Do you believe that Partial Birth Abortion should be Legal?

[steen]

Finn, there's a link to it on page one. Whether it's partisan or not doesn't matter - it's an accurate description of the procedure.

Actually, no it isn't. Tha page contains multiple inconsistencies and incorrect claims. It essentially is misinformation.

 

[Navy Pride]

Actually, no it isn't. Tha page contains multiple inconsistencies and incorrect claims. It essentially is misinformation.

Can you enlighten us on the inconsistencies and incorrect claims? thanks

 

[steen]

Why is PBA even an issue? I have had this debate with extreme feminists and they scream and yell a whole bunch, but I've never heard why - even if abortion is totally legal up until, say, 30 weeks, why it can't be banned after that - unless mom is in danger of dying or whatever. What's the deal? I've NEVER gotten a straight answer on this, just a lot of screaming and emoting.

Well, for one, your argument is not really borne out in reality. For one, the only kinds of abortions done at 30 weeks are inductions, and then per medical emergencies which fully is supported per your criteria.

What is so falsely called "partial birth abortion" (though no birth is involved, it is just prolife emotional claptrap), is a procedure done between weeks 14 and 24, generally around weeks 18-20 of the pregnancy, thus making it a 2nd-trimester procedure. For one, it is a very rare procedure, making up at most 0.15% of all abortions. Secondly, it is the alternative to the D&E procedure, where the fetus is dismembered inside the uterus. In comparison, the risks for instrument damage to the uterus is much less, and the needed cervical dilation is much less as well, reducing the risk for future miscarriages, prolapsed uterus at later births and such.

So perhaps, your complain about not having received replies in the past may be per your beginning premise being wrong?

Unless you actually know the mechanisms and reasons for the procedure, you really can't debate it, right?

But certainly, if my wife, sister, cousin, daughter etc. would need a second-trimester abortion, I would much rather see them get a D&X (what prolifers seem to claim is the "pba") than a D&E.

Again, this is a medical decision, and should not be made by politicians or people who don't like what it "looks" like. No medical decision-making should be based on what the procedure "looks" like, or heart bypass surgeries would immediately be banned.

 

[steen]

....for that murderous act?

That's just stupid hyperbole. Abortion is not murder. Your outburst is silly and detracts from the discussion.

 

[steen]

Some Liberal judge ruled the lhe law unconstitutional and it will go to the SCOTUS later this year.........

"liberal" judge? It was a judge that undestood that such unconstitutional restrictions on legal medical procedures were not acceptable.

 

[steen]

Drilling for oil means jobs for American workers and the lowering of gasoline prices.......that is good enough for me............Now if I had your money I guess I would not worry about it either:roll: Worry about the damn deer in ANWAR not about the American workers trying to make it from payday to payday..........

Sad.............

Holy ****. This is like Deja Vu, like listening to James Watt all over again.

 

[steen]

Can you enlighten us on the inconsistencies and incorrect claims? thanks

For one, the process is not a birth. There is a rather specific medical description of "birth," and this medical procedure doesn't follow it.

Then there is the claim about it being legal through all 9 months. It is not possible to perform before 13 weeks, or technically feasible after 24-26 weeks. So that's just plain deceptive, solely hyperbole for emotional appeal through deception.

And then there is the claim of it "routinely" being done. It is not routine, it is a majorly involved medical procedure and is quite rare. There are between 1000-2000 done each year, out of the 1 mill +/- abortions in the US each year. And also note that the typical time for this procedure is around 18-20 weeks instead of what this site claims.

Then there is the usual revisionist linguistic crap, the prolife deceptive hyperbole about calling the fetus a "baby," though the developmental stage "baby" begins at birth, not before birth or any artificial removal pre-labor.

Then there is Dr. White's claim. It is flat-out a lie.

And then Johnson's quote regarding the time of abortions, and attempting to imply a number based on this, that also is false. The AGI, by the way does have fairly accurate statistics on this (See above), making the Johnson quote deliberately misleading. So again, we see prolife dishonesty; prolife inability to simply let the facts stand on their own because they feel a need to embroider and exaggerate their claims. Emotional appeal over facts and reality. Further evidence of how inherently dishonest prolifers really are.

As for Haskell's quote, I am still waiting to see that verified. Lots of prolifers and prolife lie sites make this claim, but none of them actually have references the actual congressional panel proceedings where this remark supposedly was made.

Then we get to the claims about McMahon. I am still waiting for a prolifer to prove how it is physically possible to do this procedure at 40 weeks, when the fetal shoulders and torso are almost as wide as the skull, thus making the procedure meaningless, and making simple induction much easier and safer to do. It simply doesn't make sense, and thus seems just another prolife lie. Now, a prolifer somewhere might be able to come up with evidence, but my experience with prolifers is that they will lie for any reason, so I frankly am not holding my breath.

As for the examples regarding McMahon and "cleft lip," certainly many genetic illnesses incompatible with life in any meaningful way also have cleft palate as one of their symptoms. the kids that end up being born with some of these trisomy diseases end up with 30-50 surgeries before age 2, just to stay alive. I would have no problem endorsing the abortion of a fetus with these disorders.

As for schaefer's "testimony," it also (1) is full of inaccuracies (Go read her full account), and (2) has never actually been verified as anything but her own invention. Again, prolifers have lied so much, and have been proven to lie so much that such claims must be verified before they are given any credence. I am sorry that it is this way, but it is your (prolifers) own fault, as you for so many years have been busy spewing whatever sounded good for your argument with no attention to facts. Don't blame me for not trusting the movement that has repeatedly lied for many decades.

But then, the site IS the RTL site after all, as it is PROVEN to be a lie site which deliberately post lies. Not just about this "pba," but also about fetal pain, breast cancer and a myriad of other medical claims that are outright false. So don't expect me to give this any more attention. I don't bother with known liars.

 

[Navy Pride]

That's just stupid hyperbole. Abortion is not murder. Your outburst is silly and detracts from the discussion.

It is murder.....You are killing a baby that is viable outside the womb.Why do you think that states are charging a person that kills a pregant women with e murders.......

[QUOTE"liberal" judge? It was a judge that undestood that such unconstitutional restrictions on legal medical procedures were not acceptable.][/QUOTE]

It will be overturned in the SCOTUS....It is a murderous barbaric act that should only be performed when the mother's life is endangered......

Holy ****. This is like Deja Vu, like listening to James Watt all over again.

I don't care about Watt or you I just want reasonable energy prices in this country and thanks to people thinking like you we don't have them....

 

[Navy Pride]

For one, the process is not a birth. There is a rather specific medical description of "birth," and this medical procedure doesn't follow it.

Then there is the claim about it being legal through all 9 months. It is not possible to perform before 13 weeks, or technically feasible after 24-26 weeks. So that's just plain deceptive, solely hyperbole for emotional appeal through deception.

And then there is the claim of it "routinely" being done. It is not routine, it is a majorly involved medical procedure and is quite rare. There are between 1000-2000 done each year, out of the 1 mill +/- abortions in the US each year. And also note that the typical time for this procedure is around 18-20 weeks instead of what this site claims.

Then there is the usual revisionist linguistic crap, the prolife deceptive hyperbole about calling the fetus a "baby," though the developmental stage "baby" begins at birth, not before birth or any artificial removal pre-labor.

Then there is Dr. White's claim. It is flat-out a lie.

And then Johnson's quote regarding the time of abortions, and attempting to imply a number based on this, that also is false. The AGI, by the way does have fairly accurate statistics on this (See above), making the Johnson quote deliberately misleading. So again, we see prolife dishonesty; prolife inability to simply let the facts stand on their own because they feel a need to embroider and exaggerate their claims. Emotional appeal over facts and reality. Further evidence of how inherently dishonest prolifers really are.

As for Haskell's quote, I am still waiting to see that verified. Lots of prolifers and prolife lie sites make this claim, but none of them actually have references the actual congressional panel proceedings where this remark supposedly was made.

Then we get to the claims about McMahon. I am still waiting for a prolifer to prove how it is physically possible to do this procedure at 40 weeks, when the fetal shoulders and torso are almost as wide as the skull, thus making the procedure meaningless, and making simple induction much easier and safer to do. It simply doesn't make sense, and thus seems just another prolife lie. Now, a prolifer somewhere might be able to come up with evidence, but my experience with prolifers is that they will lie for any reason, so I frankly am not holding my breath.

As for the examples regarding McMahon and "cleft lip," certainly many genetic illnesses incompatible with life in any meaningful way also have cleft palate as one of their symptoms. the kids that end up being born with some of these trisomy diseases end up with 30-50 surgeries before age 2, just to stay alive. I would have no problem endorsing the abortion of a fetus with these disorders.

As for schaefer's "testimony," it also (1) is full of inaccuracies (Go read her full account), and (2) has never actually been verified as anything but her own invention. Again, prolifers have lied so much, and have been proven to lie so much that such claims must be verified before they are given any credence. I am sorry that it is this way, but it is your (prolifers) own fault, as you for so many years have been busy spewing whatever sounded good for your argument with no attention to facts. Don't blame me for not trusting the movement that has repeatedly lied for many decades.

But then, the site IS the RTL site after all, as it is PROVEN to be a lie site which deliberately post lies. Not just about this "pba," but also about fetal pain, breast cancer and a myriad of other medical claims that are outright false. So don't expect me to give this any more attention. I don't bother with known liars.

....It is a murderous barbaric act that should only be performed when the mother's life is endangered......

 

[tecoyah]

Again, your ranting and raving but your not answering my question......How are the oil companies in the back pocket of Republicans?

Actually...I think you are correct in questioning this....it needs to be reversed.

Republicans are in the Back Pockets of the Oil Companies. If you look at the bulge in the front pocket....thats where the drug companys are.

 

[Navy Pride]

For one, the process is not a birth. There is a rather specific medical description of "birth," and this medical procedure doesn't follow it.

Then there is the claim about it being legal through all 9 months. It is not possible to perform before 13 weeks, or technically feasible after 24-26 weeks. So that's just plain deceptive, solely hyperbole for emotional appeal through deception.

And then there is the claim of it "routinely" being done. It is not routine, it is a majorly involved medical procedure and is quite rare. There are between 1000-2000 done each year, out of the 1 mill +/- abortions in the US each year. And also note that the typical time for this procedure is around 18-20 weeks instead of what this site claims.

Then there is the usual revisionist linguistic crap, the prolife deceptive hyperbole about calling the fetus a "baby," though the developmental stage "baby" begins at birth, not before birth or any artificial removal pre-labor.

Then there is Dr. White's claim. It is flat-out a lie.

And then Johnson's quote regarding the time of abortions, and attempting to imply a number based on this, that also is false. The AGI, by the way does have fairly accurate statistics on this (See above), making the Johnson quote deliberately misleading. So again, we see prolife dishonesty; prolife inability to simply let the facts stand on their own because they feel a need to embroider and exaggerate their claims. Emotional appeal over facts and reality. Further evidence of how inherently dishonest prolifers really are.

As for Haskell's quote, I am still waiting to see that verified. Lots of prolifers and prolife lie sites make this claim, but none of them actually have references the actual congressional panel proceedings where this remark supposedly was made.

Then we get to the claims about McMahon. I am still waiting for a prolifer to prove how it is physically possible to do this procedure at 40 weeks, when the fetal shoulders and torso are almost as wide as the skull, thus making the procedure meaningless, and making simple induction much easier and safer to do. It simply doesn't make sense, and thus seems just another prolife lie. Now, a prolifer somewhere might be able to come up with evidence, but my experience with prolifers is that they will lie for any reason, so I frankly am not holding my breath.

As for the examples regarding McMahon and "cleft lip," certainly many genetic illnesses incompatible with life in any meaningful way also have cleft palate as one of their symptoms. the kids that end up being born with some of these trisomy diseases end up with 30-50 surgeries before age 2, just to stay alive. I would have no problem endorsing the abortion of a fetus with these disorders.

As for schaefer's "testimony," it also (1) is full of inaccuracies (Go read her full account), and (2) has never actually been verified as anything but her own invention. Again, prolifers have lied so much, and have been proven to lie so much that such claims must be verified before they are given any credence. I am sorry that it is this way, but it is your (prolifers) own fault, as you for so many years have been busy spewing whatever sounded good for your argument with no attention to facts. Don't blame me for not trusting the movement that has repeatedly lied for many decades.

But then, the site IS the RTL site after all, as it is PROVEN to be a lie site which deliberately post lies. Not just about this "pba," but also about fetal pain, breast cancer and a myriad of other medical claims that are outright false. So don't expect me to give this any more attention. I don't bother with known liars.

Did you notice the vote total? You are way out of step with the mainstream on this one.......

 

[Navy Pride]

Actually...I think you are correct in questioning this....it needs to be reversed.

Republicans are in the Back Pockets of the Oil Companies. If you look at the bulge in the front pocket....thats where the drug companys are.

It won't be.............your side lost..........

 

[steen]

It is murder.....

You repeating the same claim after it was disproved merely shows you being deliberately dishonest. You are now lying.

You are killing a baby that is viable outside the womb.

Nope. You are again lying.

Why do you think that states are charging a person that kills a pregant women with e murders.......

They do so because dishonest prolife politicians pushed such laws that will be declared unconstitutional once one reaches the SCOTUS.

It will be overturned in the SCOTUS....

Nope, it is a political inttrusion into medical science, constituting undue definign of rights to a fetus, rights that the SCOTUS directly has denied in the past. Presedence stands.

t is a murderous barbaric act

No, it isn't.

that should only be performed when the mother's life is endangered......

So not when she only faces maiming and lifelong pain and disability. Yes, you are very effectively demonstrating how misogynist and callous proliers are against women.

I don't care about Watt or you I just want reasonable energy prices in this country and thanks to people thinking like you we don't have them....

Nope, it is because you want to drive a SUV.

 

[steen]

....It is a murderous barbaric act that should only be performed when the mother's life is endangered......

I duly note that after you ask for evidence that your site was full of lies, you dislike the actual evidence so much that you refuse to address it. Such cowardly misdirection and dishonesty can only end up reflecting badly on the prolifers. I should think you cared more about that, but perhaps you think that prolifers can continue their cowardly lies and dishonesty and get away with it in the long run?

 

[Caine]

I duly note that after you ask for evidence that your site was full of lies, you dislike the actual evidence so much that you refuse to address it. Such cowardly misdirection and dishonesty can only end up reflecting badly on the prolifers. I should think you cared more about that, but perhaps you think that prolifers can continue their cowardly lies and dishonesty and get away with it in the long run?

Its called appointing Pro-Life Justices to the Supreme Court.

Like "Born Again Christian" Harriet Miers.

 

[steen]

Did you notice the vote total?

I nticed that you still cowardly are avoiding dealing with the evidence I provided of the lies in the other post.

You are way out of step with the mainstream on this one.......

I am out of step with the people who voted here. But your radical misogynism is not "mainstream" anyway.

 

[steen]

Its called appointing Pro-Life Justices to the Supreme Court.

Like "Born Again Christian" Harriet Miers.

But they still can't base their arguments on lies.

 

[Navy Pride]

Its called appointing Pro-Life Justices to the Supreme Court.

Like "Born Again Christian" Harriet Miers.

And she will be confirmed, get use to the idea...........

 

[JOHNYJ]

Only Republicans woud give billion dollar tax breaks to Oil companies. Making 200 & 300 percent profits.
Or would get excited about drilling for oil in an area where the amount of oil there is negligable.

 

[Navy Pride]

Only Republicans woud give billion dollar tax breaks to Oil companies. Making 200 & 300 percent profits.
Or would get excited about drilling for oil in an area where the amount of oil there is negligable.

I am not a republican but that is a crock of left win spin.....No one knows how much oil is is in ANWAR....If it can get us off dependency of oil from the mid east I would sure as hell like to find out.......

 

[democraticandidate]

I'm not certain as to why this would be necessary if the mother's life is in danger. With that being said, I believe it should only be permissable in that instance. In all others, the mother more than had enough time to deal with it as they saw fit. With the child partially extracted in any other situation, the child's death should not be permissable due to any reason whatsoever. In this case, then fully funded government programs and incentives should kick in to help the mother and child economically.

 

[tryreading]

Please, anyone who wants to, answer these questions regarding the subject of this thread. They are not meant to be biased or leading, and I seriously want honest responses:

1. Almost everyone on this thread, even those 100% opposed to any type of abortion in all other cases, will agree to actual partial birth abortion if the mother's life is in danger due to the pregnancy. Her health being in danger means she could die, but could live. But if the abortion is done, the fetus definitely dies.
A. Why is it acceptable to allow the abortion in these cases?

2. Suppose abortion became completely illegal in this country. A pregnant mother chooses to have one anyway. A doctor performs the procedure.
A. What charge should the woman face when discovered? Would she have
committed premeditated murder? What should the penalty be if she is
found guilty?
B. What charge should the doctor face? What penalty if he is guilty?

 

[Caine]

Please, anyone who wants to, answer these questions regarding the subject of this thread. They are not meant to be biased or leading, and I seriously want honest responses:

1. Almost everyone on this thread, even those 100% opposed to any type of abortion in all other cases, will agree to actual partial birth abortion if the mother's life is in danger due to the pregnancy. Her health being in danger means she could die, but could live. But if the abortion is done, the fetus definitely dies.
A. Why is it acceptable to allow the abortion in these cases?

Because if its not performed, the woman has a chance of dying.

If the mother dies, the fetus will certainly most likely die too. If the mother lives, doesn't have an abortion, the fetus could still die, say if her health was in danger because of bad vehicle accident or something. If both the mother and the fetus live, thats great, but the chances of this happening in every situation are not worth the risk.

If you were holding a fetus in your womb, and your life was at serious risk if you continued with the pregnancy, (and you were married), would you rather die with the child than kill it and stay alive? If you answered Yes, would that be fair to your spouse? If you answered yes to that...... your not really in love and don't really care for them.

For someone to say that if a woman goes through a good portion of the pregnancy and then because too unhealthy to continue, that she should just die with the child is absolutely 100% selfish and uncaring for the mother. It is basically like saying that women are only here to re-populate (even though we are in no risk of becomming "endangered") and that if she cannot perform that job she should just die...... Does this make any sense? If it does... your stupid.

 

[The Mark]

I voted only if mother's live is in danger

Please, anyone who wants to, answer these questions regarding the subject of this thread. They are not meant to be biased or leading, and I seriously want honest responses:

1. Almost everyone on this thread, even those 100% opposed to any type of abortion in all other cases, will agree to actual partial birth abortion if the mother's life is in danger due to the pregnancy. Her health being in danger means she could die, but could live. But if the abortion is done, the fetus definitely dies.
A. Why is it acceptable to allow the abortion in these cases?

An interesting point. I have to admit that I did not think about it very long...I just looked at the choices, and chose the one that made the most sense.

The problem is that I (and I think many others) would vote for either the "no" vote or the "Only if the mother is in danger" vote, depending on the situation. For example, suppose that one of us had gone through this situation. Or that one of us had just read, listened, or watched a artical on PBA. Wouldn't that change our view a bit? Or even if no one who has polled has had one of the above mentioned experiances.

Can any of you really say that you are definitely against it?..........or that you are definitely for allowing it at all? Of course you can, what am I thinking........

So, depending on who you are, where you came from (I mean this in the "how you were raised" sense), your personal experiances, etc. You see how many variables come into play? Thinking on this, is it any surprise that people do not agree on this subject? Or for that matter, any other?

Now, suppose you were against PBA (or any form of abortion), and your wife was pregnant (or in the reverse situation, you WERE the wife). If for some reason, she/you became ill and the doctors said that she/you needed to have a PBA (or some other form of abortion) or she/you would die, would you go through with it?

I am sure that some would......and some would not. (Wow, that was an easy answer)

For myself, I would think that the decision to kill one to save the other would be hard in any case.

Now, if I go with my gut feeling, I think that having an abortian at any time for any reason is bad.......and this is because I think that ending a life (of a human, now aren't I selective), no matter how small and undeveloped of a life it is..........is wrong. Because, as I said, I am going with my gut feeling here......I can say this freely.

However, If I try and sit back and take in all the information (what little I have taken the time to go over), I come to the conclusion that it is wrong in MOST cases....but there are some exceptions.

Wow, I could go on forever arguing with myself!!!! :roll:

2. Suppose abortion became completely illegal in this country. A pregnant mother chooses to have one anyway. A doctor performs the procedure.
A. What charge should the woman face when discovered? Would she have
committed premeditated murder? What should the penalty be if she is
found guilty?
B. What charge should the doctor face? What penalty if he is guilty?

I don't think I am able to answer this. First, because I don't think it will become illegal, and second because there are more variables that you list here. (See above) Oh, and third, cause my fingers hurt from typing so much.

 

[Hoot]

What is partial birth abortion? It's certainly not a medical term. Until you can define what partial birth abortion is, there's nothing to ban.

Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit third-trimester abortions except when the life or health of the woman is at stake, so what's the problem?

Partial birth abortion, based on the right wings terms, is a procedure that doesn't exist, or at the very least, rarely happens.