On the front line in the US abortion war.

[B L Zeebub]

Another fine article from the GuardianOn the front line in the US abortion war | World news | The Guardianyour comments about the article please

 

[Goshin]

Larry Niven: "There is no cause so right you can't find a fool following it."

It would appear that the Guardian sought out and reported on the most extreme examples from both sides that they could find.

One being a partial-birth abortion doctor, one of the very few who performs this horrific procedure in the US.

The other being an anti-abortion activist whose views and methods are far more extreme than 99% of the movement.

I'd say it borders on "yellow journalism". The article has no balance, only bias, and rather than a thorough and wide-ranging view merely focuses on the most dramatic extremes.


G.

 

[Mercer]

Late-term abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Definition of “late-term”

A late-term abortion often refers to an induced abortion procedure that occurs after the 20th week of gestation. However, the exact point when a pregnancy becomes late-term is not clearly defined. Some sources define an abortion after 12 completed weeks' gestation as "late".[1][2] Some sources define an abortion after 16 weeks as "late".[3][4] Three articles published in 1998 in the same issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association could not agree on the definition. Two of the JAMA articles chose the 20th week of gestation to be the point where an abortion procedure would be considered late-term.[5] The third JAMA article chose the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation.[6]

The point at which an abortion becomes late-term is often related to the "viability" (ability to survive outside the uterus) of the fetus. Sometimes late-term abortions are referred to as post-viability abortions. However, viability varies greatly among pregnancies. Nearly all pregnancies are viable after the 27th week, and no pregnancies are viable before the 21st week. Everything in between is a “grey area”.[6]

[edit] Incidence of later abortion
Histogram of abortions by gestational age in England and Wales during 2004. Average is 9.5 weeks.
Abortion in the United States by gestational age, 2004. (Data source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

* Canada: During the year 2003, 6.5% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 2.2% between 17 to 20 weeks, and 0.8% over 20 weeks. This sample included procedures carried out in hospitals and clinics.[7]
* England and Wales: In 2005, 9% of abortions occurred between 13 to 19 weeks, while 1% occurred at or over 20 weeks.[8]
* New Zealand: In 2003, 2.03% of induced abortions were done between weeks 16 to 19, and 0.56% were done over 20 weeks.[9]
* Norway: In 2005, 2.28% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 1.24% of abortions between 17 and 20 weeks, and 0.20% over 21 weeks.[10]
* Scotland: In 2005, 6.1% of abortions were done between 14 to 17 weeks, while 1.6% were performed over 18 weeks.[11]
* Sweden: In 2005, 5.6% of abortions were carried out between 12 and 17 weeks, and 0.8% at or greater than 18 weeks.[12]
* United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.[13] Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of abortions performed after viability.[13] In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.[14]

[edit] Reasons for later abortion

[edit] United States

See also: Reasons for abortions.

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3]
71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation

48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

[edit] Legal restrictions on later abortion
Scales of justice
Abortion law
Part of a series of
articles on abortion
History and overview
Case law
History of abortion law
Laws by country
Types of regulation
Buffer zones
Conscience clauses
Fetal protection
Informed consent
Late-term restrictions
Parental involvement
Spousal consent
v • d • e

As of 1998, among the 152 most populous countries, 54 either banned abortion entirely or permitted it only to save the life of the pregnant woman.[15] In addition, another 44 of the 152 most populous countries generally banned late-term abortions after a particular gestational age: 12 weeks (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Rep., Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Russian Fed., Slovak Rep., Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Yugoslavia), 13 weeks (Italy), 14 weeks (Austria, Belgium, Cambodia, Germany, Hungary, and Romania), 18 weeks (Sweden), viability (Netherlands and to some extent the United States), and 24 weeks (Singapore and the United Kingdom [Northern Ireland excluded]).[15]

[edit] United States

The United States Supreme Court decisions on abortion, including Roe v. Wade, allow states to impose more restrictions on post-viability abortions than during the earlier stages of pregnancy.

As of April 2007, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined by court order.[16] In addition, the Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart ruled that Congress may ban certain late-term abortion techniques, "both previability and postviability".

Some of the 36 state bans are believed by pro-choice organizations to be unconstitutional.[17][18] The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow.[16] Assuming that one of these state bans is constitutionally flawed, then that does not necessarily mean that the entire ban would be struck down: "invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."[19]

Also, 13 states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation (usually 24 weeks).[16] The U.S. Supreme Court held in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that a statute may create "a presumption of viability" after a certain number of weeks, in which case the physician must be given an opportunity to rebut the presumption by performing tests.[20] Therefore, those 13 states must provide that opportunity. Because this provision is not explicitly written into these 13 laws, as it was in the Missouri law examined in Webster, pro-choice organizations believe that such a state law is unconstitutional, but only "to the extent that it prohibits pre-viability abortions".[17]

Ten states require a second physician to approve.[16] The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a requirement of "confirmation by two other physicians" (rather than one other physician) because "acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient's needs and unduly infringes on the physician's right to practice".[21] Pro-choice organizations such as the Guttmacher Institute therefore interpret some of these state laws to be unconstitutional, based on these and other Supreme Court rulings, at least to the extent that these state laws require approval of a second or third physician.[16]

Nine states have laws that require a second physician to be present during late-term abortion procedures in order to treat a fetus if born alive.[16] The Court has held that a doctor's right to practice is not infringed by requiring a second physician to be present at abortions performed after viability in order to assist in saving the life of the fetus.[22]

[edit] Procedures used in later term

There are at least three medical procedures associated with late-term abortions:

* Dilation and evacuation (D&E)
* Early induction of labor
* Intact dilation and extraction (IDX or D&X), sometimes referred to as "partial-birth abortion"

Abortions done for fetal abnormality are usually performed with induction of labor or with IDX; Elective late-term abortions are usually performed with D&E.[citation needed]

This is legal.

 

[B L Zeebub]

Larry Niven: "There is no cause so right you can't find a fool following it."

It would appear that the Guardian sought out and reported on the most extreme examples from both sides that they could find.

One being a partial-birth abortion doctor, one of the very few who performs this horrific procedure in the US.

The other being an anti-abortion activist whose views and methods are far more extreme than 99% of the movement.

I'd say it borders on "yellow journalism". The article has no balance, only bias, and rather than a thorough and wide-ranging view merely focuses on the most dramatic extremes.


G.

Read the article again, it is not about abortion per se, its is about the loonies and the people that support them, one who is standing for elected office and wants to raise a militia.

Dr Tiller was murdered for going about his legal business, I think its very balanced, your newspapers may for whatever reason have the balls to report like this, thats your loss.

You may want to keep your head under the yellow blanket, others may not.

 

[Glinda]

It would appear that the Guardian sought out and reported on the most extreme examples from both sides that they could find...

I'd say it borders on "yellow journalism". The article has no balance, only bias, and rather than a thorough and wide-ranging view merely focuses on the most dramatic extremes.

Either you didn't read the whole article or you missed the point, entirely.

"This is a national terrorist, totalitarian, fascist movement that is violent, well organised and well armed and they do not accept the basic premises of American society. Everything they've done for the last 35 years is designed to animate, to inspire, to give encouragement to anti-abortion assassins and anti-abortion violence.

"American people really have tuned out, they don't understand this. They want to believe this is some individual wing nut. No, No, No."

The Southern Poverty Law Center considers Horsley to be a leader of many like-minded individuals.

Neal Horsley... may be the most important rising figure on the hard Christian right.

Today, Neal Horsley is a key player in the world of anti-abortion extremism...
And like so many people in other sectors of the American radical right, Horsley has managed to back violent individuals even as he nominally decries violence as a means to his ends.

Horsley supports and encourages "individual wing nuts" to murder in god's name, offering them sanctuary and assistance in achieving their goals. He provides them with detailed information about their targets and heads a coalition of others who act in similar fashion.

Yes, Horsley is a loon. But lots of other loons listen to him.

And act on his suggestions.

To pretend that Horsley is a lone and ignored voice in the anti-abortion movement is as foolish as it is deadly.

 

[Goshin]

Read the article again, it is not about abortion per se, its is about the loonies and the people that support them, one who is standing for elected office and wants to raise a militia.

Dr Tiller was murdered for going about his legal business, I think its very balanced, your newspapers may for whatever reason have the balls to report like this, thats your loss.

You may want to keep your head under the yellow blanket, others may not.

You are entitled to your opinion; mine differs, and you did ask.

My compliments on the cordiality and class with which you responded.

(that was irony, btw.)

G.

 

[Goshin]

To pretend that Horsley is a lone and ignored voice in the anti-abortion movement is as foolish as it is deadly.

I didn't say Horsely was a lone extremist; I said his views are far more extreme than the vast majority of pro-lifers. I stand by that statement.

Perhaps calling it "yellow journalism" was excessive; "deliberately maximizing drama" might be more accurate. Certainly it isn't, as a singular article, a balanced look at the pro-life movement.


G.

 

[Goshin]

This is legal.

So was slavery, once.

 

[Glinda]

I didn't say Horsely was a lone extremist; I said his views are far more extreme than the vast majority of pro-lifers.

I'd argue that.

We've got plenty of examples right here at DP of people who fully support the murder of abortion providers (i.e. extreme-sanction vigilantism) - who, in fact, CELEBRATE the murder of abortion providers.

Exactly like Horsley does.

Just because most anti-abortion supporters don't personally take up arms doesn't mean they don't fully and happily support the taking up of arms by others to further their twisted cause.

In fact, they're no different than Horsley. Not one iota.

:censored

 

[Inferno]

I didn't say Horsely was a lone extremist; I said his views are far more extreme than the vast majority of pro-lifers. I stand by that statement.

Perhaps calling it "yellow journalism" was excessive; "deliberately maximizing drama" might be more accurate. Certainly it isn't, as a singular article, a balanced look at the pro-life movement.


G.

The extremist nature of a portion of the Anti Abortion movement defeats any valid work that they might want to do. If these are advocating violence they admit that in no way are they pro life. To be pro life death by war or catital punishment would necessarily be wrong also.

Supporting violence against doctors or women who work in this field defeats any claim to humanity the anti abortion movement has. I am sorry what this is is certainly not pro life. I actually don't find many pro life people in the pro life movement as they like to call it. The term is used to falsely claima the high ground by much of the movement.

Abortion needs to stay legal as an option. What needs to happen is that people need to be more responsible for the result of sexual intercourse. That is both the men and women. The women need to stop seeing in some cases that abortion is birth control. Men need to wear condoms. This will really help the problem.

Abortion can stop. Anti abortion people need to work toward teaching as does the pro choice crowd. Then maybe then there will be a slow down in the rate.

 

[Goshin]

The extremist nature of a portion of the Anti Abortion movement defeats any valid work that they might want to do. If these are advocating violence they admit that in no way are they pro life. To be pro life death by war or catital punishment would necessarily be wrong also.

Surprise; I disagree with you entirely. There is an enormous difference between the life of a baby, born or unborn, and the life of a criminal condemned for capital offenses. The word in question is innocence. The baby is guilty of no wrong, other than finding itself concieved by a mother who did the deed but doesn't want the baby... the criminal chose to commit a capital crime against both his victim and society.

Supporting violence against doctors or women who work in this field defeats any claim to humanity the anti abortion movement has. I am sorry what this is is certainly not pro life. I actually don't find many pro life people in the pro life movement as they like to call it. The term is used to falsely claima the high ground by much of the movement.

Perhaps that is fair; I've certainly found very few peaceful people in the pacifist movement, to name an irony that runs in the other direction.

Personally I know lots of pro-lifers, and I know very few that support shooting abortion doctors even by lip service.

Abortion needs to stay legal as an option. What needs to happen is that people need to be more responsible for the result of sexual intercourse. That is both the men and women. The women need to stop seeing in some cases that abortion is birth control. Men need to wear condoms. This will really help the problem.

Abortion can stop. Anti abortion people need to work toward teaching as does the pro choice crowd. Then maybe then there will be a slow down in the rate.

In this we mostly agree, except that I'd wish to see abortion restricted considerably. I've said before that we have to persuade people that abortion is not a good option for mere birth control. There are some extreme cases where I would reluctantly accept the regrettable necessity of abortion, such as the raped 9yo whose life is likely endangered by her pregnancy. Such cases are not remotely the norm in abortion in this country however.

 

[B L Zeebub]

You are entitled to your opinion; mine differs, and you did ask.

My compliments on the cordiality and class with which you responded.

(that was irony, btw.)

G.

Ill send you my yellow shirts, they need irony, btw B

 

[Gardener]

Another fine article from the GuardianOn the front line in the US abortion war | World news | The Guardianyour comments about the article please

Open incitement to murder and he is running for Governor of Georgia?

sheesh!

 

[Inferno]

Surprise; I disagree with you entirely. There is an enormous difference between the life of a baby, born or unborn, and the life of a criminal condemned for capital offenses. The word in question is innocence. The baby is guilty of no wrong, other than finding itself conceived by a mother who did the deed but doesn't want the baby... the criminal chose to commit a capital crime against both his victim and society.

I would argue that all life has the same value. I don't consider a fetus in that grouping and so it needs no special protections that take away or infringe on the rights of the woman involved.

Perhaps that is fair; I've certainly found very few peaceful people in the pacifist movement, to name an irony that runs in the other direction.

The problem here is that these anti abortionists want to celebrate the death of others. That is hardly a pro life stance. I don't know many pacifists that celebrate death.

Personally I know lots of pro-lifers, and I know very few that support shooting abortion doctors even by lip service.

The term pro life doesn't work for me if they support death for any reason. They can call themselves anti abortion all they want. Pro life is a term that should be reserved for those that really do respect life. No war. No Death penalty. No abortion for any reason if you think it is a life. No torture. Then they can use the term pro life.

I am pro life 100% as I do not consider a fetus in that grouping.

In this we mostly agree, except that I'd wish to see abortion restricted considerably. I've said before that we have to persuade people that abortion is not a good option for mere birth control. There are some extreme cases where I would reluctantly accept the regrettable necessity of abortion, such as the raped 9yo whose life is likely endangered by her pregnancy. Such cases are not remotely the norm in abortion in this country however.

This is the area where all side of this issue w=could meet and they don't.

 

[B L Zeebub]

Open incitement to murder and he is running for Governor of Georgia?

sheesh!

and if elected he will raise a Militia:shock:

 

[Inferno]

Open incitement to murder and he is running for Governor of Georgia?

sheesh!

And he calls himself pro life!!!!!:doh Why didn't I think that he was.

 

[joko104]

Late-term abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



This is legal.

That justified nothing. The Holocaust in Germany was legal. Racial segregation was legal. Discrimination against gays is legal...

 

[Redress]

That justified nothing. The Holocaust in Germany was legal. Racial segregation was legal. Discrimination against gays is legal...

We are able to change the laws in this country. It's one of the things that makes this country great. Don't like the law, change it. And if you can't change the law, too bad.

 

[Gwendoline]

Over here in Australia, I obviously live a sheltered life...

I went to read up on Neal Horsley, only to find that his first girlfriend was a mule. According to him, he'd put his thing in anything that moved. The crackpot is running for governor. How do these crackpots find a platform at all? It could only be other crackpots supporting crackpots like this one that give them a platform at all.

How do the pro lifers feel about having a crackpot like Neal Horsley on their side... and eschewing just a tad more - well, okay, an ocean more, violence and madness towards abortion workers.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pUuumRGmzA]YouTube - Republican Family Values: Sex With A Mule[/ame]

 

[Goshin]

Over here in Australia, I obviously live a sheltered life...

I went to read up on Neal Horsley, only to find that his first girlfriend was a mule. According to him, he'd put his thing in anything that moved. The crackpot is running for governor. How do these crackpots find a platform at all? It could only be other crackpots supporting crackpots like this one that give them a platform at all.

How do the pro lifers feel about having a crackpot like Neal Horsley on their side... and eschewing just a tad more - well, okay, an ocean more, violence and madness towards abortion workers.

I don't know N. Horsely; he doesn't speak for me.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum, a few fools and loons can be found amongst the followers of any philosophy or ideal. Focusing on the few nuts to the exclusion of the many moderate believers hardly renders a balanced picture.

There are plenty of extremists on the choice side as well, and some of them also initiate violence.

G.

 

[Wessexman]

Dr Tiller was murdered for going about his legal business,

So was Reinhard Heydrich as I said. This does not excuse Tiller's murder but simply saying he was within the law is not an infallible support of his morality.

The Graudian is showing that although it is sometimes quite good it is not beyond bias, particularly the usual left-liberal bias we have come to expect from much the media. The article seems set on demonising a large section, if not all, of the pro-life movement.

 

[Wessexman]

I don't know N. Horsely; he doesn't speak for me.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum, a few fools and loons can be found amongst the followers of any philosophy or ideal. Focusing on the few nuts to the exclusion of the many moderate believers hardly renders a balanced picture.

There are plenty of extremists on the choice side as well, and some of them also initiate violence.

G.

Indeed people who believe that late-term, ie third trimester abortions are fine on almost any grounds, would qualify as extremists in my book and are not good allies for genuinely moderate pro-legal abortion people,

 

[B L Zeebub]

So was Reinhard Heydrich as I said. This does not excuse Tiller's murder but simply saying he was within the law is not an infallible support of his morality.

The Graudian is showing that although it is sometimes quite good it is not beyond bias, particularly the usual left-liberal bias we have come to expect from much the media. The article seems set on demonising a large section, if not all, of the pro-life movement.

What the article did was to put the facts into the British public domain, it is for the reader to make his own descisions, all I have done is transfer it to this forum with the same principle!

It would appear to me that the reason a few of the more extreme people here have not responded to this article is because they would be identified by their posts with the loony's exposed in this article?

 

[Jerry]

What the article did was to put the facts into the British public domain, it is for the reader to make his own descisions, all I have done is transfer it to this forum with the same principle!

It would appear to me that the reason a few of the more extreme people here have not responded to this article is because they would be identified by their posts with the loony's exposed in this article?

Or it could be the fact that the OP was poorly written :2wave:

 

[B L Zeebub]

Or it could be the fact that the OP was poorly written :2wave:

or to difficult to read if op means the article, the Guardian is noted for needing the minimum reading ability of a 14 to 16 yrs old to comprehend it in the UK, I cannot hazard a guess what the reading age requirement in the US would be.

What does OP mean Manders?