than other late-term abortion procedures, it is to be able to mourn over the whole body of THEIR child.
again I add, we are dealing with expectant PARENTS and their unborn CHILDREN here.
the ruling is very alarming, if you care about Roe v. Wade.
if you are anti-choice (I hate the term Pro-life...b/c I am pro choice, but certainly not pro DEATH) it's one step closer to the ultimate goal of having a court conservative enough to overturn R v W.
Barbara has stated personal experience and reiterated what I said in a prior post.
it's agree to disagree time.
Fair enough...agree to disagree and I'm certainly not about to argue semantics b/c it's pointless (choice, life).
But, I truly am confused about certain points that you brought up and one point that is glaring omitted from the pro abortion argument.
As to the omission...the NYT article indicates that the vast majority of PBAs are on healthy women/babies....so all of the stock arguments don't apply to that situation. This is an earnest question and I really would appreciate a response....
Does anybody really believe that a healthy woman should be able to perform a PBA on a healthy baby? If so, why? Abortion is legal in the first trimester and one who does not make the decision at that point should be precluded once the baby is viable.
Also...as to your argument that PBA provides a mother with the ability to mourn over the "whole" body of their aborted late term baby, I find this to be a strange argument given how brutal the procedure is. PBA does not end with an intact baby that a mother could hold and mourn and properly bury. I hate to include the gory specifics, but they do sort of defeat such an argument. From the Wikipedia site:
Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a suction curette.
Would it really be comforting for a mom to mourn over a baby with a crushed skull? Again, I consider myself an open minded and well informed person...but some of these arguments seriously perplex me.
|
| Posted 4/19/07 11:07 AM |
| |
|
Ophelia
she's baaccckkkk ;)
Member since 5/06 23378 total posts
Name:
remember, when Gulliver traveled....
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
the other option is to have the fetus dismembered in-utero, and removed piece by piece, so comparatively speaking, it is a whole baby.
and while that article is clearly biased (as Colleen has already argued and I'll leave that to her), I'll indulge your question and say this...
I BELIEVE that is is wrong and disgusting for a woman to late lerm abort a child when they are both healthy simply b/c she decided at that point she didn't want to go through with it.
BUT, for every woman that does that (and I find it VERY hard to believe that it is the majority, b/c I don't feel that most women have a cavalier attitude towards life, whether they have had an abortion or not) there is a woman that does it when the health of the fetus and/or the woman herself is at risk, or the fetus is not or will not be viable at the time of birth.
for THAT woman, the woman who has to break her heart with such a decision, I feel better leaving HER with the option to do with whatever SHE can live with...b/c I feel it is too personal for me or anyone else to decide for her.
Message edited 4/19/2007 11:18:44 AM.
|
| Posted 4/19/07 11:17 AM |
| |
|
lucyloo
nope
Member since 1/06 9758 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
I think this is a horrible decision!!!! Late term abortion is not a pretty thing and I don't know if I could ever go through with it but think of these cases!
What if this happened:
What about a 13 year old who is raped by her father and not until the 2nd trimester does she come forward... should she have to have that baby who may suffer from birth defects????
How about a mother of 3, is told if she delivers the baby she will die? So she has to die??
|
| Posted 4/19/07 11:32 AM |
| |
|
pmpkn087
Life is good...
Member since 9/05 18504 total posts
Name:
Stephanie
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Bxgell2
What I find the most dismaying and disheartening in all of this is that something so significant to our lives, so meaningful no matter which side of the issue you stand on, and yet, it didn't make any significant headlines
I very rarely respond on threads like this, but this is a topic that I feel very strongly about. Like you said, it is very sad that it did not get more coverage.
No matter what your stance is, I hope you all realize that this is just the tip of the iceburg. This ruling is just the beginning. Women's right to choose is being taken away from us right in front of our very eyes.
|
| Posted 4/19/07 11:37 AM |
| |
|
Bxgell2
Perfection
Member since 5/05 16438 total posts
Name:
Beth
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by dita
I think this is a horrible decision!!!! Late term abortion is not a pretty thing and I don't know if I could ever go through with it but think of these cases!
What if this happened:
What about a 13 year old who is raped by her father and not until the 2nd trimester does she come forward... should she have to have that baby who may suffer from birth defects????
How about a mother of 3, is told if she delivers the baby she will die? So she has to die??
To play devil's advocate here, the ban isn't prohibiting ALL second trimester abortions, let's keep that in mind. It's only banning a particular type of second trimester abortions, namely, intact partial birth abortions.
I still have a problem with the ban despite this fact because it doesn't have essential components that were clearly established by Roe v. Wade, namely, a health exception, and because it makes a non-sensical distinction between different types of abortions that could easily lead us down a road to the validation of any type of ban on any type of second trimester abortions, under this court opinion's reasoning. And, lastly, because this is such a significantly personal decision, it should not be up to the Supreme Court to decide which type of abortions are permitted and not permitted - if we are going to permit them, then we should not interfere with a woman's right in choosing which type of abortion is right for her, whether it's a purely personal decision, or for medical reasons.
|
| Posted 4/19/07 11:39 AM |
| |
|
MrsS2005
Mom of 3
Member since 11/05 13118 total posts
Name:
B
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Woodsy
As to the omission...the NYT article indicates that the vast majority of PBAs are on healthy women/babies....so all of the stock arguments don't apply to that situation. This is an earnest question and I really would appreciate a response....
This is based on one person's statement, and I honestly doubt the accuracy of it. Where is his statement coming from? Has he performed a study or examined medical records from thousands of these procedures? I doubt that.
If the mother and baby are healthy, I personally don't agree with an abortion after the first trimester. However, this Act makes no distinction between healthy mothers/babies and those whose health are at risk. It's a pure ban on the procedure. I have a problem with the fact that there's no health exception.
|
| Posted 4/19/07 11:49 AM |
| |
|
~Colleen~
my loves...
Member since 5/05 9129 total posts
Name:
guess
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by Ophelia
BUT, for every woman that does that (and I find it VERY hard to believe that it is the majority, b/c I don't feel that most women have a cavalier attitude towards life, whether they have had an abortion or not) there is a woman that does it when the health of the fetus and/or the woman herself is at risk, or the fetus is not or will not be viable at the time of birth.
for THAT woman, the woman who has to break her heart with such a decision, I feel better leaving HER with the option to do with whatever SHE can live with...b/c I feel it is too personal for me or anyone else to decide for her.
Well said.
Regardless of what the article says, I think you will be hard pressed to find a competent Dr who will just willy-nilly perform later term abortions on a healthy woman, with a healthy fetus, just b/c "she feels like it".
Perhaps the article isn't clear - perhaps the fetus is healthy but the mother is not...or the mother is healthy but the fetus is not. It is not so black & white.
Regardless of how *I* feel about abortion for me personally, I will not impose my beliefs on another woman's uterus. This is a private and often painful decision and I don't think the vast majority of women who have elected to have an abortion, do so with a nonchalant attitude.
|
| Posted 4/19/07 11:54 AM |
| |
|
stayandjohn
Our life is complete
Member since 5/05 5909 total posts
Name:
Stacey
|
Re: Supreme Court upholds late-term abortion ban
Posted by dita
What if this happened:
What about a 13 year old who is raped by her father and not until the 2nd trimester does she come forward... should she have to have that baby who may suffer from birth defects????
In all actuality, how many abortions, be it 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester, are because of rape or incest?
I'm sorry but I know way to many women who have had abortions as birth control, one woman had an abortion at 5 months (she has had 4 abortions, is that not a bit much?)....both she and her baby were fine. Unfortunately there are Dr's out there that will do PBA "willy nilly", sad to say but the almighty $ can get you anything
|
| Posted 4/19/07 12:08 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 |
Potentially Related Topics:
Currently 344391 users on the LIFamilies.com Chat
|
Long Island Bridal Shows
|
