Partial-birth abortions
This letter has not been edited.
President Bush is responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq. I'm sure you're writing that letter of condemnation as we speak.
Brian, just sign your letters B.S., we'll know who it is.
Posted by Charles B on May 2, 2007 07:55 PMup-chuck," Child Left Behind"
Posted by Keith on May 2, 2007 08:10 PMup-chuck," Child Left Behind"
Posted by Keith on May 2, 2007 08:10 PMup-chuck," Child Left Behind"
Posted by Keith on May 2, 2007 08:10 PMKeith,
You thought that was so good you submitted it three times?
Posted by Charles B on May 2, 2007 08:50 PMNow that Partial Delivery Abortions can`t be done, does anyone know what will replace it?
The Denver Post is running a forum on this with first person stories from actual patients, not Drs and nurses, in links. Some of these links discuss the health problems of not ending a few pregnancies that were harming the health, but not the lilfe, of the mother.
Not suprising that the ignorati, and we know who, never read these links or care one damn about womens health. Their picture of women is so distorted that this has become a personal moment of "we told you so" nananan.!
All the men in my family are pro-choice. I love them dearly, they are real men.
Isn't it neat how all you need is 5 Catholics willing to ignore the law to enforce their supreme leader's dictates instead of the U.S. Constitution? What a glorious day for the American way!
Posted by B. Drunk on May 2, 2007 11:55 PMRemember "sanctity of life" (or variations like "the dignity & preservation of human life") is wingnut codespeak for: "save fair-skinned American fetuses."
Posted by Drew on May 3, 2007 07:52 AMI think Keith's on the meth again-thought I smelled something coming from the trailer.
Posted by Drew on May 3, 2007 07:53 AMI agree, Mr. Stuckey. Now all we need is a law saying that any born child can co-opt his or her parent's organs, blood, bone marrow or other body parts, any time they need to use them to live. No respect ought to be shown for the parents' wishes or for any consequences they might suffer, including permanent mutilation, as long as the process doesn't actually kill them outright immediately. After all, "choice" about one's own personal body and who gets to use it ought to matter less than the preservation of the sanctity of life, right? And those parents "chose" to be responsible for their children when they had sex, right?
After all, a born child surely has as much right to life as an unborn, and a father is surely as responsible for protecting and nurturing his children as a mother is. Or does "sanctity of life" only trump "choice" for you when it's someone else's body being co-opted for another's benefit?
While the "mechanics" of partial birth abortion turn my stomach, for me the question is its medical necessity with respect to protecting the life of the mother. The Supreme Court apparently rejected the claim that there are cases in which partial birth abortion is medically necessary. Having delivered very few babies myself, I don't know. If the procedure is medically necessary in some cases, I would favor a law permitting it, but only in those cases. True that such a law would surely face all kinds of complications in its enforcement, but that is not sufficient reason for the law to back off dealing with the problem.
The big problem with the abortion debate for me is that the extremists are usually the ones on stage. Most Americans reject the pro-life stance, but they also reject the pro-choice stance. Most think that abortion should not be prohibited, but that there should be restrictions on it. But it is somewhat rare for that position to be put forth in the debates on the subject because they are drowned out by the extremists. The frequent name calling we see when the issue comes up is sufficient to keep the moderates on the sidelines; they are vulnerable to being called names by both extremes. I'm not sure how to describe it, but somehow people get more satisfaction out of taking an extreme position than a moderate one. Perhaps one reason is that the extreme position makes it easier to call names, and makes the need for civil discourse seem less necessary.
Posted by Truth on May 3, 2007 08:23 AMSharon, my guess is that if iDX is no longer allowed, then D&E will become the preferred procedure.
The risks to the mother are significantly higher, and the procedure is even more gory.
Never fear, with iDX banned, D&E will be under pressure next, and pretty soon we will be kowtowing to the “life starts at conception” belief.
Find a job Brian. Soon
Posted by Corky on May 3, 2007 09:11 AMThanks Bango. It is said that moderates rule this country in the end. I hope so. Moderates look at all aspects of an issue and do keep quiet in public. They make themselves known in the voting booth. In their low key way they slowly move our society out of extreme solutions.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 3, 2007 11:03 AMI think it is sick not to provide appropriate pain-management for the fetus.
Posted by Bob on May 3, 2007 11:44 AMJust a question to those who support partial birth abortions, if the life or health of the mother is in that much jeopardy, why not be rushed by ambulance to a hospital than is equipped to save both the mother and child by performing an emergency C-section? Doesn't it take longer to schedule an abortion, thus putting the mother at a greater risk?
Posted by Tom on May 3, 2007 11:45 AMTom, that is situation-specific, there is no way to give you a generic protocol.
iDX is usually a three day procedure, so it isn't typically done as an emergency protocol.
However, in some cases it is done as an emergency and in those cases it is going to be faster and lower risk than caesarian.
For example an iDX uses only local anesthetic and does not penetrate the abdominal cavity. C-Section requires full surgical environment with anesthesia and blood products, suturing, and post-op protocol.
The risks from C-section are far higher because it is gross invasive surgery
The whole point of iDX is that it does not involve full dilation of the cervix and there is minimal risk of puncturing the womb.
Bango, my question is not situation specific; it is based on the crux of the argument. The reason given over and over again why late term abortions should be permitted is to protect the life or health of a mother. In an emergency C-section the baby is delivered in about 5 min, the rest of the procedure is usually complete in less than an hour. Sure there are risks, but given that record numbers of women are choosing to electively give birth to their child via c-section, the risks are pretty minimal and well managed. If the life or health of the mother were truly at risk, I would guess the risks of scheduling a procedure that take three days poses far greater risks. You proved my exact point. When people are really having a problem that truly does threaten their life or health, they tend to want care as fast as possible. No one that I am aware schedule a three day procedure instead of going to the emergency room when they are have a heart attack or stroke, why would a woman choose to do when she is pregnant? This argument really is not about "the health or life" of the mother, that is just a canard used to sway people to believe there is no alternative to this barbaric procedure.
Posted by Tom on May 3, 2007 01:32 PMTom, I wondered if you would grasp for the 3-days.
I said “iDX is usually a three day procedure”, not that it isn’t done faster when an emergency situation arises. In an emergency the two days of packing the cervix and slow dilation is bypassed with an emergency dilation technique that is as fast as prepping for surgery.
What you are asking is why in general c-section couldn’t be used instead of iDX.
Well that depends on why the iDX is being done and the length of gestation, not so?
For example, if the iDX is being done because the mother needs to go onto anti-cancer drugs, then unless the womb is involved there may be no reason why she couldn’t do c-section, but without the details it is impossible to say.
There is no general protocol to be discussed here unless you have specific scenarios in mind.
OK Bango you got me with the three days. Congrats. Meanwhile, back in the realm of the facts "late term" by it very definition is done on children that are of a gestational age that is viable. An abortion at 30 weeks is late term and 3 weeks is not. I do not have any specific numbers on morbidity and mortality of c-sections. I do know the mortality for every abortion procedure performed is 50%. A mother and child go in; only one makes it out alive.
Posted by Tom on May 3, 2007 02:00 PMTruth,
Moderates, or Middle-of-the-Road folks, don't speak up most of the time, simply because the extremists have so polarized the issue that there is no opportunity to find a middle way any more.
Just one question: What "restrictions" would you - or would you have Moderates - propose? If you do impose "restrictions", what does that do the real principle of "choice", insofar as a woman's own body be concerned? (I wont't even touch that one with a 50 foot pole.)
But in the case for "restrictions", in fact aren't you saying that "choice" is, in and of itself, "extreme"? The idea that having 'choice" must, somehow, be "restricted", is leaving the whole matter wide open to final dissolution of "choice" entirely.
And don't forget, the anti-abortionists are just that. ANTI-ABORTION! Oh, yes. For now, they might grudginly allow an exception for danger of Mother's death - or even matter of Mother's health - BUT, in the end, what they want, and demand to have, is ANTI-ABORTION. The Roman Religion insists on it! And the "fudamentalists" in the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ are right there on the bandwagon with Rome. (Rome "philosophically" allows for "danger of Mother's death"; but you better not bet much on that being generally considered when push comes to shove.)
About all Moderates can do is what they do at the polls, defeat something such as the South Dakota measure - the "pilot bill" that was to (and still IS TO) be used in other States when Roe v. Wade gets overturned, as the anti-abortionists fully intend shall happen! And, so far as they be concerned, to hell (literally, since it is a "religious", rather than rational, matter) with anyone who doesn't work to that end.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 3, 2007 02:04 PM”… realm of facts”
Sorry Tom, but what realm did you think I was speaking from, one of fantasy?
You asked a question and I gave you a considered factual answer.
A bit more factual info for you: iDX isn’t only carried out in late term abortion, although it is indeed the preferred technique when a late term abortion is carried out.
Why the abortion is being carried out at all, and why iDX is being used is highly case-specific. So again, any argument against the technique would have to be specific.
Maybe I can give you some more facts so that you can frame questions that would satisfy what you are really fishing for
1. iDX is not the most barbaric form of medical abortion in terms of gruesome technique, D&E is far more chilling.
2. 23 weeks is generally considered the lower limit of viability, but you could chalk it at 21 if you like.
3. “late term” is a fuzzy term that can mean anything from beyond 12 weeks gestation to beyond 27 weeks.
4. Some abortions, even “late term” may indeed be sheer vanity, but the CDC estimates that less than 1.5% of abortions of all kinds are carried out after 20 weeks.
So the picture being cast of “babies” being brutally murdered “within inches” of normal birth, is largely fantasy. I know of no cases where what is being aborted is a “baby” and neither do I know of any where “normal birth” was on the cards at the time.
Of course I don’t doubt that there could be such cases, but I would suggest that you ask for specific cases where this is true before accepting it.
As far as mortality goes, no, it is 100%
The fetus is always killed, except of course in cases where it was already dead and that was the reason for the procedure.
Old Grouch: "Just one question: What "restrictions" would you - or would you have Moderates - propose? If you do impose "restrictions", what does that do the real principle of "choice", insofar as a woman's own body be concerned? (I wont't even touch that one with a 50 foot pole.)"
What the hell are you trying to do, get me killed?
Since I don't think there is some kind of constitutional right to ban abortions, and don't think there is some kind of constitutional right to have an abortion, I would submit the matter of restrictions to the people. There, that takes care of that.
OK, I've had enough wine now to go a little further. I'd vote to ban abortions in the third trimester except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's health. If the American people don't want that restriction, fine. If they do want it, fine. It's up to them, not me.
Nothing will get done without compromise, and extremism and compromise are incompatible. Those in the middle could likely reach compromise if somehow we could turn off the extremists. For me, it isn't a matter of unwavering principle based on the supposed evil of the other side but of pragmatism.
Mostly, I'd favor a strong campaign to discourage people from getting pregnant unless they really wanted to and were in a position to raise a child, and I'd aim the campaign mainly at young people. The big problem with that would be the extremists on both sides who are much more interested in demonizing somebody than persuading somebody and for sure than compromising with anybody.
Posted by Truth on May 3, 2007 08:02 PMTruth,
No. I wasn't trying to get you killed. As I said, I won't touch that one with a 50 foot pole myself. I just wanted to point out how the word, "restrictions" has become so much of a buzz-word that it brings more reaction than thought, from both sides/extremes.
As to pragmatism, we're in agreement as to that being what it takes. But, I would caution that - for now anyway - the larger part of those who are moderate feel that the best current exercise of pragmatism is, simply, not getting into the current war over the subject. Too much of a "Shootout at the OK Corral" about it for most of them.
We certainly have no differences about your whole third paragraph. Health care, and PREVENTION, are high on the list of objectives that moderates would like to see accomplished.
But, the extremists have over-run the field here too. Funds cut off to Planned Parenthood that would be used for health care, education, and contraceptive forms of protection; because by way of separate funding, Planned Parenthood does deal with abortion favorably, is just one example. And the funds for fighting the AIDS epidemic overseas tied to refusal to provide condoms, or other "safe sex" education, while isisting on "abstinence" teaching, instead of sound medical approach.
Ooops! Sorry! Didn't mean to "preach to the choir". But, as you see already, there is a lot to overcome before any kind of compromise can be offered, or even talked about.
Your position is thoughtful, and well presented. Perhaps, in time, more moderates can be persuaded to at least offer something by way of help. A pleasure to have you posting.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 3, 2007 10:13 PMYou're making me blush, Old Grouch. Thanks. The trouble is, now I'll be reluctant to straighten you out when you make a mistake, as you have a time or two. (joke)
It so really hard at times being a moderate. When your opinion is cast in concrete, you don't have to do a great deal of thinking. When you're searching for a middle ground, you (meaning me) so often find yourself unsure of where to land, and in my case at least I find myself often vacillating over what choice to make. That is much harder work than simply toeing the party line. There are times when I yearn for the comfort of being an absolutist.
Posted by Truth on May 4, 2007 07:13 AMTruth,
No need to joke. I've made my share of blunders along the way - and many would say far more than my share, as well.
For example, I'm not always all that "moderate" - at least in some areas. Hit the blue name tag, and visit. Look around, and I think you will find that I have my own full share of "absolutes" to deal with.
What makes it all the more difficult - for me anyway; and I am pretty sure for others as well - is the insistence that others have that THEIR label has to be THE LABEL, with any and all "contents" having to conform. This is especially true with those who keep on with "morals", and "Christian", as their reference for almost anything controversial. Once THEY stick a "label" on - on you, me, or anybody and anything - if you, or I, or anyone else refuses to be,or write, or 'live up", to what the label means to THEM, it's "all over".
That's about the most frustrating part of it all for me.
But, the website is cheap enough for it to serve as relief anyway. Can't afford to add a blog with responses; and don't really have the time to do justice to one either. But welcome comments - and email, or other addresses, in the Guest Book.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 4, 2007 10:37 AMAbsolutism is for cowards and for the lazy. But it is easy to get that way when faced with an absolute stance on the other side.
If there are 5 people left who are trying to be moderate on this issue, I don`t know them.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 4, 2007 10:38 AM