Federal judge says partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional

[Kevin]

Originally posted by ASUADPi
Maybe it's just me but I don't find the pictures appropriate. To me it seems like by putting the pictures on your post you are trying to force people to believe what you believe, that abortion is morally wrong.

One of the great things about this country is that we have these unfound freedoms. One them of them is to think what we want to think without others imposing their beliefs onto the group.

By you putting those pictures up offends me. It offends not because of abortion, I get that abortion is killing a fetus. No what offends me is that I feel that you are trying to impose your beliefs on to everyone else. And that is just not cool.

But I don't believe that -- I didn't say that, never have.. Don't speak for me, please. I'm quite capable of defining my own beliefs. I did that to spark debate -- and it worked

And by telling me not to impose my 'beliefs' which you have so kindly defined for me (gee thanks), you are attempting to impose your will on me.

Yeah, it is from a pro-life website. However, as far as the description, it's accurate. Perhaps it uses slightly inflammatory words, but it's accurate nonetheless in its portrayal of the procedure.

***

And as for medical necessity, again, I'll concede that in some cases, SOME -- this procedure is medically necessary because:

A. The mother would die without it or
B. The baby is dead anyway or has no chance of survival outside the womb.

Now, it has been stated (and I think sugar&spice provided the figure) that this procedure accounts for 1% of all abortions. That's still a lot of occurances. This is mere speculation on my part, but I would have to say because the possibility exists that this can be legally done for convenience's sake, it is being done for convenience's sake. There are some irresponsible people in the world who surprise me every day with what they're capable of when it comes to selfishness.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by cash78mere
ktsnake-

where did you find those pictures from? the fact that it says "jams" leads me to believe that it is not from a medical website, but rather from a pro-life website. please clarify.

Are you disagreeing with what is presented in those pictures? It's not an opinion piece which makes people wary of sources. It's not presenting something iffy that makes people wary of sources.

And Valkyrie, what you seem to be forgetting is that Pike didn't come on here and try and push his Christian beliefs on you. A certain lesbian, who won't have to wrry about another lesbian making her pregnant, whose name is somewhat insulting, who only comes on to post in certain political threads and not on greek life, who has been caught lying, came on to question the Christian belief. That is the difference. Had he been on here, screaming that Jesus will damn you and all that, I'd be right with you telling him that he is wrong. But it's good to see posts in context.

Again, I'd like to know who among you all is for this option outside of medical necessity (mother will die, etc.) and rape, and why?

-Rudey

[Kevin]

Originally posted by cash78mere
ktsnake-

where did you find those pictures from? the fact that it says "jams" leads me to believe that it is not from a medical website, but rather from a pro-life website. please clarify.

Again, they do use inflammatory language, and did come from a pro-life website (which you could have checked easily by right clicking them and clicking on the properties tab -- then following the link). However, I have yet for anyone to dispute the truth in them as far as their accurate portrayal of the procedure -- perhaps scissors aren't used, but maybe a scalpel is.

I could have posted a link to a video of such a procedure, but I figured that that would have probably been crossing a line. As it stands, those pictures are fairly sanitized.

[cash78mere]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Again, they do use inflammatory language, and did come from a pro-life website (which you could have checked easily by right clicking them and clicking on the properties tab -- then following the link).

geez...sorry if i'm not up to date on my computer knowledge of how to see where pictures come from. that's why i asked for the link. no need to get snippy, i just asked a question for clarification

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by Rudey
And Valkyrie, what you seem to be forgetting is that Pike didn't come on here and try and push his Christian beliefs on you. A certain lesbian, who won't have to wrry about another lesbian making her pregnant, whose name is somewhat insulting, who only comes on to post in certain political threads and not on greek life, who has been caught lying, came on to question the Christian belief. That is the difference. Had he been on here, screaming that Jesus will damn you and all that, I'd be right with you telling him that he is wrong. But it's good to see posts in context.

Again, I'd like to know who among you all is for this option outside of medical necessity (mother will die, etc.) and rape, and why?

-Rudey

I didn't say that Pike is here to try to push his beliefs on me. Perhaps I wrongly assumed that he is in favor of a ban on this procedure because of his religious beliefs, and I was asking questions to try to understand if that is the case.

As for your question -- who determines what consitutes a medical necessity? Is that something that the government should determine or is that a decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor?

[ASUADPi]

Originally posted by valkyrie
I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I'm not attacking you.

No it wasn't directed at you. I just wanted to emphasize that we all really need to take a step back and respect one anothers opinions. And some of the time I don't think we are doing that.

Munchkin03: Not to sound completely dumb, but what is a D&E? Did the article say why a c-section would have been so riskful to her health? From what I know about c-sections (which isn't a lot mind you because I've never been pregnant) but they don't seem that they would be that risky as long as you have a qualified doctor, the anthesiologist (sp), nurses and whatnot. Is a D&E a regular abortion? Sorry to sound kind of dumb, but I really don't know which is why I'm asking.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by ASUADPi
No it wasn't directed at you. I just wanted to emphasize that we all really need to take a step back and respect one anothers opinions. And some of the time I don't think we are doing that.

I agree.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by valkyrie
I didn't say that Pike is here to try to push his beliefs on me. Perhaps I wrongly assumed that he is in favor of a ban on this procedure because of his religious beliefs, and I was asking questions to try to understand if that is the case.

As for your question -- who determines what consitutes a medical necessity? Is that something that the government should determine or is that a decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor?

Well I was just trying to show you that the person that brought up religion to invalidate something was someone pro-abortion.

And medical necessity: well there are heavy regulations in the medical industry. If you feel government intervention is not acceptable, I do urge you to take your medical procedures in a van in Tijuana. I mean some people like their medical instruments dirty. If you are going to die birthing a child, that is a medical necessity for both you and your doctor as well as the government.

-Rudey

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by ASUADPi


Munchkin03: Not to sound completely dumb, but what is a D&E? Did the article say why a c-section would have been so riskful to her health? From what I know about c-sections (which isn't a lot mind you because I've never been pregnant) but they don't seem that they would be that risky as long as you have a qualified doctor, the anthesiologist (sp), nurses and whatnot. Is a D&E a regular abortion? Sorry to sound kind of dumb, but I really don't know which is why I'm asking.

From the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

"Intact dilation and extraction
Intact D&E is an alternate method to induction or labor or cesarean section. It is done by medical providers with special training in hospitals while the patient is under general anesthesia. This procedure is primarily done when the abnormalities of the fetus are so extreme that independent life is not possible or when the fetus has died in utero. The procedure consists of a breech extraction. Since the cervix is often incompletely open, it may be impossible to deliver the head. Therefore, a needle (ETA: once again, not scissors) can be introduced to drain cerebral fluids – similar to a spinal tap – which makes it possible to deliver the head through the cervix without damage to the mother. During this procedure the medications which are used to anesthetize the mother cross the placenta and anesthetize the fetus. This procedure is not done in the third trimester if the fetus is viable."

The ACOG goes on to say that any legal Intact D&E is subject to board approval by a state body. I didn't post the link here, but doing any search on the ACOG should be able to give you more specific information. I have tried to find sources that are as neutral as possible, something difficult to do on both sides.

I don't know all of the details of this case, but I do know that C-sections are difficult because of the fear of extreme blood loss, especially in diabetic women (who often have a harder time healing from surgical wounds). C-sections before 30 weeks gestation are difficult to do in a way that will allow the mother to deliver vaginally in the future, as the uterine walls are too thick to cut horizontally. At such an early stage, any trauma to the uterine walls could damage the mother.

[BirthaBlue4]

Originally posted by valkyrie
BirthaBlue, I'm not sure where you come from, but the purpose of sex for many people is not to procreate -- it's for pleasure.

I'm fully aware of that . My point was that the purpose of sex biologically is to procreate, so if that happens, folks shouldn't be all dazed and amazed. The pleasure side is like the proverbial icing on the cake. It was more so a comment on the lack of responsibilty of folks. I moreso have an issue with the majority of these cases, where the average Jane gets pregnant because of some random romp in the hay and gets rid of the baby only to do it all again. That's where my problem lies. Creating life irresponsibly.

[AGDee]

Originally posted by Rudey
Well I was just trying to show you that the person that brought up religion to invalidate something was someone pro-abortion.

And medical necessity: well there are heavy regulations in the medical industry. If you feel government intervention is not acceptable, I do urge you to take your medical procedures in a van in Tijuana. I mean some people like their medical instruments dirty. If you are going to die birthing a child, that is a medical necessity for both you and your doctor as well as the government.

-Rudey

There is a difference between regulations made to save lives and those made to endanger the lives of women. (I know, I know, some will argue a fetus is a life, that's the root of the whole debate I think, and it's pretty hard to change somebody's mind on when life begins.)

[Rudey]

Originally posted by AGDee
There is a difference between regulations made to save lives and those made to endanger the lives of women. (I know, I know, some will argue a fetus is a life, that's the root of the whole debate I think, and it's pretty hard to change somebody's mind on when life begins.)

What the heck are you frigging talking about? I said medical necessity. In fact in the context I used it, I said a medical necessity that would make abortion permissible. So what were you posting about??????????????? Yeah ok!

-Rudey

[GeekyPenguin]

Rudey, I don't think too many pro-choicers support partial birth abortions for everyone and anyone, I think the vast majority are happy with that law the way it stands now.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
Rudey, I don't think too many pro-choicers support partial birth abortions for everyone and anyone, I think the vast majority are happy with that law the way it stands now.

Oh really? How come very few are coming out to say so? I'm tired of this annoying "It's my body, I can do what I want" argument. Even with you, I had to push to get you to say it because it seemed anyone that is pro-abortion is very loathe to give up any ground.

-Rudey

[ASUADPi]

Rudey did you not read my post.

Here's a refresher:


I myself am pro-choice. I don't think anyone has a right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body. With that said, I know myself I could never personally have an abortion but if some other woman wants to that is her right.

If I remember correctly (and those out there feel free to correct me if I am wrong, which I might be) but isn't partial-birth similiar to late term abortion? If so, I don't agree with late term abortions unless the mothers life is at risk. My feeling is that if you can't figure out that you are pregnant after 12 weeks than you are shit out of luck. Unfortunately, I live in a state where abortion is a contraversy because of so few providers and because stat's have shown women using abortion as a means of birth control. I don't agree with that.

So Rudey, with that said I am one of those Pro-Choices who doesn't support partial birth abortions b/c in the end I believe they are considered late term abortions. I personally am happy with the law the way it stands, as long as our government doesn't try to bud in and take away a woman's right to chose in general.