• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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
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. Not to mention that it can take nearly 2 months to recover from a C-section. That shouldn't be forced on any woman.

In a partial birth abortion,... the child is intentionally pulled through the birth canal in the "breech" position;

Intentional breech birth
"As noted in the book Death and the Enlightenment by John McManners, it was mentioned that in 18th century France when the practice of an attending doctor was to keep the birth mother’s genital area obscured from view by a sheet, the doctor would sometimes display his “skill” by reaching under the sheet and turning the baby around so that a breech birth resulted—a very dangerous practice"

The recomended procedure to avoid "breech" deliveries and the dangers they present?

Caesarean Section.
 
In a partial birth abortion,... the child is intentionally pulled through the birth canal in the "breech" position;

Intentional breech birth
"As noted in the book Death and the Enlightenment by John McManners, it was mentioned that in 18th century France when the practice of an attending doctor was to keep the birth mother’s genital area obscured from view by a sheet, the doctor would sometimes display his “skill” by reaching under the sheet and turning the baby around so that a breech birth resulted—a very dangerous practice"

The recomended procedure to avoid "breech" deliveries and the dangers they present?

Caesarean Section.

Obviously doctors disagree and believe that the abortion procedure is safer and less traumatic to the woman. (who is the only important part of the equation here)

Dead is dead. Why would you rather a the fetus die on a table slowly as opposed to a quick and painless death? And, why would rather an already dead fetus be pull out of a woman's sliced open belly as opposed to an abortion procedure that saves her that pain, long recovery, and reduces risk to her?

Why do you care how a dead and/or dying fetus is removed from a woman's body?
 
Obviously doctors disagree and believe that the abortion procedure is safer and less traumatic to the woman. (who is the only important part of the equation here)

Dead is dead. Why would you rather a the fetus die on a table slowly as opposed to a quick and painless death? And, why would rather an already dead fetus be pull out of a woman's sliced open belly as opposed to an abortion procedure that saves her that pain, long recovery, and reduces risk to her?

Why do you care how a dead and/or dying fetus is removed from a woman's body?

In short,...

I care how all persons are treated,... and I believe all reasonable efforts should be taken to save both the mother and the child.

Pulling a child out breech up to it's neck and sucking it's brains out?

That (according to the Doctors who testified-- which included Planned Parenthood if memory serves,..) is not reasonable.
 
In short,...

I care how all persons are treated,... and I believe all reasonable efforts should be taken to save both the mother and the child.

Pulling a child out breech up to it's neck and sucking it's brains out?

That (according to the Doctors who testified-- which included Planned Parenthood if memory serves,..) is not reasonable.
It's dead. Why does it matter if its brains are sucked out? Why is that unreasonable? What matters is the woman, since she's actually ALIVE.
 
I'm talking about the children which are NOT dead.

when they stab it at the base of the skull and sever the brain stem, it's dead.

And, it's going to die anyway. Might as well make it quick and painless.
 
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. :)

I agree with Rivrrat, they are idiots. It is major abdominal surgery and as she pointed out there are severe risks involved with it and it destroys abdominal integrity. There is no reason to force a c-section and increase a woman's risk of infection on top of losing her child when there is another procedure available.

In short,...

I care how all persons are treated,... and I believe all reasonable efforts should be taken to save both the mother and the child.

Pulling a child out breech up to it's neck and sucking it's brains out?

That (according to the Doctors who testified-- which included Planned Parenthood if memory serves,..) is not reasonable.

But leaving it to die outside the womb after a c-section is humane?
 
I agree with Rivrrat, they are idiots. It is major abdominal surgery and as she pointed out there are severe risks involved with it and it destroys abdominal integrity. There is no reason to force a c-section and increase a woman's risk of infection on top of losing her child when there is another procedure available.

I think you two are intentionally missing the point that a "forced breech" delivery is just as dangerous in many cases,... and serves no more benefit to the "health" of the mother than would a c-section (which many women it seems prefer anyway.)

But leaving it to die outside the womb after a c-section is humane?

Did I not already say that all efforts to save both lives should be exhausted?
 
I think you two are intentionally missing the point that a "forced breech" delivery is just as dangerous in many cases,... and serves no more benefit to the "health" of the mother than would a c-section (which many women it seems prefer anyway.)



Did I not already say that all efforts to save both lives should be exhausted?

A natural "delivery" is less risky than c-section. The abdominal wall is not transected and the uterus cut open. Two actions that can produce serious complications. If you have never had abdominal surgery alone, you cannot know just how difficult it is to recover from. I've had two, unrelated to childbirth.

As for saving the life of a child with severe encephalitis, there is no possibility. That is what we are discussing. It will die anyway.

There is no reason to force a woman who doesn't want a c-section in this circumstance, to have it.
 
A partial birth abortion is the furthest things from a "natural" delivery as you can get.

That's the point.

It's using a woman's natural capacity to "deliver" via the birth canal as opposed to cutting her open, which is in no way "natural". That's the point.
 
A partial birth abortion is the furthest thing from a "natural" delivery as you can get.

That's the point.

It's using a woman's natural capacity to "deliver" via the birth canal as opposed to cutting her open, which is in no way "natural". That's the point.

No, Gina,... it's not.

In fact, if the women were having contractions while the dr. is turning the baby breech and trying to full it out feet first,.... That is actually working against her 'natural capacity' to deliver. And the Dr.s testified to that fact.
 
No, Gina,... it's not.

In fact, if the women were having contractions while the dr. is turning the baby breech and trying to full it out feet first,.... That is actually working against her 'natural capacity' to deliver. And the Dr.s testified to that fact.


Are contractions unnatural? That's news to me as that is the process I went through when I delivered my three children. One of them was induced as the baby was late, big and the OB didn't want to wait around for him to get big enough to cause complications. I know what contractions from induced labor feels like and it is no different from natural.

I'm sure the OB/GYN times the contractions so as not to work against the woman's body either. They do this when forceps (another procedure I endured) are necessary and an episiotomy is performed (a further procedure I was required to go through all three times). It is of great benefit to the doctor to allow contractions to work with the procedure rather than against them.
 
Last edited:
Are contractions unnatural? .

Yes,.. contractions themselves are normal / natural.

But in a partial birth abortion,... if the baby is head down and the Dr. needs to turn it breech,....

Even though the baby will eventually be pulled out through the birth canal,...

It's anything but 'natural' with regards to a delivery that is intended to deliver a live baby with as little harm to the mother or child as possible.
 
Yes,.. contractions themselves are normal / natural.

But in a partial birth abortion,... if the baby is head down and the Dr. needs to turn it breech,....

Even though the baby will eventually be pulled out through the birth canal,...

It's anything but 'natural' with regards to a delivery that is intended to deliver a live baby with as little harm to the mother or child as possible.

LOL

If the mother actually tried to deliver a baby with a head 22 inches in diameter, both would die. So by your own assessment "intended to deliver a live baby with as little harm to the mother or child as possible", yes it is more natural. Since in abortion situation, at least one of them gets to live instead of both of them dying. There, less harm.
 
LOL

If the mother actually tried to deliver a baby with a head 22 inches in diameter, both would die. So by your own assessment "intended to deliver a live baby with as little harm to the mother or child as possible", yes it is more natural. Since in abortion situation, at least one of them gets to live instead of both of them dying. There, less harm.

Head that large?

C-section.

Hundreds if not thousands are done every day and as the article I linked to says,... complications are very rare in 1st world nations..
 
Yes,.. contractions themselves are normal / natural.

But in a partial birth abortion,... if the baby is head down and the Dr. needs to turn it breech,....

Even though the baby will eventually be pulled out through the birth canal,...

It's anything but 'natural' with regards to a delivery that is intended to deliver a live baby with as little harm to the mother or child as possible.


Contractions and delivery are bodily functions and perfectly natural, we agree. Inducing them is done everyday. The "unnatural" part is terminating the pregnancy and that is what you are really objecting to.

Again, there is nothing natural about c-sections, but a woman's body is designed to expel a child and afterbirth. Unless the OB deems it medically necessary, for instance she cannot physically, safely deliver, there is no reason to cut.
 
Last edited:
Head that large?

C-section.

Hundreds if not thousands are done every day and as the article I linked to says,... complications are very rare in 1st world nations..
Again, you want to put the mother in more danger for no reason whatsoever. Makes absolutely no sense, logically, humanely, or medically.
 
Again, you want to put the mother in more danger for no reason whatsoever. Makes absolutely no sense, logically, humanely, or medically.

This procedure is already banned,.... and no women are dying or suffering as a consequence.

The sky has not fallen as a result of a ban on this barbaric procedure.
 
Last edited:
This procedure is already banned,.... and no women are dying or suffering as a consequence.

The sky has not fallen as a result of a ban on this barbaric procedure being banned.

No one has to die in order for something to be wrong and cause harm. Forcing a woman to undergo a C-section as opposed to letting her expel a dead or dying fetus in a non-invasive, non-surgical manner is just the height of mysogyny as far as I'm concerned. There is no reason whatsoever to ban a procedure that can save lives, save thousands of dollars, and save women undue hardship and physical trauma.
 
No one has to die in order for something to be wrong and cause harm. Forcing a woman to undergo a C-section as opposed to letting her expel a dead or dying fetus in a non-invasive, non-surgical manner is just the height of mysogyny as far as I'm concerned. There is no reason whatsoever to ban a procedure that can save lives, save thousands of dollars, and save women undue hardship and physical trauma.

Your fears have so far failed to be realized in the more than 7 years since the partial birth abortion procedure has been banned.

How many more years will it take before you will accept that your outrage is unfounded?
 
No one has to die in order for something to be wrong and cause harm. Forcing a woman to undergo a C-section as opposed to letting her expel a dead or dying fetus in a non-invasive, non-surgical manner is just the height of mysogyny as far as I'm concerned. There is no reason whatsoever to ban a procedure that can save lives, save thousands of dollars, and save women undue hardship and physical trauma.

It also reeks of punishment and vindictiveness.

Why should a woman be made to suffer unduly if her baby will die anyway?
 
Your fears have so far failed to be realized in the more than 7 years since the partial birth abortion procedure has been banned.

How many more years will it take before you will accept that your outrage is unfounded?

What fears are you talking about? Undue hardship put upon women forced to undergo C-sections? That isn't a fear, it's a reality. So what, exactly is unfounded? That women are forced to undergo C-sections when partial-birth abortions would have been more ideal? Or that C-sections cause more hardship on the woman than partial-birth abortions do?
 
What fears are you talking about? Undue hardship put upon women forced to undergo C-sections? That isn't a fear, it's a reality. So what, exactly is unfounded? That women are forced to undergo C-sections when partial-birth abortions would have been more ideal? Or that C-sections cause more hardship on the woman than partial-birth abortions do?

Your fears may be real,... I have no reason to doubt that they are.

My point is,... they haven't been realised in the years since the ban was enacted.
 
Your fears may be real,... I have no reason to doubt that they are.

My point is,... they haven't been realised in the years since the ban was enacted.

Sooo... you're saying that no women were forced to have a C-section when a partial-birth abortion would have been more ideal? In the last 7 years?

That's pretty ****ing remarkable. Apparently, banning partial birth abortions somehow cured some genetic abnormalities that occurred about 5000 times a year previously.
 
Back
Top Bottom