But like I said earlier, she would have it done as early as possible (assumption on my part, but pretty likely). Perhaps she would not find out about any potential dangers w/ the pregnancy/delivery until after the 6th month. In that case, would you still be opposed to the procedure?

It's their job to dole out justice . . . I think you could debate that it's their job to decide who lives and who dies.

However, at some point the life inside her is not hers.

I'm going to refine my point here.

I found an interesting article on MSN (they really seem to be more pro-choice on this one) that gives some interesting figures. First of all, partial birth abortions account for about 6% of all abortions.

"But 6 percent--more than 80,000 abortions--are done after 15 weeks, and several hundred of these are done after 24 weeks, commonly taken to be the point of viability. The fetus is now too big to fit into the suction tubing. A 20-week fetus is commonly 6 inches long or more."

So what I would refine my point to be (and yeah, I'm changing my mind a bit for the sake of consistancy) would be that any time AFTER the point at which a fetus is considered viability -- let's say 24 weeks although many other articles have said 22 -- partial birth abortion should not be allowed.

However, in the period between the 15th and 22nd(or24th) week where the fetus is not viable outside the womb, I guess this procedure is as reasonable as any other abortion procedure. They're all pretty graphic, but if that's what someone wants to do, who am I to say no?

Who are any of us, really?

I really respect you, by the way. You state your opinions, back them up w/ facts, but conceded that other people feel differently. Such a rarity around here.

Sometimes.

There are a few things that I have a tendency to get worked up about.

But less about me and more about the thread :D

Kevin I like you. You don't lie about getting accepted to certain schools and don't have problems reading. Such a rare thing!

-Rudey

But wouldn't the partial birth procedure be just as risky? I wouldn't kill the child in that case.

Risky? Sure. But so is the potential complications should the child miscarry that late (serious infections, etc) or she actually have the child (if there's the possibility that delivery could be fatal). The child may die anyways, but there's no need for the mother to die as well.

Of course, I'm not neglecting the possibility that the abortion itself could be fatal for both of them as well. Nothing's guaranteed, but doctors and patients make the best decisions they can with what they have.

From what I've read, the partial birth procedure doesn't sound very different from a regular premature delivery other than the fact that the baby is killed prior from being completely removed from the mother. How is that less risky than an actual premature delivery?

If you read the link that sugar and spice provided on page 3 under the 3rd trimester it talks in more detail about abortion options during that time. There's the option of doing a sort of C-section, but that creates a greater possibility of infection, since it's literally cutting the mother open. The baby may or may not be alive during this procedure. The other option is to kill the baby (yes this is terribly graphic and does bother me) and then extract it by inducing artificial labor and extracting the fetus/baby with forceps. It's easier in that the doctor is easier able to "deliver" the baby without worrying about the effect of the forceps on its head.
I agree with you in that it is scary. Around 3000 are performed yearly, so thankfully this isn't a common procedure.

I didn't realize that a D/X on an already dead fetus was still considered an abortion (according to sugarandspice's link, anyway). In that case, yes, of course, remove it. However, if the fetus is still living, then I wouldn't procede with it.

If the fetus were still living, what, then would you do? This is assuming that the pregnancy must be terminated for whatever immediately pressing medical reason.

It depends on the situation. I'd likely opt for a c-section and see what our modern medical technology can do. I'd also have the child baptized right away, so he/she would be with God if nothing else works.

I'm sorry, its mad early (I beat the rooster up), but not to early that I can't see through the BS.

This really irks me. Let's cut the "medically necessary" bull. 9 out of 10 abortions (my own basic statistic) of any kind are NOT medically necessary. The mother may feel its monetarily necessary, or vanity-ly necessary (yes I made up a word), or Idontwantababythatsnotcompletelyperfect necessary, but rarely medically necessary. Come on, if the mother was THAT sick, they'd deliver the baby by c-section ALIVE and do what they could to save it while treating the mother for whatever she has. In the case of a stillborn, DUH. That's shouldn't even have to be said out loud. It already died of natural causes. But even still, I want my baby intact to bury him or her properly.

Really the whole issue of abortions is a crock folks made up to avoid responsibility for their actions. Your CHOICE should have been to keep the innie out of the outie, or use contraceptives, but since you didn't, deal with it. Life is life is life. No person should take whether its a ba...sorry, fetus :rolleyes:, or a criminal. Its not our place to take life.

*going back to my paper now*

The miscarriage argument is moot here. Since the baby is delivered the same way a normal premature baby would be delivered, that is just not even an argument.

When the baby is viable (according to what I've read) it's only 6 inches long. And there's always a ceasarean option.

The "health of the mother" argument really doesn't hold much water in this case since the delivery and the abortion procedure are the same thing (except in one, they puncture the skull and suck out the brains). Other than that, they're the same;)

What about rape? Incest? Should some poor girl who got gang-raped on the way home from the bus stop be forced to carry that child? What about a girl pregnant by her older brother? Father? Grandfather? The sick priest down the block?

Although I do commend you for at least taking a completely pro-life stance.

eta: ktsnake, the viability argument is one that's likely going to be in the SC soon. When Stenberg was decided, there was a very clear seperation of when a fetus was or was not viable. Nowadays, thanks to medical technology, the line of viability is being pushed further back and starting to intercept with the time in which it's legal to have an abortion. (IF this sentence doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll try to explain it better) I think my big issues is something like the situation like honeychile described. Keeping the baby alive for over 100,000 a year for 365 days? How many unwanted children could have been adopted for that amount instead? How many victims of rape and incest could have received the appropriate care and counseling?

Wouldn't a rape victim have had an abortion during her first trimester?

re-read the post that GP quoted. then you will understand why she brought up rape and incest victims.

oops

Also regarding rape - if the victim seeks treatment immediately, she can take the emergency contraception.

So if it's not a medical necessity and the mother won't die because the child will be born and let's even say that the girl was so traumatized that she decided to wait months and months before getting the abortion, then are you against late abortions?

-Rudey

If she waits until the 22nd or 24th week (depending on which doctors you ask that's said to be the point at which the fetus/baby is viable outside the womb through medical technology), then I say she needs to go ahead and have it delivered prematurely, give it up for adoption and go on her merry way.

As I said before, at that point, the procedure in which the baby dies and the procedure in which the baby is delivered are exactly the same except for the part where the brains are sucked out.

Assuming she has access to medical care, is over the age of 18 so she can do it without the need for parental consent, and can find a pharmacist willing to supply it...

I don't believe now, nor have I ever, that abortion is a practical solution to the majority of most pregancies. However, I think it needs to remain an option, because there are cases where it is the only one.

OK lets think of this situation:

Take away the rape victims.

Take away the women where it would be a medical necessity.

Now do you think late term abortion should be available as an option to the rest?

-Rudey

Of course not, I've never said I did. I don't believe abortion should ever be your primary method of contraception. I think it's only necessary in those extreme cases.

I think that all types of abortion should be legal up until the 75th trimester, because if you bring 'em into the world, you should be able to take 'em out. Especially for kids who won't be quiet in movie theaters. They really need to be aborted.

Before anything else, I would like to point out that only 1 percent of abortions are performed at or after the 21st week, and although there are no statistics on this, I would take a guess that most of them are performed for health reasons. Doctors are bound by codes of ethics that require them not to perform abortions after the 21st week except for health reasons. Surely there are a few doctors out there who break the rules, either for good reasons (the link I quoted before mentioned a few have done it for severely depressed women who would probably not be able to deal with the stress of having a baby or going through the adoption process, which I support) or not so good ones. So if people want to pass a law against that, with health-related exceptions, I'm all for it . . . since doctors aren't supposed to be doing it anyway.

Most people don't support late-term abortions for reasons other than the mother's health . . . the issue comes about when the laws that are passed against it are so ambiguously worded that they can deny access to abortions even if the mother's health IS in jeopardy . . . or they can deny access to any abortion after the second trimester -- or even after the first. That's where the major controversy comes from.

Random sidenote: Stillborn babies sometimes have to be "aborted" because delivering a stillborn baby can cause health complications to the mother. I'm not sure why we should insist that a stillborn baby be c-sectioned out when the mother would prefer a D&X, but whatever . . .

As Kath mentioned, there are a number of reasons why this isn't necessarily the case. And as anybody who has dealt with rape victims knows, it isn't that simple -- most of them are in shock and unable to process the rape in the time period that they would be required to take the emergency contraception. One of my best friends in high school got raped and when I suggested that she go to Planned Parenthood to get the morning-after pill and get checked out, she flat-out refused and wouldn't speak to me until I dropped the subject.

So you are saying that aside from rape victims and health issues, late term abortions should be illegal?

-Rudey
--I just want to get this annoying "I can do whatever I want to my body" type of argument out of the way.

Getting EC is more complicated than what most people think. You have to go to the doctor's office or hospital within 72 hours of the assault to be examined, evidence collected, and then obtain a prescription. Then you have to find a pharmacist that will actually fill the scrip for you, which as we've seen in other threads, is a toss-up. All this happens assuming you have medical insurance and drug coverage. Some insurance plans will not cover any type of contraception for any reason. Sure a pack of birth control pills is only $30 or so (I'm not sure about the cost of EC, but I'm assuming it's similar), but for someone in a lower socioeconomic bracket or a college student, $30 is a lot of money.
There are some side effects as well, none of which are pleasant. Nausea, vomiting, etc.
I found a website that has pretty comprehensive info on the subject and a good FAQ area. http://ec.princeton.edu/

Yeah who wants a little "nausea, vomiting, etc." when you can have a quick and easy abortion.

-Rudey

That's not my argument on this one, Rudith. And yes, that is what I'm saying.

So for the Pro-Murder or children/Abortion people:

It's ok for the mother to murder the child while its alive inside them...but not ok once the child is outside of the womb? Why put a limitation on it?..why not just let the mother murder the child whenever it becomes an "inconvenience" or the $$ gets low, or when her career is more important? :confused: If we're going to kill the children..lets' just define when its ok..and when its not.

Depending on your school status, you can also go to your student health center, see a doctor for five minutes (no exam), and pay $10. You can also do this at a crisis pregnancy center.

Not so. Couldn't get it at my public school, and certainly can't get it here. I'm not saying I wouldn't go find it, but it's not possible everywhere.

Like I've said before, I don't think a woman should be able to wake up 6 months along and suddenly decide she doesn't want to be pregnant - that decision should be made in the first months. And that's what's currently being done.

Kind of like exposing unwanted babies? Well, I think being able to put the child up for adoption is about the same thing.

I don't know much about that procedure . . . can anyone put a child up for adoption? And is there like a time limit on it?

And well, it just seems more ok to slay the child in the body. Outside there are other options.

I personally am very Pro-Life and I beleive that life starts at conception. This comes from my code of morality, which comes from my upbrining, my own personal research, and overall, my Christian faith.

Dealing with my upbringing-- I'm a quadruplet (4 babies at one time). Medical professionals told my mother that she might want to consider abortion, or "selective reduction," due to the monumental risks associated with multiple births of our size. My mom adamently refused and trusted in God to take care of her and her babies. After all, God provided them. And God did take care of us. All of us were over 4 pounds at birth, and all in tip-top shape. My parents always raised us to be pro-life.

I also have a friend who was conceived after a rape and her mother decided to go ahead and have her, which is extremely commendable, in my opinion. The girl turned out to be a really great, smart, and beautiful young woman. She would have never blessed the world with her presence if her mother had decided to abort.
Rape is a case which I think is horrible and hope I never have to deal with (not me personally obviously, but my future spouse or family member or someone). I certainly wouldn't judge a woman for getting an abortion after a rape, but I still believe that it's ending a human life, and it's not the child's fault. But like I said, that is a horrible situation, and I certainly wouldn't judge any woman who chose to have an abortion in that case.

As for partial-birth abortions, I think this should be absolutely out of the question. I would love to see any thread of medical evidence from a real-life case (not hypothetical) where giving birth, and then killing the baby while only it's head remains in the birth canal is medically necessary! Doctors actually turn the baby around so that only it's feet are sticking out, because if it's head is out, then to them it's not technically alive yet!! What is the difference between this and just waiting 'till the baby is born completely before jamming a pair of scissors in the back of it's skull! This is one of the sickest practices I've ever heard of and a society that accepts this as normal has problems, in my book.

I'm certainly against abortions as a form of contraception. Here's a tip, if you can't afford condoms or birth control-- go to the county health center or student health center! Almost all of them give out free contraception!

Jeremiah 1:4-5
"Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

That's it in a nutshell. I think that rape and incest are separate situations. I don't knock it in this situation, but I'd rather they didn't regardless of situation. I KNOW that I could never abort any child that was developed in my womb, no matter how it got there. Yes their father is a rapist, but its mother is not, so how do you choose? I have one now, she came from a not so good situation, but its not HER fault. So I deal with it, it was my fault for being temporarily insane. And I love her to death.

Pretty much. When they came out with the whole "fetus does not equal baby, therefore its not a human until it comes out" crap, a LOT of people felt "relieved" and got scalpel-happy.:rolleyes: And it make people who would otherwise NEVER kill a living soul feel "comfortable" :rolleyes:

Just remember Karma is a mofo...when you WANT to have kids you're gonna have issues. That's why I believe my friend had issues wither her kept pregnacies...Karma came and slapped her in the face.

When folks start throwing around terms like "murder" and "baby killer", etc, this conversation won't get very far. If you're interested in discussion and not just standing on a soapbox, tone it down a bit.

Well if you're man or woman enough to support it..or do it...why can't u handle being called out on it??:confused: IT IS WHAT IT IS! Sugar coating the name of the procedure doesn't change the fact...Don't get angry at me for calling it what it is...get angry at those that actually support or have the procedure done.

OH my..this is so true! I know so many women..that once they get their little lives on their own timelines..and are ready to start a family (after killing a few b/c they weren't ready)...they can't have any...happens ALL the time...


Originally posted by Pike1483
Rape is a case which I think is horrible and hope I never have to deal with (not me personally obviously, but my future spouse or family member or someone). I certainly wouldn't judge a woman for getting an abortion after a rape, but I still believe that it's ending a human life, and it's not the child's fault. But like I said, that is a horrible situation, and I certainly wouldn't judge any woman who chose to have an abortion in that case.

I'm certainly against abortions as a form of contraception. Here's a tip, if you can't afford condoms or birth control-- go to the county health center or student health center! Almost all of them give out free contraception!

Jeremiah 1:4-5
"Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."


I think this is an excellent post ^5 :)