http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11475776/

Roberts and Alito shouldn't factor into this, don't you think?

the fundi-con loaded language title. It is D&X or D&E and this is the classic, knee jerk vs. thoughtful, informed opinion crap that makes my blood boil. Don't stoop to their making this a friggin battle of semantics.

the fundi-con loaded language title. It is D&X or D&E and this is the classic, knee jerk vs. thoughtful, informed opinion crap that makes my blood boil. Don't stoop to their making this a friggin battle of semantics.

I can see your point, but I think the term is sufficiently mainstream that it is here to stay. What ever happened to D&C? We used to call it "dust and clean?"

the fundi-con loaded language title. It is D&X or D&E and this is the classic, knee jerk vs. thoughtful, informed opinion crap that makes my blood boil. Don't stoop to their making this a friggin battle of semantics.
What would be a typical cause to have this type of procedure?

that's my point.You can't let them 'mainstream' a term that is inflammatory to their benefit. It's the same for them trying to lay claim to the word 'marriage' in the Gay Marriage debate.marriage existed as a civil situation long before the advent of Christianity. Marriages were arranged to consolidate empires, families, etc... so for the R.R. to try to lay claims on the term is false. look, it may seem like a tiny issue but it isn't.Language shapes thought (Sapir-Whorf) so this battle is more crucial than one might think.

to do the work. You pull out a baby and then puncture or crush it's skull.

If we found some Aztec site with crushed baby skulls, we'd say they were barbaric.

to do the work. You pull out a baby and then puncture or crush it's skull.

If we found some Aztec site with crushed baby skulls, we'd say they were barbaric.

Oh no, they would be an advanced culture that we should emulate.

yes it is a horrid procedure. but it is used very rarely. D&X is needed because the fetus has developed to a certain point before amniocentisis and or hi tech ultrasound uncover the issues that make it necessarry. here are some of the causes

1) fetal encephaly: brain doesn't develop, baby is brain dead or barely functioning FATAL
2) brain is developing on outside of skull (when skull starts to close brain will be cut off) FATAL
3) Osteogenesis imperfecta, (bones don't develop and are so brittle they break in utero) is discovered by seeing breaks in ultrasound) if child is carried to term, upon delivery every bone shatters and baby dies screaming in pain and horror on delivery table. FATAL
My wife and I had religious friends who were Pro Life and chose to deliver a O.I.baby. They still have not recovered from the helplessness of having to sit there and watch there 1 hr old baby die in sheer pain and terror.
4) Tay Sachs horrid genetic disorder, pain filled life which is considered long if they make 3 y.o.
5) brain dead fetus'
there are many more, but the reality is by the time these fatal issues show up the fetus' head is already too big to abort via standard methods. So there are 2 routes available
D&X,D&E and Caesarian Abortion,which is far more risky to the mother.

do some research. barbaric,maybe, what do you call someone who brings something into existence just to watch it suffer and die?

yes it is a horrid procedure. but it is used very rarely. D&X is needed because the fetus has developed to a certain point before amniocentisis and or hi tech ultrasound uncover the issues that make it necessarry. here are some of the causes

1) fetal encephaly: brain doesn't develop, baby is brain dead or barely functioning FATAL
2) brain is developing on outside of skull (when skull starts to close brain will be cut off) FATAL
3) Osteogenesis imperfecta, (bones don't develop and are so brittle they break in utero) is discovered by seeing breaks in ultrasound) if child is carried to term, upon delivery every bone shatters and baby dies screaming in pain and horror on delivery table. FATAL
My wife and I had religious friends who were Pro Life and chose to deliver a O.I.baby. They still have not recovered from the helplessness of having to sit there and watch there 1 hr old baby die in sheer pain and terror.
4) Tay Sachs horrid genetic disorder, pain filled life which is considered long if they make 3 y.o.
5) brain dead fetus'
there are many more, but the reality is by the time these fatal issues show up the fetus' head is already too big to abort via standard methods. So there are 2 routes available
D&X,D&E and Caesarian Abortion,which is far more risky to the mother.

do some research. barbaric,maybe, what do you call someone who brings something into existence just to watch it suffer and die?

Well, the Supreme Court of The United States, not being filled with "Fools" will undoubtedly get it right.

Well, the Supreme Court of The United States, not being filled with "Fools" will undoubtedly get it right.

if you belive the above statement. seriously folks spend some time studying the issue.

For whatever reason, you bring up the standard abortion party line. Here's the response:

The following letter from NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson was published in the Wall Street Journal on November 10, 2003.

Partial-Birth Abortion Used on Healthy Mothers

In an Oct. 28 column dealing with the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, reporter Tara Parker-Pope asserts that a practitioner "typically chooses it for medical reasons -- because of concern about bleeding, the need to act quickly after another type of abortion is started, or because a severe fetal abnormality makes it difficult to perform another method."

We believe this is a resurrection of old mythology that was propagated by the pro-abortion lobby in 1995-96. These claims were thoroughly discredited by journalists and congressional investigators who interviewed partial-birth abortionists between 1995 and 1997.

The myth suffered a terrific blow in February 1997, when Ron Fitzsimmons -- then and now the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, a trade association of hundreds of abortion providers -- repudiated what he called the "party line," telling the New York Times: "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."

Partial-birth abortions are usually performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. Keep in mind that in the fifth and sixth months, premature labor usually results in live birth, and after the fifth month, many born-alive babies survive indefinitely.

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington

yes it is a horrid procedure. but it is used very rarely. D&X is needed because the fetus has developed to a certain point before amniocentisis and or hi tech ultrasound uncover the issues that make it necessarry. here are some of the causes

1) fetal encephaly: brain doesn't develop, baby is brain dead or barely functioning FATAL
2) brain is developing on outside of skull (when skull starts to close brain will be cut off) FATAL
3) Osteogenesis imperfecta, (bones don't develop and are so brittle they break in utero) is discovered by seeing breaks in ultrasound) if child is carried to term, upon delivery every bone shatters and baby dies screaming in pain and horror on delivery table. FATAL
My wife and I had religious friends who were Pro Life and chose to deliver a O.I.baby. They still have not recovered from the helplessness of having to sit there and watch there 1 hr old baby die in sheer pain and terror.
4) Tay Sachs horrid genetic disorder, pain filled life which is considered long if they make 3 y.o.
5) brain dead fetus'
there are many more, but the reality is by the time these fatal issues show up the fetus' head is already too big to abort via standard methods. So there are 2 routes available
D&X,D&E and Caesarian Abortion,which is far more risky to the mother.

do some research. barbaric,maybe, what do you call someone who brings something into existence just to watch it suffer and die?
Thanks for the info.

Uh, Flip, I somehow doubt someone from the National Right to Life Committe is going to be unbiased. Do you truly believe a woman would abort a baby at 20+ weeks for the sake of "convenience"? Do you really believe those of us that are pro choice, run around begging women to abort, for no reason other than they can? In a perfect world, there would be no abortion. That will never happen, because we are human.

In the case of D&X, I cannot even imagine the pain the parents of a doomed child feel, knowing that no matter what they do, their baby will die. Could you in good concience bring a child into the world, knowing it would live a short amount of time, and in excruciating pain? Would you force your wife to carry a child with no brain, or a brain outside the skull, to term and deliver it? I can't think of anything more cruel than to put a woman through nine months of pregnancy, then labor, knowing her child is dead or is going to die right after birth.

if you belive the above statement. seriously folks spend some time studying the issue.

I have no doubt that the issues you list are part of the picture and if it is the only issue, you would be right. I don't believe it is the whole picture though and I do trust the SC to get it right.

For whatever reason, you bring up the standard abortion party line. Here's the response:

The following letter from NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson was published in the Wall Street Journal on November 10, 2003.

Partial-Birth Abortion Used on Healthy Mothers

In an Oct. 28 column dealing with the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, reporter Tara Parker-Pope asserts that a practitioner "typically chooses it for medical reasons -- because of concern about bleeding, the need to act quickly after another type of abortion is started, or because a severe fetal abnormality makes it difficult to perform another method."

We believe this is a resurrection of old mythology that was propagated by the pro-abortion lobby in 1995-96. These claims were thoroughly discredited by journalists and congressional investigators who interviewed partial-birth abortionists between 1995 and 1997.

The myth suffered a terrific blow in February 1997, when Ron Fitzsimmons -- then and now the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, a trade association of hundreds of abortion providers -- repudiated what he called the "party line," telling the New York Times: "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."

Partial-birth abortions are usually performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. Keep in mind that in the fifth and sixth months, premature labor usually results in live birth, and after the fifth month, many born-alive babies survive indefinitely.

Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington
Hey flip, I have some water front property in arizona forsale, I tell you what, since your such a good buddy I'll give it to you cheap. You seem like just the kind of guy to take advantage of this opportunity.

I have no doubt that the issues you list are part of the picture and if it is the only issue, you would be right. I don't believe it is the whole picture though and I do trust the SC to get it right.
The challenge...if you wish to accept it...Can you go 5 or more posts without TRUSTING anything to a governmental power?

I still think the best advice here is that if you don't like abortion then don't have one.

and this is the main issue. Govt wants to ban them even in cases that the mother's life may be in jeapordy. it is why the ban in many states has been overturned as it limits the doctors decisions to 1 (Hysterectomy, surgically removing the fetus via C-Section) which is far riskier and thee are far less surgeons cpapble of said procedure.

uh,lots of time the mother is in fine health. that isn't the issue, the baby is the one with fatal health issues that are only discovered later in term 12-16 weeks via amnio or ultrasound. So is it a convenience to end the fetus' life at 20 weeks vs. watching it die (or having a still birth) shortly after delivery?

as using an inflammatory name does not start an intelligent debate on the issue. the RR is all about knee jerk, misinformation, scray pictures and uninformed decision making. Just look at how rare this procedure is used. it is a percentage of the 1% of late term procedures used. and again the RR uses bad stats to inflate the arguement

Fewer than 1% of all abortions are performed in late pregnancy. They are prohibited by state and provincial medical associations, unless the fetus is dead, the abortion is required to save the life of the woman, or it is needed to avoid very serious health complications.

There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons. There is some evidence that, in the past, a physician in a hospital in New Jersey violated his medical association's regulations by performing late elective abortions -- procedures for non-medical reasons. Some groups opposed to abortion access extrapolated the New Jersey data to create an artificial national figure for third trimester abortions.

So is it a convenience to end the fetus' life at 20 weeks vs. watching it die (or having a still birth) shortly after delivery?
Exactly...but the pro-life people use the pictures from these procedures to scare people into thinking that this is a common method of abortion for convenience's sake. No woman in her right mid would ever want to go through something like this unless there was a valid reason for it.

and this is the main issue. Govt wants to ban them even in cases that the mother's life may be in jeapordy. it is why the ban in many states has been overturned as it limits the doctors decisions to 1 (Hysterectomy, surgically removing the fetus via C-Section) which is far riskier and thee are far less surgeons cpapble of said procedure.

uh,lots of time the mother is in fine health. that isn't the issue, the baby is the one with fatal health issues that are only discovered later in term 12-16 weeks via amnio or ultrasound. So is it a convenience to end the fetus' life at 20 weeks vs. watching it die (or having a still birth) shortly after delivery?

this is sad, really sad....Everyone is fighting over juris prudence, and yet at the core of the argument there are babies being born with unspeakable abnormalities. There many more than you have listed above ATP, including cyanotic cardiac defects. But to bring a child into this world only to watch it die is not something that a loving god would condone. I have seen it several times, and that coupled with all of the other death and illness I see, makes it hard to even believe in a benevolent god. I think a merciful end to that childs short life is warranted, and I am hoping that the SC sees it that way as well. I think though, that Roberts may surprise everyone, he is not as conservative in this issue as many think.

That's not what the Abortion director said. He said they were both healthy. What does that say to you. Convenience sounds like the only reasonable explanation, as it's not a health issue for either.

He said the vast majority. Just like the vast majority of regular abortions are for convenience.

Why some people don't see the irresponsibility of people and their careless disregard for their own baby's life is amazing to me.

turn it around.........If the laws were written so that these procedures were done only in the types of cases ATP outlines.......Would you be in favor of them or not?

Len

and it would help folks out to do
reality vs mythology

do some research on osteogenesis imperfecta for anyone interested.phys, I know I only did a short list, there's a load of fatal spinal abnormalities as well.

I've known women who've suffered through their decisions to have an abortion,I know of none that 'took it lightly' but their grief and guilt was nothing compared to this couple who chose to bring a O.I. child to term.

THe laws be written so for every abortion case. Why not.

That would save 97%. That's a really big number of lives saved.

and it would help folks out to do
reality vs mythology

do some research on osteogenesis imperfecta for anyone interested.phys, I know I only did a short list, there's a load of fatal spinal abnormalities as well.

I've known women who've suffered through their decisions to have an abortion,I know of none that 'took it lightly' but their grief and guilt was nothing compared to this couple who chose to bring a O.I. child to term.


a girl I as dating and got pregnant had an abortion, we were young, and didn't have the money or resources to take care of a kid, plus we weren't even sure how serious we were about each other. I took her to the clinic, and then held her for two nights while she sat and cried....Most women don't take it lightly, and can have serious depression afterwards.

I was a 'best friend' to a girl who was young and her boyfriend up and split. I was the guy who took her there and took care of her. I got all the dirty looks like 'Are you the guy?" from some folks and I was the guy whom she cried upon. Still remember her agonizing over it."I'm going to hell now, I just know it". It's been 20 years or more and I'm sure she's still torn up. I know what you and her went through. I saw the looks on the other girls faces as well. was quite a heavy 'life moment' for me.

I was a 'best friend' to a girl who was young and her boyfriend up and split. I was the guy who took her there and took care of her. I got all the dirty looks like 'Are you the guy?" from some folks and I was the guy whom she cried upon. Still remember her agonizing over it."I'm going to hell now, I just know it". It's been 20 years or more and I'm sure she's still torn up. I know what you and her went through. I saw the looks on the other girls faces as well. was quite a heavy 'life moment' for me.
I took an ex to get tested to see whether she was pregnant once (she wasn't and her Air Force Academy dude was too chicken to take her). Well both of us being basically poor naive kids went to this place that advertised "free" tests. Of course it was a front for some Pro-life org and they showed her all the grisly pix before the "free" test. Kinda pissed me off at the time, but I guess we did get the free test.

Why don't you answer the question about this type of abortion.

This is a good backround that appears fact based.

http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/trends.pdf

The type of Abortion we are talking about in this trend account for about 1.5% of total US Legal Abortions.

Len

<!--mstheme-->

it's all or nothing (nothing actually) with them. they refuse to see the grey areas which is specifically why the courts made them legal (and are overturning the law in many cases)

rape, incest,mother's saftey, child is dead or will die doesn't matter to them. besides the fact that making them illegal isn't going to cease their existnece.

it's all or nothing (nothing actually) with them. they refuse to see the grey areas which is specifically why the courts made them legal (and are overturning the law in many cases)

rape, incest,mother's saftey, child is dead or will die doesn't matter to them. besides the fact that making them illegal isn't going to cease their existnece.

You need to be very careful with your "they and thems." You and that attitude are part of the problem. Rational people on both sides could reach some compromise but it has to be win ,win which means to some degree, it is also lose, lose. Labeling and pigeon holing your opposition isn't going to work. There are hard line, closed minds on each side but they don't make up the majority of America.

I edited my post above to include some good statistics to frame this discussion


http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/trends.pdf

less than 1.5 % of all legal abortions are in the term beyond 20 weeks.

Len

uh,lots of time the mother is in fine health. that isn't the issue, the baby is the one with fatal health issues that are only discovered later in term 12-16 weeks via amnio or ultrasound. So is it a convenience to end the fetus' life at 20 weeks vs. watching it die (or having a still birth) shortly after delivery?
Well, if you really want to split hairs, I guess it IS "convenience". If there is no medical reason to have the procedure to protect the mother then the only reason to go through with it would be to save the parents from having to watch the child die after it's born. I would imagine (we can only speculate) that the procedure itself would only be slightly less traumatic for the child if it is far enough along in term so we can't really say that it's to ease the child's suffering although it probably would in certain cases.


That being said, neither me or my wife would hesitate to have the procedure done in the situations you listed for our sake and the child's. As much as I am for abortion in the first trimester, I think it would be absolutely monsterous for someone to have the procedure late term if both they and the baby were healthy.

I can see the SC going either way.

I was a 'best friend' to a girl who was young and her boyfriend up and split. I was the guy who took her there and took care of her. I got all the dirty looks like 'Are you the guy?" from some folks and I was the guy whom she cried upon. Still remember her agonizing over it."I'm going to hell now, I just know it". It's been 20 years or more and I'm sure she's still torn up. I know what you and her went through. I saw the looks on the other girls faces as well. was quite a heavy 'life moment' for me.

If it is that "heavy" and traumatic, why didn't she just have the kid and let her parents help, or just raise it? You would be surprised how often that happens and how many moments in life lighten that "heavy" load.

call it convenience.
but I seem to think terminating ASAP would be the least painful to you and the fetus in these cases.
and don't forget in many cases the fetus' is already brain dead or with minimal brain function so it isn't going to 'suffer' if that is the issue.

Snake I dunno, I didn't ask her. She had made the decision, I had no involvement with her other than being her friend so I supported her decision and didn't judge. I'm gonna guess that having the kid would have meant no college, and a future as a single mom in a small town working at the grocery store. She had plans for her life that having a child would have altered in a way she coudln't handle. Like I said, her decision.

It's all or all with him. He can't even consider understanding that MOST by the vast majority are due to irresponsibility. He doens't even want to address the fundamental problem for society over and over making the same err.

He has no desire to make these people smarter or more considerate.

Len's problem is he wants to talk about partial birth which he says is only 1.5% of all abortions. Why is he afraid to speak about putting the same kind of restrictions on both kinds.

Why not make 95.5% of the people more aware of screwing up instead of 1.5%.

The problem for both of them is the weakness of their rational. They don't care about speaking about the stupidity of the people in general, they only want to talk about the "1.5%" because that's obviously a stronger case for them.

They don't want to talk about the 95.5% because they know those people are )#*)#*.

The head guy said the vast majority are healthy mothers and babies.

Now you should do just what Il Sogno said she'd do if she found out she was wrong, go take a bike ride and not care that the data doesn't support your statement.

They don't want to talk about the 95.5% because they know those people are )#*)#*.
Get off your high horse Flip. I suppose you know the mindset of everyone that has an abortion. What if the pregnancy is a product of rape or incest? Is abortion in that case convenience in your book?

The two faced liberal argument.
Flip...you're arguing the wrong point here. Do you want it to be legal or not? If so then under what circumstances? Don't think it's gonna go away just because it's not legal in the US though? Rich women will still be able to travel elsewhere for the procedure. Poor women will get out their coathangers. Sad, but true.

We couldn't, it wouldn't, I shouldn't, etc. That's the liberal position. Cry over each other. There was nothing I could do, let me cry on your shoulder. Please do my brother.

Pathetic.

Looking at the two abortion numbers maybe 4.5% of all abortions fit into the death or deformed catagory. The rest are just sob stories.

On one hand you get these sob stories and stories of people never being the same and hurt (to defend the reason for abortion and the humanity of the people who get them).

Then you get the story from a poster on this site that she got one and never thinks about it at all (to support that argument that abortions aren't aborting a living person, but a mass of tissue).

The two faced liberal argument.

The head guy said the vast majority are healthy mothers and babies.

Now you should do just what Il Sogno said she'd do if she found out she was wrong, go take a bike ride and not care that the data doesn't support your statement.

The "head guy" was also talking about second trimester abortions - not third. D & X are done in the third tri.

didn't Jesus say something about casting stones mister double abortion?

we are not talking about all abortions we were talking about D&X originally so your stats
????

uh Flip did you stop your abortions?

heck the one I dealt with wasn't even mine. but Jesus told me "Judge Ye Not" and if it is a crime against God (for her doing so) then she'll have to answer for it.If it's a crime for me (or you) letting them, then we'll have to answer for that. Last I checked niether one of us were God so lets leave the judging to the almighty.

Once again this is all moot. making them illegal won't stop them as sad and horrid as they are. this is the issue you fail to address as kids (and some adults) like you, make mistakes.

so when your side comes up with any 'real time'answers to this sad issue lemme know. Until then just keep your sanctimonious and hypocritical head in the sand.

once again you are talking about the 3% group.

We are talking, unless you haven't understood, about the 97% group. You know the not rape, not incest, not medical group. The big group. The group thats whole reason for the abortion is convenience.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think this gigantic group acts responsibly.

Fixed has a good point. He said these people have choice, and it's all before they conceive. Once they do, because of their crappy actions, then they lose the freedom to choose.

I like his thinking. Just like his thinking about the murders and terrorists. Once they murder or do terror, they lose their rights as a member of humanity.

Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)

Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%

Source:Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 24(3):117–127 & 152 As reported by:The Alan Guttmacher Institute Online:

Why would I want to lie to you about how I feel? You express your opinion openly, primarily dissent and angst at the same government I trust. Unlike you, I take a reasoned approach and try to weigh both sides. I realize you have an image to uphold here, so I don't expect you to try to do that.

So it looks like even abortion doctors state that 80% of partial birth procedures are elective, not due to any issue with the health of mom or baby. What do you think about that?
Where does that statistic come from?

Len

as using an inflammatory name does not start an intelligent debate on the issue. the RR is all about knee jerk, misinformation, scray pictures and uninformed decision making. Just look at how rare this procedure is used. it is a percentage of the 1% of late term procedures used. and again the RR uses bad stats to inflate the arguement

Fewer than 1% of all abortions are performed in late pregnancy. They are prohibited by state and provincial medical associations, unless the fetus is dead, the abortion is required to save the life of the woman, or it is needed to avoid very serious health complications.

There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons. There is some evidence that, in the past, a physician in a hospital in New Jersey violated his medical association's regulations by performing late elective abortions -- procedures for non-medical reasons. Some groups opposed to abortion access extrapolated the New Jersey data to create an artificial national figure for third trimester abortions.

All right, I concede that you are correct. You make a strong argument, and obviously have a fair bit of knowledge (much more than I do) about the subject. Here is a question, though: How do we address the situation if nobody knows what we are talking about? Assume a doctor is to give a press conference to talk about how these procedures medically are necessary. How should he announce it, knowing that everyone and their mother (with the exception of the very few who know enough about it to call it by its correct name) refers to it as partial birth abortions. Two sample press releases:

1. Dr. G to talk on the merits of D&X procedures at 1:00 at ABC University;
2. Dr. G to talk about the merits of partial birth abortions at 1:00 at ABC University.

I think release number 2 will generate more interest, and therefore result in more people being correctly informed about what is really going on. Not unlike, for example, my misuse of the right's nomenclature in the original post, and your educational responses thereto.

Perhaps the best press release might be door number 3:

3. Dr. G to discuss the merits of the D&X procedure, and explain why the term partial birth is erroneous and wrong.

Now, that said, how to get that soundbite onto the 6:00 news is another story.

Why would I want to lie to you about how I feel? You express your opinion openly, primarily dissent and angst at the same government I trust. Unlike you, I take a reasoned approach and try to weigh both sides. I realize you have an image to uphold here, so I don't expect you to try to do that.

Heavens forbid that you should ever feel to lie about your feelings. My opinions are based on staunch rationality tinged with cynicism and a touch of nihilism...they are not angst ridden but a study in vigilance. It is for my generation to decide what direction this country goes next. We can entrench ourselves in a state of fear...trusting those that have bought our votes to do right by us or what I refer to as the your going to get f'd so you might as well enjoy it mentality...or we can open our eyes to what has been happening for years and is not in anyway a product of only the last five years. What you might call paranoia I would call watchfulness and what you deem trust...I might suggest as naivete.

My guess since you have used the word trust in your reply that you have not accepted the challenge?

The important thing is that in no way does this have anything to do with the current thread topic...which for my part will remain unspoken.

[QUOTE=Flip Flash]
Len's problem is he wants to talk about partial birth which he says is only 1.5% of all abortions. Why is he afraid to speak about putting the same kind of restrictions on both kinds.

QUOTE]

No flip....

Len wants to respond to the original post.......which addressed the issue of late term abortions. You are the one that is trying to change the original question.

If you want to ask a different question, start your own post.

Jees....it's really not that hard.

Len

And there a several quotes from abortion doctors saying the 80% of partial birth abortions are elective. No involving maternal or baby issues. What do you say to that.

So it looks like even abortion doctors state that 80% of partial birth procedures are elective, not due to any issue with the health of mom or baby. What do you think about that?

boAnd there a several quotes from abortion doctors saying the 80% of partial birth abortions are elective. No involving maternal or baby issues. What do you say to that.Sources?

call it convenience.
but I seem to think terminating ASAP would be the least painful to you and the fetus in these cases.
and don't forget in many cases the fetus' is already brain dead or with minimal brain function so it isn't going to 'suffer' if that is the issue.

Snake I dunno, I didn't ask her. She had made the decision, I had no involvement with her other than being her friend so I supported her decision and didn't judge. I'm gonna guess that having the kid would have meant no college, and a future as a single mom in a small town working at the grocery store. She had plans for her life that having a child would have altered in a way she coudln't handle. Like I said, her decision.


those of you musically inclined, Eddie Vedder had one of the best quotes ever about abortion. He was going to speak about pro-choice decisions, and he had a woman accost him and tell him basically, that unless he had a uterus, he should stay out of it. He said...."I could not agree more, and if every middle class white suburban male, and all men everywhere stayed out of it, there would be almost no issue at all".....That is classic.

I give them to you, but what good does it do. You will still argue the same. cry, bo hoo, whoa for me, etc. Here you go:

In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are "purely elective." In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that "elective" does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He admitted to Fr. Frank that there does not seem to be any medical reason for this procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony).

Here's another from the horse's mouth. What say you?

The myth suffered a terrific blow in February 1997, when Ron Fitzsimmons -- then and now the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, a trade association of hundreds of abortion providers -- repudiated what he called the "party line," telling the New York Times: "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."

As I've said before, those same guys, including your musician quote, have spent their fair share of time helping influence and make the original choice. I've known girls who got pregnant and had the babies. they seem to get pretty protective when it's all said and done. college in the way she originally planned might be out of the question but an education is not. I understand those arguments, I respect the pain you say these girls suffer but it doesn't influence my opinion on what is right and what is wrong. I've raised too many babies to be anti baby today. Not all of those babies were my "mistakes." I've stood in for guys who said "Whoa, (hands in air) this is YOUR decision." I can live with this being the law if the SC once again upholds RvW. I think they will do so, but in my heart, it will always be a crime and I will always believe the options should come before the pregnancy, not after.

Where does that statistic come from?

Len

I put it in there.

I put it in there.
a few comments.....

1.) one doctor talking about his experiences in 1992. He might or might not be representative of either today or of other doctors performing the procedure.

2.) Since these fetuses are not viable at 20 to 24 weeks, it's kind of a moot point, isn't it.

3.) I have read extensivly on the abortion issue, and the problem that I have is that 99% of the material available falls under the following catagories:
-it has been produced or funded by groups with a dramatic bias on either side of the issue. Because of this, you can find material to support or refute any position.
-it tries to extrapolate statistically insignificant data (like you're Dr quote above) that supports whatever position it has over entire populations.
-it mixes opinion and presents it as fact.

This is on both sides of the issue BTW.

Look, here are the facts, as near as I can ascertain them (through all the chatter I described above).

1.) Unwanted/surprise pregnancies are going to occur. We don't live in an ideal world. People make mistakes.
2.) Medicially dangerous pregnancies are going to occur.
3.) In countries in which Abortion is illegal, more women die of pregnancy/post pregnancy complications than in countries where it is legal.
4.) Countries that have gone from legal to illegal and back to legal have seen inverse women mortality rates......more women die per 1000 births when abortion is illegal then when it is legal, and this all in the same country over time.
5.) Abortions per live birth rates decline in every country that legalizes abortion over time. As societies are more open about abortions and contraceptives, rates decline.
6.) 80 % or so of legal abortions are for young singles. The socioeconomic class in this country that are least equipped financially or emotionally to raise children.

Under those conditions, what are the options?

In an ideal world, everyone would be emotioanlly mature and economically capable of making good decisions and taking responsibility for those decisions. But again, we don't live in an ideal world. Until we do, I believe that we have to make some hard decisions. Viability is a good benchmark in my opinion.

Here is the question that I would like answered:.....Why do we think that these same people that are incapable of (In your opinion) doing anything other than making decisions out of convenience to them are capable of raising children?

I think that this is one of those times when you can't legislate morality. I think you educate, you encourage, you have open conversations about alternatives and options, but in the end, it is an individual decision.

Now don't get me started on the question of "should the guy be notified"? :D

Len

I think that this is one of those times when you can't legislate morality. I think you educate, you encourage, you have open conversations about alternatives and options, but in the end, it is an individual decision.

Len

I'm with Len, except for this last part. IMO there is no appropriate time to legislate morality. We are supposed to live in a free society, and the laws only criminalize the activities while doing little to prevent them.

In this sense, prohibiting abortion would be as successful as prohibition of alcohol, the drug war, censorship of pornography, abstinence only programs, etc. It's awful hard to break human desires by putting up a paper thin wall.

Silas

Heavens forbid that you should ever feel to lie about your feelings. My opinions are based on staunch rationality tinged with cynicism and a touch of nihilism...they are not angst ridden but a study in vigilance. It is for my generation to decide what direction this country goes next. We can entrench ourselves in a state of fear...trusting those that have bought our votes to do right by us or what I refer to as the your going to get f'd so you might as well enjoy it mentality...or we can open our eyes to what has been happening for years and is not in anyway a product of only the last five years. What you might call paranoia I would call watchfulness and what you deem trust...I might suggest as naivete.

My guess since you have used the word trust in your reply that you have not accepted the challenge?

The important thing is that in no way does this have anything to do with the current thread topic...which for my part will remain unspoken.


Well stated. BraVO!!!

I must admit ATP was right. I take back anything negative I ever said about you with my sincerest apologies.

yes it is a horrid procedure. but it is used very rarely. D&X is needed because the fetus has developed to a certain point before amniocentisis and or hi tech ultrasound uncover the issues that make it necessarry. here are some of the causes

1) fetal encephaly: brain doesn't develop, baby is brain dead or barely functioning FATAL
2) brain is developing on outside of skull (when skull starts to close brain will be cut off) FATAL
3) Osteogenesis imperfecta, (bones don't develop and are so brittle they break in utero) is discovered by seeing breaks in ultrasound) if child is carried to term, upon delivery every bone shatters and baby dies screaming in pain and horror on delivery table. FATAL
My wife and I had religious friends who were Pro Life and chose to deliver a O.I.baby. They still have not recovered from the helplessness of having to sit there and watch there 1 hr old baby die in sheer pain and terror.
4) Tay Sachs horrid genetic disorder, pain filled life which is considered long if they make 3 y.o.
5) brain dead fetus'
there are many more, but the reality is by the time these fatal issues show up the fetus' head is already too big to abort via standard methods. So there are 2 routes available
D&X,D&E and Caesarian Abortion,which is far more risky to the mother.

do some research. barbaric,maybe, what do you call someone who brings something into existence just to watch it suffer and die?



It's the ignorance that is barbaric.

deleted

You need to be very careful with your "they and thems." You and that attitude are part of the problem. Rational people on both sides could reach some compromise but it has to be win ,win which means to some degree, it is also lose, lose. Labeling and pigeon holing your opposition isn't going to work. There are hard line, closed minds on each side but they don't make up the majority of America.


This is a textbook example of how to use a very specific type of abortion procedure as a tool to go after all types of abortion. No they or thems about it.

didn't Jesus say something about casting stones mister double abortion?

we are not talking about all abortions we were talking about D&X originally so your stats
????

uh Flip did you stop your abortions?

heck the one I dealt with wasn't even mine. but Jesus told me "Judge Ye Not" and if it is a crime against God (for her doing so) then she'll have to answer for it.If it's a crime for me (or you) letting them, then we'll have to answer for that. Last I checked niether one of us were God so lets leave the judging to the almighty.

Once again this is all moot. making them illegal won't stop them as sad and horrid as they are. this is the issue you fail to address as kids (and some adults) like you, make mistakes.

so when your side comes up with any 'real time'answers to this sad issue lemme know. Until then just keep your sanctimonious and hypocritical head in the sand.


We all know he is morally false. Deep down he even does.

We all know he is morally false. Deep down he even does.Huh? You mean being a f**k up when you're young then finding religion when you're older doesn't entitle you to tell everyone else how they should think, feel and act???

Huh? You mean being a f**k up when you're young then finding religion when you're older doesn't entitle you to tell everyone else how they should think, feel and act???

Making suggestions is OK.

The "head guy" was also talking about second trimester abortions - not third. D & X are done in the third tri.

Actually, Flip has it right. Many, if not most D & X/Partial Birth abortions are done in the 2nd trimester, on health babies.


The following is a transcript of a PBS show done in '97, when there was legislation pending in Congress. It's a show that focused on the medias coverage of several topics. The first topic was D & X. The conclusion (based on independant reporting, including articles in the Wash. Post) was that the pro-choice side was "playing fast and loose with the facts". And that the main-stream media simply reported as fact whatever the pro-choice side said.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/mediamatters99/transcript2.html


...
Eastland
Their cases immediately became the core of stories in print and on
television programs such as NBC's Dateline and CBS's 60 Minutes.

Ed Bradley
Mickey Wilson(?) is a pediatric nurse and the mother of two
children. In April of '94 she was eight months pregnant with her
third child when she discovered her baby's brain was growing outside
its head.

Tumulty
The piece that 60 Minutes did really fell into all the traps that
this whole debate presented. They used these incredibly tragic
examples, but examples that only portrayed basically one side of the
debate.

Eastland
Echoing the position of abortion rights advocates, 60 Minutes
focused on those abortions done by this procedure in the third
trimester of pregnancy. The program made little effort to convey the
view of abortion proponents that the procedure is most often used on
healthy fetuses in the second trimester.

top

Tumulty
These women had these unspeakable tragedies. And because those were
the cases that we were able to get to immediately, and get those
people on camera or into print ... those are the cases we relied on.

(Pause)

Ruth Padawer, The Record
Most of the stories that I read said that intact D&E(?) occurred
only for fetal anomalies or tragic circumstances and that's not at
all what I found.

Eastland
Ruth Patower(?), a reporter for the Record, a New Jersey paper was
asked to research the abortion procedure. In September of 1996, some
14 months after the bill was introduced in Congress, her work led to
the first independently researched article on the issue in the
mainstream press.

Padawer
I was perplexed that the facts were in dispute. Uh, I had asked both
sides to send me material and they both sent quite a bit of
material. And ... uh, I was surprised at how far apart they were.
Once I collected everything that I thought I needed from each side
... where they laid out their best cases, I decided to call
physicians that I knew in New Jersey assuming that they would direct
me to people in New York City or Pennsylvania. My understanding was
that there were no intact D&Es in New Jersey. And in the course of
our conversation the physician said, "I do them." And I was quite
startled. I didn't realize that. And then he very frankly began
telling me how he did them and how often he did them and what were
the circumstances that brought women there.

Eastland
Through her conversations with two doctors and a clinic
administrator, Patower discovered that in New Jersey alone roughly
1500 of the procedures were performed each year ... close to three
times the number that abortion rights advocates had claimed for the
entire country. And the procedure was mainly done in the second
trimester on healthy fetuses.

Tumulty
Once the story was out they were immediately attacked and their
figures were denied by the clinic involved. And they ... basically
had no recourse to defend it other than to say, "We stand behind our
story."

Padawer
I don't know how many abortions occur in that clinic. I am not there
watching. What I do know is that two staff physicians independently
told me those figures.

Eastland
Is it possible to verify Patower's reporting? In its coverage the
Washington Post repeated mistakes made by many other newspapers.
After complaints from anti-abortion groups, David Brown, a Post
reporter and medical doctor, set out to discover the facts for
himself.
top

David Brown, The Washington Post
I was not looking for anecdotes, I was trying to get some sense of
getting the totality of these procedures ... what fraction of them
involve pregnancies in which the woman's health is at risk, what
fraction of them involved pregnancies in which the fetus is clearly
not going to survive even if he or she is born at term ... and the
only source of that information was the doctors.

Eastland
Brown's reporting resulted in two articles ... a co-authored front
page story and a second, more detailed piece in the paper's health
section. He drew his profile of the procedure from extensive
interviews with five abortion doctors in different parts of the
country.

Eastland
Can you describe for us what your reporting found?

Brown
My reporting showed that a large number, possibly even a majority of
these procedures were done on normal fetuses ... most of them were
done before the period of viability. Cases in which the mother's
life was truly at risk were extremely rare. Most people who got this
procedure were really not very different from, uh, most people who
got abortions.

(Pause)

Eastland
The Washington Post and the Record were able to move beyond the
rhetoric and the press releases to uncover key facts about this
abortion procedure. Yet it took more than 14 months for those facts
to emerge.

Alter
For news organizations to allow months to pass before they try to go
out and do their own, independent assessment of the facts ... was a
real problem. And they ... they let themselves substitute political
reporting ... what was going on on the Hill, which is just a lot of
unreliable, uh, advocates shouting at each other ... to drive out
the real reporting, uh, of how many of these abortions were taking
place and where, and at what time in women's pregnancies.

Eastland
And in the case of this particular story, reporters tended to accept
as true the assertions of the abortion rights side ... despite
evidence calling into question their claims.

Padawer
One of the unsettling things of what I found in the reporting, uh,
was ... the discovery that the pro-choice side was playing fast and
loose with the facts. And that that ... uh, that there's a
credibility gap there that there wasn't before ... for me.

Gianelli
It's a very difficult issue to cover, uh, as a reporter because you
have to ... you have to be not pro-life, not pro-choice, but
pro-truth when you're writing these stories. Otherwise your stories
will spin. You have to go to both sides, the primary sources, and
then sit down and write it straight. And I think that's a very
difficult thing to do.

Leo
It was very unfortunate. I think that the media, both TV and the
print media, uh, used the arguments and often the language of the
pro-choice side. They did not examine the ca... the weaknesses in
their case, and I think the, uh, general coverage was ... varied
from weak to openly distorted. I don't think the message was clearly
brought to the American people what was at stake here.

Eastland
If a new bill banning the procedure is introduced in Congress, the
press will be called upon once again. The question remains whether
uncovering the divisive subject of abortion, the press can rise
above the politics, and its own predilections ... to report the
facts.

nor is it my contention that they should be. I'm all for freedom of choice, however...

my point is this: Should we or should we not attempt to educate people in a way that promotes responsiblity.

The problem is that there is too little promotion of responsibility. We give kids or those that act like them, a smoking gun (condom or birth control) and say we've equiped you.

We don't educate them about the realities. We don't strong advocate that abstinence is the best thing as a society.

Not that we can force it, but we should be about promoting that abstinence is the most respectful thing for yourself, your future and life.

Since we've got the machinery to get it done. Why not advocate to those that really muct do it, to get mechanical assistance. Heck, some women say it's better and for the guy, his blow up doll is always interested. Simple.

story was debunked. it is an isolated incident by a doctor acting beyond his bounds that the R.R. tries to use as a national Stat but is wholly unrepresentative. But I appreciate a Con going to media matters that libby organization they usually loathe. Go to religioustolerance.com, they discuss the whole New Jersey thing there.

and 1 million abortions out of how many millions of folks having sex ain't a bad # statistically. Numbers have gone down nationally for years. Only areas where it seems to be on the rise is areas of abstinence only and such. People do dumb things (we all should know) and I don't want someone doing a dumb thing (back alley abortion) to deal with the other dumb thing (getting knocked up) which sometimes isn't dumb as strange accidents occur (Antibiotics couteracting the pill, condoms, dams failing,etc...)
Flip we all agree we should do whatever we can to reduce the #, no one likes this on either side of the board. But no one comes up with a solution.
except me

How's this. Since we want to eliminate unwanted pregnancy and since our culture lacks a proper boy to man ritual (Right of Passage). we develop a reversable (valved) vasectomy that is given to every male on their 11th birthday. This provides a ritual to enter them into manhood and puts the pregnancy debate into OUR hands. Upon getting married or whatever when a Man is ready to breed he goes to the doctor and has the valves opened.
maybe he even has to take a test to get it opened. what do ya'll think?

How's this. Since we want to eliminate unwanted pregnancy and since our culture lacks a proper boy to man ritual (Right of Passage). we develop a reversable (valved) vasectomy that is given to every male on their 11th birthday. This provides a ritual to enter them into manhood and puts the pregnancy debate into OUR hands. Upon getting married or whatever when a Man is ready to breed he goes to the doctor and has the valves opened.
maybe he even has to take a test to get it opened. what do ya'll think?
Great idea in theory, but that solution doesn't address STDs and Aids and the like. I did it like that, but in reverse. Had the kids then shut the machinery down. It's friggin great to not to have to worry about contraception anymore.

story was debunked. it is an isolated incident by a doctor acting beyond his bounds that the R.R. tries to use as a national Stat but is wholly unrepresentative. But I appreciate a Con going to media matters that libby organization they usually loathe. Go to religioustolerance.com, they discuss the whole New Jersey thing there.


I always find a story by any sort of organization, libby or con, that goes against it's own conventional wisdom to be trustworthy. Like if the National Review or the Wash. Times were to write an article that was opposed to something a Conservative was doing.

I'll look into the N.J. story, but a similar finding was reported by Brown, in the WP.



Eastland
Is it possible to verify Patower's reporting? In its coverage the
Washington Post repeated mistakes made by many other newspapers.
After complaints from anti-abortion groups, David Brown, a Post
reporter and medical doctor, set out to discover the facts for
himself.
top

David Brown, The Washington Post
I was not looking for anecdotes, I was trying to get some sense of
getting the totality of these procedures ... what fraction of them
involve pregnancies in which the woman's health is at risk, what
fraction of them involved pregnancies in which the fetus is clearly
not going to survive even if he or she is born at term ... and the
only source of that information was the doctors.

Eastland
Brown's reporting resulted in two articles ... a co-authored front
page story and a second, more detailed piece in the paper's health
section. He drew his profile of the procedure from extensive
interviews with five abortion doctors in different parts of the
country.

Eastland
Can you describe for us what your reporting found?

Brown
My reporting showed that a large number, possibly even a majority of
these procedures were done on normal fetuses ... most of them were
done before the period of viability. Cases in which the mother's
life was truly at risk were extremely rare. Most people who got this
procedure were really not very different from, uh, most people who
got abortions.

make up a percent of 1% performed. something like 6000 to the million plus abortions done a year. Mother's health is rarely the issue, it is usually fetal issues,in some cases it happens because some women are in a state of denial about being pregnant until too late.
(into 2nd trimester) or because there support system vanishes. sometimes it is also on a young child because even at early stages (late 1st) the head is already too big for a preteen or early teen.
again the procedure is rare and I agree that girls that use this form because they waited too long or whatever should be curbed. But to ban a procedure completely when there are viable reasons due to the fetus,or mother is not a viable solution. It in effect, punishes the people who honestly need it because of those who abuse the system who do not.