Do you support Partial Birth Abortion if the mother's life is not endangered?

[talloulou]

This is a fair enough assessment.

However, when dealing with late-term pregnancies, I think that the same standard should apply for abortion as for infanticide. If the infant can be safely removed from the womb and is relatively healthy for a preemie, I think it should be counted as a live birth.

I do think that there is a certain point in the pregnancy that abortion should only be allowed with cause.

Hey maybe I'm wearing you down after all Korimyr:mrgreen:

 

[mpg]

Sure. For some illnesses, an abortion is the only treatment that works. F. ex. Ecclampsia is treated by removing the fetus. Most cases happen late enough in the pregnancy that we try to save the fetus as viable, but if it occurs at week 22, f.ex., then the abortion is done with no questions asked.

Serious heart disease is also cause. Pericarditis, f.ex., which can happen in 3rd trimester, will kill the woman rather fast and almost certainyl will have killed the fetus as well, as the heart simply can not pump. Locally, we did have a woman suffer this at 27 weeks. The fetus was completely unresponsive when she was brought in, and with fluttering heart beat. And the woman was unresponsive as well. It caused major bleeding from placental abruption, and the only way to stop it was to have the uterus contracted down ASAP, so the fetus was aborted right away.

Rapid cancers dicovered during the pregnancy almost certainly leads to abortion as the cancer treatment almost always will kill the fetus, which then can decompose and cause DIC .

Abdominal ectopic pregnanies (and tubal pregnancies) kill women unless these are aborted. And even corneal pregnancies can do so (implantation in the very edge of the uterus where the tubes come in).

Hydatidiform moles kill through becoming malignantly invasive, sending placental, invasive tissue throughout the vascular system.

Coagulation disorders such as blood clots in the leg can become to pervasive that the pregnancy needs to stop, just so the clotting can come under control without leeding to clots in the lungs.

There are a lot of things related to being pregnant that can kill women, and which is treated through an abortion. The causes listed above do, after all, kill about about 1/3rd to half of the women who die every year in the US as a result of pregnancy. The rest are generally killed by labor and delivery, but there are a few other causes.

Thank you.

 

[steen]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=4045332&dopt=Abstract

Well, lets look at it in its entirety. First of all, note this to be an article from 1985, TWENTY YEARS AGO. If any of this had borne out, it would have been an established part of science by now. Could you come up with some current, scientific/medical research on this? Now, lets look at the actual text:
The fetal human possesses an active central nervous system from at least the eighth week of development. Until mid-gestation the most significant center of activity is the brainstem. By the end of the first trimester, it appears that the brainstem could be [=speculation, no evidence] acting as a rudimentary modulator of sensory information and motor activity. What importance ought to be attached to such regulatory activity is uncertain. [Again, he doesn't have a clue what conclusion to draw.] Some argue that it represents a level of integrated activity sufficient to bolster an argument for conferring some measure of standing at this point. ["measure of standing"! political argument, in other words. Not science] Our thinking about sentience is not advanced a great deal, as we as yet have no good way of talking about it at the brainstem level. [Places us right back at speculation] As for the neocortex, available evidence indicates that it does not become a functional part of the neuraxis until at least mid-gestation.

Yes, that is borne out in the scientific data I provided]

It is not until then that the thalamus--the major gateway for sensory input to the cerebrum--makes its first afferent contacts with the neocortex.

KIE: A review is provided of what is known [Yes, 20 years ago. My sources are current] about the development of the central nervous system of the human fetus. Four processes are featured: the appearance of fetal motor activity; development of the neocortex; establishment of a connection between the neocortex and its major input channel, the thalamus; and maturation of the electrical activity of the brain. Very tentative observations are made concerning the implications of neuromaturational events for the development of fetal sentience and fetal pain. [and this tentative speculation has since been clarified to stimuli being processed in the brain's cortex, not the brain stem]

Here's another

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/fetal_pain.htm

Ah, yes. Yodavater's site. Again trying to claim that the thalamus, the brain's switchboard that sends stimuli to the cortex (when the connection is made) processes sensation to the point of awareness. And what great sources he has for current and scientifically accurate facts, eh?
British Med.Journal, Jan. 26,1980
Still talking thalamus.
TheDevelopment of the Brain C. Thomas Pub.,1980
Talking sensitivity, not awareness.
President Ronald Reagan to National Religious Broadcasters,New York Times,Jan. 31, 1984
Ah, yes. The great scientist. :roll:
Willke, J & B, Abortion:Questions & AnswersHayes, 1991, Chpt. 10
Quoting ACOG, which firmly disagrees with the pro-life claims about this subject. Hmm, spot the dishonesty?

And then "the silent scream." yeah, good one. :mrgreen:

M. Liley & B. Day, ModernMotherhood, Random House, 1969, p. 42
Ah, yes. 1969 is "modern"!:roll:
P. Lubeskind, "Psychology & Physiology of Pain," Amer. ReviewPsychology, vol.28, 1977, p. 42
1977, and not talking about the fetus. Yodavater is a big time liar. See the problem with getting your info from pro-lie sites?
Patton et al., Intro. to Basic Neurology,W. B. Saunders Co. 1976, p. 178
1976. The current info shows him wrong (BTW, a scientific source is not from a textbook, but rather from a peer-reviewed, scientific journal. I thought you knew this?)
D. Gianelli, Anaesthesiologists Question Claims in Abortion Debate, Am. Med.News, Jan. 1, ’96
Hmm, a source talking about "pro-abortionists"? yeah, good one. More lies from yodavater here.
R. White, Dir. Neurosurgery & Brain Research, Case WesternUniv
Ah, relating political testimonies. Yeah, no science there.
P. Ranalli, Neuro. Dept., Univ. of Toronto
Well, other than talking about "babies," he does say that the cut-off is near THIRTY weeks. Note that ranalli is also the loon who claims, with no research or evidence, that the thalamus suddenly can process sensation to the point of awareness.
M. Fisk,et al., Fetal Plasma Cortisol and Bendorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling, Lancet, Vol. 344, July 9, 1994, Pg. 77
No distinction from reflexes.
Valman& Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980
Scalp electrodes are used at birth to measure fetal blood supply. Yodavater is as ignorant as he is dishonest.

So that source also was a bust. Now, next time, perhaps you should avoid such highly politicized, non-scientific sites as a pro-life pro-lie site?

and another

Ah, yes. lifenews. There is a source for you. Again, no scientific evidence.

I could go on all night but I have neither the time nor the patience.

yeah, I get the picture. You can find to solid evidence and instead post SELECTIVELY from outdated sources or quote pro-lie political sites, and that is somehow supposed to be scientific "evidence." As dishonest as the rest of the claptrap prolifers spew.

I can't be responsible for all your education.

My education is just fine, thank you. I at least know what I am talking about and know what actual evidence is. Your mindless regurgitation of points with no focus on valid evidence is rather pointless and desperate.

Basically all these drs. and scientists say the same thing.....nothing is certain. They don't fully understand fetal neuromaturation yet.

Sure they do. 20 years ago, there were unknown aspects, but these have been mostly filled by now. NO sensory input reaches the brain's cortex until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy as I showed. And until a signal reaches the brain's cortex, it can not be felt. This is the current, accurate, scientific knowledge on the issue. You can jump and squirm like a fish on a line, but until you have actual, scientific evidence to the contrary, all you do is spew dishonest sophistry.

"With increasing use of amniocentesis, women and doctors have witnessed aggressive actions toward the needle itself as babies attack the needle barrel from the side!"

http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/comm.html

Again, not a scientific site, and no evidence for the nonsense anthropomorphizing remarks of "aggressive," "attack" and what not that are pure speculation. Nice try there, trying to prescribe intent to pure reflex. But then, by now I have come to expect such dishonesty from you as well.

Do you know what that term means? Here let me school you......

It means to attribute human characteristics to a non human species. Are you now arguing that a fetus belongs to some other non human species? Good Grief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphize
Anthropomorphism, a form of personification (applying human or animal qualities to inanimate objects) and similar to prosopopoeia (adopting the persona of another person), is the attribution of human characteristics and qualities to non-human beings, objects, or natural phenomena. Animals, forces of nature, and unseen or unknown authors of chance are frequent subjects of anthropomorphosis.

In this case, the fetus certainly qualifies fully for an inanimate object per contrast to your hyperbole and personification of emotion and intent.

The medical term is vagitus uterinus. Look it up. I'm tired of teaching.

Not in my up-to-date medical dictionary. And it still is a ridiculous claim.

 

[talloulou]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphize
Anthropomorphism, a form of personification (applying human or animal qualities to inanimate objects) and similar to prosopopoeia (adopting the persona of another person), is the attribution of human characteristics and qualities to non-human beings, objects, or natural phenomena. Animals, forces of nature, and unseen or unknown authors of chance are frequent subjects of anthropomorphosis.

In this case, the fetus certainly qualifies fully for an inanimate object per contrast to your hyperbole and personification of emotion and intent.

I was going to post the definition of inanimate to school you further when it finally dawned on me....nobody can be that stupid!!!

I think I finally figured it out. You are actually a closeted prolifer and you pose as a dimwitted prochoicer so you can say the most ridiculous irrational things ever thus gaining points for the prolifers! Keep up the good work!

As for your dislike of my sources....at least I had some. Your souce does NOT say the fetus is non-sensate. That is just your interpretation of the information...the actual article you keep giving me says nothing of the sort.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Hmmmm....steen can post the definition of anthropormism, incorrectly hide behind his assertion that fetuses are inanimate objects, yet he can't back up his assertion that it's not legal to murder partially born babies in the third trimester.

He's had several pages to do so, but he's failed. Could it be that my assertion that he's full of it has merit?

Of course.

 

[steen]

I was going to post the definition of inanimate to school you further when it finally dawned on me....nobody can be that stupid!!!

YOU can!

I think I finally figured it out. You are actually a closeted prolifer

Nope.

and you pose as a dimwitted prochoicer so you can say the most ridiculous irrational things ever thus gaining points for the prolifers! Keep up the good work!

You are merely apparently to ignorant to get what I am saying.

As for your dislike of my sources....at least I had some. Your souce does NOT say the fetus is non-sensate. That is just your interpretation of the information...the actual article you keep giving me says nothing of the sort.

There is NO sensation before the stimulis is processed by the brain's cortex. Your denial of this makes you look even MORE ignorant.

 

[Navy Pride]

Well now 8 people have said its ok to kill a baby that is viable out of the womb if the mother's life is not endangered.......I know Steen's reason but I would really be interested in the other 7 peoples..........

 

[steen]

Well now 8 people have said its ok to kill a baby that is viable out of the womb if the mother's life is not endangered.......I know Steen's reason but I would really be interested in the other 7 peoples..........

Hmm, I haven't voted in this poll, because none of the answers are meaningful to me. So you would want to know what the 8 people have said, then. As I have pointed out, I consider your claims regarding the "pba" to be outright lies, including those you made here. So there is nothing here for me to vote on.

 

[Navy Pride]

Hmm, I haven't voted in this poll, because none of the answers are meaningful to me. So you would want to know what the 8 people have said, then. As I have pointed out, I consider your claims regarding the "pba" to be outright lies, including those you made here. So there is nothing here for me to vote on.

I don't think there is anyone in this forum that does not know how you fee; about murdering innocent babies in the womb.....I want to know the reasoning behind the other peoples thinking.......

 

[steen]

I don't think there is anyone in this forum that does not know how you fee; about murdering innocent babies in the womb.....

Oh, and how do I feel about such a non-existing act on non-existing entities?