Weigh In: Senate Passes Ban on Late Term Abortion - Page 8

aggieAXO · #1 10-26-2003, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by valkyrie
So you get to wait until you "are in the position to adopt" but you'd have no problem with women being forced to have children that they don't feel they are "in the position" to have?

good point valkyrie

adoption is such a nice idea but in the real world is there really that much of a demand?-maybe for caucasian babies but not for minority one's-if this is not true then please speak up and educate me.

honeychile · #2 10-26-2003, 07:29 PM

I have so many friends who have adopted or in the process of adoption - many from other countries.

The definition of a healthy adoptable baby in San Diego County is one who is "only" addicted to crack.

Eclipse · #3 10-27-2003, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MereMere21
Why do you get to wait but women who want to abort, because they aren't ready, can't? Is that the prize for getting lucky and not having a surprise pregnancy?

*not meant to offend, just curious

No offense taken. If I were "suprised" I wouldn't get to wait either. I would have to deal with the consequences of my choices and I don't feel that a a way to deal with it should be killing the baby. And, I guess if you put it that way, that is the "prize", but more often that not, it's not luck that gets you to that prize. And before you say it, yes I know that birth control fails and there is nothing that is 100%.

AggieAXO, as I understand it from 2 sets of friends who have recently adopted, there is a great demand for ALL newborns that have no medical or physcial problems. One is a African American couple and they had to wait well over a year for an AA baby and the other is a biracial (AA/White) who wanted a biracial baby. They also had a long wait, just not sure how long.

Optimist Prime · #4 10-27-2003, 01:18 AM

I don't think race should be a factor in adoption. That's wrong.

Honeykiss1974 · #5 11-05-2003, 06:32 PM

I don't know why I never read this thread (ok, I do, but Ijust had to get that out).

I don't know if people realize HOW these types of abortions are performed. Basically, the doctor "goes into the womb" and grabs the baby's feet and pulls him out feet first.

Once all of the baby's body is out of the womb (except the for the head), a needle/sunction catheter is inserted into the baby's skull, which sucks the baby's brain out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

Imagine if a doctor delivered a newborn baby and then immediately did this! People would be outraged. The only difference between this procedure and the doctor previously referenced is the fact the head is still in the mother's womb.

Regardless is you are for or against it, you can't tell me that is not a terrible way to treat a newborn!

Now granted there are will be exceptions (as there are with everything) that will probably be evaluated on a case by case basis, but I and others are speaking in terms of application to the general population.

I happen to agree with Eclipse.

I also won't get into a life vs. choice debate, but all i will say that I support the ban on partial birth abortions (which is what Pred. Bush is banning - not all abortions period). But hey, I also think that Scott Peterson should be tried for TWO murders as well.

WHAT!! Me and the Prez actually feel the same way on something! .

RedHotChiO · #6 11-06-2003, 03:24 PM

I just want to point out something that Senator Harkin said while this debate was on the Senate Floor. This law was created by a bunch of white males. People will never be faced with this sort of decision. When President Bush signed this bill, he was surrounded with ten white males. Although, I could never have an abortion, I am vehemently pro-choice. I'm just not sure that this bill is representing the opinions of the majority of Americans. This is a women's issue, and I wish that more women had taken the time to speak out about it.

Partial birth abortion or late term abortion is a procedure that is rarely performed, generally because it affects the health of the mother. To me, this decision signifies that the Bush administration no longer has to stick to centrist issues and isn't afraid to show his right wing values. It simply is a measure for them to get rid of abortion all together, and to rile up right wing support for the election in 2004.

krazy · #7 11-06-2003, 04:10 PM

I may be wrong, but I heard that late terms are anything after 2nd trimester (I believe). I also heard that the abortion is the most common surgery. And I heard that late terms make up 28% of the abortions. Don't ask for proof, it was heard on the radio... NPR I believe. That said, it would make them pretty darn often... ?????? Anyone know for sure???

Honeykiss1974 · #8 11-06-2003, 04:53 PM

I'm at work, so I can't spend TOO much time on the 'net searching

(plus it interfers with my GC time

), but the Center for Disease Control's website had some stats. There are as of 1999 though.

There are other stats out there, but the CDC is probably the most "neutral", so to speak.

Here is a quick fact list Facts

Hope it helps!

RedHotChiO · #9 11-06-2003, 06:18 PM

That is highly unlikely, as 90% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregancy. Partial birth abortion, which is not even a medical term, is not for women who decide at 32 weeks that don't want to have a baby. It's used in rare cases where the mother may die due to having this child or the child will be born with a deformity like a brain growing on the outside of its head. To believe that women would be carelessly using this procedure to abort children is ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally posted by krazy
I may be wrong, but I heard that late terms are anything after 2nd trimester (I believe). I also heard that the abortion is the most common surgery. And I heard that late terms make up 28% of the abortions. Don't ask for proof, it was heard on the radio... NPR I believe. That said, it would make them pretty darn often... ?????? Anyone know for sure???

RedHotChiO · #10 11-06-2003, 06:41 PM

That is the most offensive thing I have ever read. Along those lines, maybe all men that abandon pregnant women and deadbeat dads deserve the same punishment.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imthachamp
um, i am serious. i said in a previous thread, any mother who wanted an abortion should be given the death penalty.

and this is my opinion

thx for lookin out though, bro

MereMere21 · #11 11-06-2003, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RedHotChiO
That is highly unlikely, as 90% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregancy. Partial birth abortion, which is not even a medical term, is not for women who decide at 32 weeks that don't want to have a baby. It's used in rare cases where the mother may die due to having this child or the child will be born with a deformity like a brain growing on the outside of its head. To believe that women would be carelessly using this procedure to abort children is ridiculous.

yes this procedure is very rare compared to "regular" abortions done before the 15th or 16th week. The problem with Bush's bill he just signed was that there was NO allowance for mother's health. So pretty much if you find out after your first trimester you are going to die giving birth, you are S.O.L. because of this new law. I do agree this procedure is barbaric and it makes me sick just thinking about it, BUT when did the baby's life become MORE important than the mothers? just a question.

Munchkin03 · #12 11-06-2003, 09:59 PM

Supposedly, this "dilation and extraction" method is the best one for preserving the mother's future fertility, as it doesn't involve salination or cutting of the uterus. Also, it is one of the only late-term abortions that keeps the fetus's body intact--allowing the family to have a burial or memorial service, as well as allowing the body to be used for medical research. I think the procedure is pretty terrible, but I think it has to remain legal for the health of the mother as well as cases where fatal genetic illnesses are detected late in pregnancy.

Let's get real--random women at 25 weeks aren't getting this 'cause they decided they didn't want a baby anymore.

Kevin · #13 11-07-2003, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Munchkin03
Supposedly, this "dilation and extraction" method is the best one for preserving the mother's future fertility, as it doesn't involve salination or cutting of the uterus. Also, it is one of the only late-term abortions that keeps the fetus's body intact--allowing the family to have a burial or memorial service, as well as allowing the body to be used for medical research. I think the procedure is pretty terrible, but I think it has to remain legal for the health of the mother as well as cases where fatal genetic illnesses are detected late in pregnancy.

Let's get real--random women at 25 weeks aren't getting this 'cause they decided they didn't want a baby anymore.

Health of the mother? How is that? They actually must birth the baby (all but the head), then insert a needle into the skull to suck out the brains.

At this point, the child is birthed. If you actually go through with this birthing process, I see no possible way that this could be to protect the health of the mother. Please enlighten me.

I'm not completely anti-abortion. However, this method is something that is disgusting and in many ways wrong. At 25 weeks, a fetus can actually be viable to survive outside the womb with current medical technology.

Imagine a scenario where a "health of the mother" clause was inserted. Do you think that even 10% of the cases, no, even 1% of the cases would actually be done to avoid post-birth complications?

Nope -- because as I said, the whole birthing process happens anyway in this procedure so that's a pretty moot argument.

Cloud9 · #14 11-07-2003, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Imagine a scenario where a "health of the mother" clause was inserted. Do you think that even 10% of the cases, no, even 1% of the cases would actually be done to avoid post-birth complications?

Are you a doctor? Please tell me where your research for this conclusion comes from, besides pro-life propoganda.

Munchkin03 · #15 11-07-2003, 01:20 PM

From what I know from working and volunteering with women's health clinics, many of the complications that jeopardize the health of the mother are after the fetus becomes viable. Basically, a late-term fetus puts an amazing amount of stress on the vital organs, etc. of the mother---which could be a life or death issue if serious complications come about.

I know what goes on in late-term abortions (and early-term ones, too), and I don't like it. I just know that sometimes, it's the only thing that can be done. I will give that choice to the mother and her doctor--and not to some politician.