• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Partial Birth Abortion Poll

The "Partial Birth Abortion Procedure" should be


  • Total voters
    23

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This is a poll I posted a long time ago in another forum; There were not many members there and certainly less a diversity than what we have here at DP.

Poll to follow.

When the United States House and Senate passed the "Partial Birth Abortion act of 2003," they stated;

"(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion -- an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing deliveryof the dead infant -- is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited."

The Supreme Court of the United States in "Gonzales vs. Carhart" (October term of 2006), upheld the ban on partial birth abortion and the procedure remains banned to this date.

My question is this: "Do you agree with the (2003) ban on the "partial birth abortion" procedure and the United States Supreme Court's (2006) decision to uphold the ban?
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should be legal in the cases of saving the mother's life. No medical procedure that can save someone's life should be banned.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Should be legal in the cases of saving the mother's life. No medical procedure that can save someone's life should be banned.

Did you notice that the Dr.s testified under oath that a partial birth abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life? Or that there is an exception for the mother's life,... none the less?
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Did you notice that the Dr.s testified under oath that a partial birth abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life? Or that there is an exception for the mother's life,... none the less?

Yes, I read that. And I've read doctor's statements that say differently.

Additionally, If it's never done to save the mother's life, then there's no issue with it being legal in the cases of saving a woman's life, is there? Or in cases of severe fetal deformity.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Yes, I read that. And I've read doctor's statements that say differently.

Additionally, If it's never done to save the mother's life, then there's no issue with it being legal in the cases of saving a woman's life, is there? Or in cases of severe fetal deformity.

Right,...

And vice versa.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Right,...

And vice versa.

Better safe than sorry. Better to have it legal in circumstances that may rarely arise, than to have it illegal in all circumstances and let women die and severely deformed children suffer until imminent death.

Makes absolutely no sense to ban it without life saving provisions.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Better safe than sorry. Better to have it legal in circumstances that may rarely arise, than to have it illegal in all circumstances and let women die and severely deformed children suffer until imminent death.

Makes absolutely no sense to ban it without life saving provisions.

How many women have died so far as a consequence of having the ban enacted (2003) and upheld by the SCOTUS (2006)?
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Couldn't tell ya. Don't care. Not relevant.

Could you maybe explain to me how delivering a baby breech and face down,.... all but it's head,... poking a hole in the back of his/her head and suctioning the brains out,... causing the head to collapse,... etc. is to the benefit of a dying woman's health as opposed to just getting the baby out alive and trying to save both the mother and the child?

PBA.jpg
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,228
Reaction score
14,230
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Honestly, what valid argument can justify partial birth abortion? The baby is being born, it is exiting the mother's body and no longer using her resources. Only a sick person would ever consider aborting a partially born human child. Also, I highly doubt there is 1 medical case where partial birth abortion was needed to save the life of a mother.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Could you maybe explain to me how delivering a baby breech and face down,.... all but it's head,... poking a hole in the back of his/her head and suctioning the brains out,... causing the head to collapse,... etc. is to the benefit of a dying woman's health as opposed to just getting the baby out alive and trying to save both the mother and the child?

PBA.jpg

hydrocephalus

Additionally, many times when these procedures are done late pregnancy, the fetus is already dead.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Honestly, what valid argument can justify partial birth abortion? The baby is being born, it is exiting the mother's body and no longer using her resources. Only a sick person would ever consider aborting a partially born human child. Also, I highly doubt there is 1 medical case where partial birth abortion was needed to save the life of a mother.

You would be wrong.

Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies." 2 Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill both her and the fetus.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,228
Reaction score
14,230
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You would be wrong.

Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. There is still another option. However, in this instance the baby would die anyway. Any instance where the baby won't die but the mother will? Regardless, all other options should be used before partial birth abortion.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. There is still another option. However, in this instance the baby would die anyway. Any instance where the baby won't die but the mother will? Regardless, all other options should be used before partial birth abortion.

Why risk the health of the mother even futher? And risk her ability to have more children in the future? When you can remove the dying fetus in a much easier, and more humane (for both the mother and fetus) manner.

Why on earth would one elect for invasive, risky surgery over a non-surgical procedure? In both cases, the fetus is going to die. In one case, the risk to the mother is increased. Why do that?
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,228
Reaction score
14,230
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why risk the health of the mother even futher? And risk her ability to have more children in the future? When you can remove the dying fetus in a much easier, and more humane (for both the mother and fetus) manner.
I could only support this if only the mother and baby will indefinitely die. Abortion in any form is only justified when it is done to protect the life of the mother.
Why on earth would one elect for invasive, risky surgery over a non-surgical procedure? In both cases, the fetus is going to die. In one case, the risk to the mother is increased. Why do that?
Because the woman may want her child to die naturally and not at the hands of a doctor killing it? It's an ethical option of allowing nature to take it's course or for one to intervene and kill another who will die. Again, I can only support this abortion if it was undisputedly proven that the mother and child will both die. Abortion to save a life is not murder, but rather self defense.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The poll provided no middle ground, just "illegal" or "legal". I believe there are medical cases that justify partial birth abortion, like severe deformity of the fetus or fetal morbidity.

Thus I chose legal in order to protect the justifiable cases where it can be applied.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Because the woman may want her child to die naturally and not at the hands of a doctor killing it?
It's an ethical option of allowing nature to take it's course or for one to intervene and kill another who will die
Well, that would be her choice to let it lay on a table and suffer until it eventually died, as opposed to a quick and painless death, I suppose.

Again, I can only support this abortion if it was undisputedly proven that the mother and child will both die. Abortion to save a life is not murder, but rather self defense.
And yet - as I understand it - the ban doesn't allow for such a provision.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Because the woman may want her child to die naturally and not at the hands of a doctor killing it? It's an ethical option of allowing nature to take it's course or for one to intervene and kill another who will die. Again, I can only support this abortion if it was undisputedly proven that the mother and child will both die. Abortion to save a life is not murder, but rather self defense.

That's something that has always baffled me about this subject.

There you have a baby that (according to the Dr.s ) is going to die.

They are asolutely certain it is going to die.

So, rather than let it die and induce labor (if it doesn't come naturally) to expel the baby,... let's go invasive!

Reach into the womb with whatever instruments necessary,.. turn the baby and pull it out BREECH!

YEAH! that's helpful to the mother already,... isn't it?

Then while the little bastard is face down in it's own fluids and whatever else there is,... let's punch a hole in the base of it's neck (and get some more blood from the baby into whatever injuries were caused by the BREECH,... and suck the little ****ers brain out.

Then (at least) the little bastards head will collapse and FINALLY,... it can comfortably be removed,....

All except for the need to deliver the placenta and all that afterbirth.

What woman (mother?) in her right mind, would settle for anything less?
 
Last edited:

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,288
Reaction score
4,889
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
That's something that has always baffled me about this subject.

There you have a baby that (according to the Dr.s ) is going to die.

They are asolutely certain it is going to die.

So, rather than let it die and induce labor (if it doesn't come naturally) to expel the baby,... let's go invasive!

Reach into the womb with whatever instruments necessary,.. turn the baby and pull it out BREECH!

YEAH! that's helpful to the mother already,... isn't it?

Then while the little bastard is face down in it's own fluids and whatever else there is,... let's punch a hole in the base of it's neck (and get some more blood from the baby into whatever injuries were caused by the BREECH,... and suck the little ****ers brain out.

Then (at least) the little bastards head will collapse and FINALLY,... it can comfortably be removed,....

All except for the need to deliver the placenta and all that afterbirth.

What woman (mother?) in her right mind, would settle for anything less?

Did you miss the part where a severely hydrocephalic fetus's head can be up to 20 inches in diameter? It's not physically possible for a woman to give birth to that.

As far as the poll question goes, yes, I believe that intact dilation and extraction (the proper medical term for partial birth abortion) should be legal under the same circumstances that any other method of abortion is legal. If the fetus is non-viable, then the mother and the doctor should decide what method to use. If the mother's life/health are in danger from a viable fetus, then whatever method offers her the best chance of coming out of it healthy should be used.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Did you miss the part where a severely hydrocephalic fetus's head can be up to 20 inches in diameter? It's not physically possible for a woman to give birth to that.

Sure there is.

C-section.

In fact, so many women have been opting for c-sections (pushing their due dates and preserving their virginias*) in recent years that Dr.s are increasingly concerned about it.

* intentionally mispelled. :)

As far as the poll question goes, yes, I believe that intact dilation and extraction (the proper medical term for partial birth abortion) should be legal under the same circumstances that any other method of abortion is legal. If the fetus is non-viable, then the mother and the doctor should decide what method to use. If the mother's life/health are in danger from a viable fetus, then whatever method offers her the best chance of coming out of it healthy should be used.

Define the criteria for a health exception please.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,288
Reaction score
4,889
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Sure there is.

C-section.

In fact, so many women have been opting for c-sections (pushing their due dates and preserving their virginias*) in recent years that Dr.s are increasingly concerned about it.

* intentionally mispelled. :)

Except that a C-section is much rougher on the woman than in intact dilation and extraction is. It should be her choice. Don't get me wrong, the method by which Intact Dilation and extractions are performed is quite gruesome, but the majority of abortion methods are. Why is this one in particular so reviled?

Define the criteria for a health exception please.

Interesting question actually. I've never really thought about it in depth, but basically I would support it in any circumstances that killing in self defense would be legal.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Except that a C-section is much rougher on the woman than in intact dilation and extraction is. It should be her choice. Don't get me wrong, the method by which Intact Dilation and extractions are performed is quite gruesome, but the majority of abortion methods are. Why is this one in particular so reviled?"

I would think the answer to this would be obvious to anyone who has looked at the drawings of the procedure.

According to the 14th amendment Any "person born" in the United States is an American citizen.

Is it beyond your ability to see,.... that if (during this procedure) the baby's head delivers,... that he or she would be a "born American Citizen?"
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I would think the answer to this would be obvious to anyone who has looked at the drawings of the procedure.
I think the answer would be obvious to anyone who knows how difficult a C-section can be on a woman, and a woman who is already in duress due to the fetus dying inside her would have an even more difficult time with it. C-section should be the LAST resort unless it's specifically what the woman wants (for some insane reason).

And, anyone who has read that the condition for which this procedure is used for causes the unborn's head to be 22 inches in diameter would know exactly why the procedure is done the way it is. And done often on the dead bodies of a fetus.

What does citizenship have to do with a fetus that has a fatal genetic abnormality that has either already killed it, or will kill it shortly? How is citizenship even relevant?
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I think the answer would be obvious to anyone who knows how difficult a C-section can be on a woman, and a woman who is already in duress due to the fetus dying inside her would have an even more difficult time with it. C-section should be the LAST resort unless it's specifically what the woman wants (for some insane reason).

And, anyone who has read that the condition for which this procedure is used for causes the unborn's head to be 22 inches in diameter would know exactly why the procedure is done the way it is. And done often on the dead bodies of a fetus.

What does citizenship have to do with a fetus that has a fatal genetic abnormality that has either already killed it, or will kill it shortly? How is citizenship even relevant?

Again,... if the childis already dead,... it's not an abortion.

If it so surely going to die,... there is no need to Kill it.

If the child has no brain,... it's not in pain,... so there's no logic to the "ending of it's suffering" claim.

If a C-Section is so dangerous and destructiv,... why do so many women DEMAND them that the statistics are beginning to worry doctors?

"Recent shifts in medical and social trends can help explain the increasing demand for C-Section deliveries. Birth in Canada is becoming increasingly medicalized, with a rise in medical and surgical interventions, including C-sections. "-- Womens Health Data Directory
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Again,... if the childis already dead,... it's not an abortion.
Yeah, it kinda is. Since that's what they CALL it.

If it so surely going to die,... there is no need to Kill it.
Yes, there is. To prevent it from dying inside the mother and possibly causing more complications.

If the child has no brain,... it's not in pain,... so there's no logic to the "ending of it's suffering" claim.
Why would you think it doesn't have a brain? We're talking late term here.

If a C-Section is so dangerous and destructiv,... why do so many women DEMAND them that the statistics are beginning to worry doctors?
Because they're ****ing stupid

But hey, if they WANT to destroy their abdominal muscles, increase their risk of never being able to carry to term again, that's their choice. Their bodies, after all. But it should be a last resort for a doctor who has a patient that WANTS it to be the last resort. Most women do not want a C-section for many, many reasons.

Cesarean Fact Sheet
A cesarean section poses documented medical risks to the mother's health, including infections, hemorrhage, transfusion, injury to other organs, anesthesia complications, psychological complications, and a maternal mortality two to four times greater than that for a vaginal birth.

The latest statistics indicate that 967,000 cesareans were performed in the US in 1989. The Public Health Citizen's Research Group estimates that over one-half the cesareans performed in 1987 were unnecessary and resulted in 25,00 serious infections, 1.1 million extra hospital days and a cost of over $1 billion. About 500 women a year die from bleeding, infections and other complications of cesarean sections, although these may be related to the reasons the operation was performed and not just to the procedure itself.

Not to mention that it can take nearly 2 months to recover from a C-section. That shouldn't be forced on any woman.
 
Top Bottom