Partial Birth Abortion Poll

[Chuz Life]

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.

As the doctors testified, Rivrrat.

The procedure is un-necessary.

 

[rivrrat]

As the doctors testified, Rivrrat.

The procedure is un-necessary.

Unnecessary, meaning that there is another way to do it. But, that "other way" is just more dangerous, invasive, expensive, and traumatic for the mother. No big deal.

What was unnecessary was the ban. There was absolutely no reason for it. No reason at all to cause the woman more trauma when the fetus is dead either way. All the partial birth abortion ban did was punish women who unfortunately had a dead or dying fetus with severe genetic abnormalities. What a wonderful "win" for the anti-choice crowd.

 

[Chuz Life]

Unnecessary, meaning that there is another way to do it. But, that "other way" is just more dangerous, invasive, expensive, and traumatic for the mother. No big deal.

What was unnecessary was the ban. There was absolutely no reason for it. No reason at all to cause the woman more trauma when the fetus is dead either way. All the partial birth abortion ban did was punish women who unfortunately had a dead or dying fetus with severe genetic abnormalities. What a wonderful "win" for the anti-choice crowd.

Anti-Choice? :roll: :doh

The Doctors testified that it was un-necessary. Planned Parenthood doctors included.

When you consider what a partial birth abortion is,... how it is exacted and how un-necessisarily barbaric it is?

What woman, dealing with the loss of her child would elect or CHOOSE to have her dead or dying child removed in that manner?

Remember compassion?

 

[rivrrat]

Anti-Choice?

The Doctors testified that it was un-necessary. Planned Parenthood doctors included.

When you consider what a partial birth abortion is,... how it is exacted and how un-necessisarily barbaric it is?

What woman, dealing with the loss of her child would elect or CHOOSE to have her dead or dying child removed in that manner?

Remember compassion?

A woman with compassion would 10x rather their child die quick and painless as opposed to slowly and painfully. What person with compassion would choose to allow their child to suffer needlessly?

 

[Chuz Life]

A woman with compassion would 10x rather their child die quick and painless as opposed to slowly and painfully. What person with compassion would choose to allow their child to suffer needlessly?

An Anencephalic baby has only a brain stem.

No awareness or feeling of pain.

Still,... the more humane way for them to die is quietly, naturally and respectfully.

Intact,... not having their brain (what little there is of it) sucked out through a hole poked in the base of their skull.

What woman or doctor! would want that procedure on their concience?

 

[rivrrat]

An Anencephalic baby has only a brain stem.

No awareness or feeling of pain.

Still,... the more humane way for them to die is quietly, naturally and respectfully.

Intact,... not having their brain (what little there is of it) sucked out through a hole poked in the base of their skull.

What woman or doctor! would want that procedure on their concience?

I would certainly prefer quick and painless on my conscience.

If there's no pain or awareness, then what ****ing difference does it make how it's killed? How is one way any more "humane" than another? The only person that anyone need be concerned with is the mother, since she is the only actual person involved. It is HER wellbeing that is first and foremost. The "wellbeing" and "humanity" of an unthinking, unfeeling, unaware and in many cases already dead body of a fetus is entirely irrelevant.

Whatever way is safest for her to have it removed is the way it should be done. Period.

 

[OKgrannie]

As the doctors testified, Rivrrat.

The procedure is un-necessary.

But that procedure may be the SAFEST.

ACOG Statement on the US Supreme Court Decision Upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

Washington, DC -- Despite the fact that the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States—the US Supreme Court today upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) amicus brief opposing the Ban, the Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country. ......

This decision discounts and disregards the medical consensus that intact D&E is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions that make the potential complications of non-intact D&E especially dangerous. Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment.

 

[Chuz Life]

I would certainly prefer quick and painless on my conscience.

If there's no pain or awareness, then what ****ing difference does it make how it's killed? How is one way any more "humane" than another? The only person that anyone need be concerned with is the mother, since she is the only actual person involved. It is HER wellbeing that is first and foremost. The "wellbeing" and "humanity" of an unthinking, unfeeling, unaware and in many cases already dead body of a fetus is entirely irrelevant.

Whatever way is safest for her to have it removed is the way it should be done. Period.

You can have the last word here too....

/ignore

 

[Chuz Life]

But that procedure may be the SAFEST.

ACOG Statement on the US Supreme Court Decision Upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

Washington, DC -- Despite the fact that the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States—the US Supreme Court today upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) amicus brief opposing the Ban, the Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country. ......

This decision discounts and disregards the medical consensus that intact D&E is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions that make the potential complications of non-intact D&E especially dangerous. Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment.

:roll:

14th Amendment

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Toothpicvic]

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.

It should be legal when necessary to save the mother's life, but not as a convenience. So your poll is flawed - your only choices are "legal whenever" or "completely illegal". Those aren't the only options.

And if your argument against it is that "oh it looks gruesome", then nope, won't cut it.

 

[Chuz Life]

It should be legal when necessary to save the mother's life, but not as a convenience. So your poll is flawed - your only choices are "legal whenever" or "completely illegal". Those aren't the only options.

And if your argument against it is that "oh it looks gruesome", then nope, won't cut it.

Comprehension fail

The poll is "do you support the ban as upheld by the Supreme Court" or "don't you?"

 

[Gina]

But that procedure may be the SAFEST.

ACOG Statement on the US Supreme Court Decision Upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

Washington, DC -- Despite the fact that the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States—the US Supreme Court today upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) amicus brief opposing the Ban, the Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country. ......

This decision discounts and disregards the medical consensus that intact D&E is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions that make the potential complications of non-intact D&E especially dangerous. Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment.

Thank you Grannie. Look at these facts:

The Guttmacher brief notes that:

* 37 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.
* 24 states initiate prohibitions at fetal viability.
* 5 states initiate prohibitions in the third trimester.
* 8 states initiate prohibitions after a certain number of weeks, generally 24.

The circumstances under which procedures are permitted after that point vary from state to state. For example:

* 29 states permit abortions to preserve the life or health of the woman;
* 4 states permit abortions to save the life or health of the woman, but use a narrow definition of health;
* 4 states permit abortions only to save the life of the woman.

So, of the states where "late term" abortion is permitted, the doctor must resort to the more dangerous D&E. Also the fetus is dismembered in the process.

If this procedure is so controversial, then why was it developed in the first place?

The further along a pregnancy is, the more complicated — and the more controversial — the procedures are for aborting it. Abortions performed after the 20th week of pregnancy typically require that the fetus be dismembered inside the womb so it can be removed without damaging the pregnant woman's cervix. Some gynecologists consider such methods, known as "dilation and evacuation," less than ideal because they can involve substantial blood loss and may increase the risk of lacerating the cervix, potentially undermining the woman's ability to bear children in the future.

Two abortion physicians, one in Ohio and one in California, independently developed variations on the method by extracting the fetus intact. The Ohio physician, Martin Haskell, called his method "dilation and extraction," or D&X. It involved dilating the woman's cervix, then pulling the fetus through it feet first until only the head remained inside. Using scissors or another sharp instrument, the head was then punctured, and the skull compressed, so it, too, could fit through the dilated cervix.

Haskell has said that he devised his D&X procedure because he wanted to find a way to perform second-trimester abortions without an overnight hospital stay, because local hospitals did not permit most abortions after 18 weeks.

'Partial-Birth Abortion:' Separating Fact from Spin : NPR

 

[Chuz Life]

So, of the states where "late term" abortion is permitted, the doctor must resort to the more dangerous D&E. Also the fetus is dismembered in the process.

If it were so dangerous, the ACLU and other proponents of "partial birth abortion' wouldn't let any grass grow between themselves and the nearest courtroom or tv camera.

The doctors testified that the procedure is not necessary for good reason.

 

[Gina]

If it were so dangerous, the ACLU and other proponents of "partial birth abortion' wouldn't let any grass grow between themselves and the nearest courtroom or tv camera.

The doctors testified that the procedure is not necessary for good reason.

I didn't say it was "so dangerous", it is more dangerous than the D & X and you completely overlooked the brutality of the D & E. The fetus is dismembered rather than delivered whole.

 

[Chuz Life]

I didn't say it was "so dangerous", it is more dangerous than the D & X and you completely overlooked the brutality of the D & E. The fetus is dismembered rather than delivered whole.

Just because I don't respond to something,... don't think it's because I overlooked it.

Sometimes I'm verifying facts,... other times I'm just too busy,... still others I'm holding my tongue.

In this case, it's all of the above.

Except to say,.... well it looks like we have yet another procedure that maybe our law makers need to look into.

 

[molten_dragon]

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?"

The baby's head does not deliver, so the point is irrelevant.

I stand by what I said earlier. The partial birth abortion procedure should be legal under the exact same circumstances that any other form of abortion is legal. Yes, the method is gruesome, but most methods of abortion are. In fact, a lot of medical procedures in general are pretty gruesome.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?"

The baby's head does not deliver, so the point is irrelevant.

The child we are discussing (late term mind you) is but inches away from being a fully born American Citizen.

The Supreme Court (I think rightly) disagreed with you.

I have no reason to believe (in light of our technological and medical advances) that the founders would not have told you to pound sand as well.

But thanks for showing your true colors on the issue.

 

[Gina]

Just because I don't respond to something,... don't think it's because I overlooked it.

Sometimes I'm verifying facts,... other times I'm just too busy,... still others I'm holding my tongue.

In this case, it's all of the above.

Except to say,.... well it looks like we have yet another procedure that maybe our law makers need to look into.

Fair enough. As the D & E existed before the D & X, as I quoted, the procedure has been there for law makers to look into for decades. For those states that have not banned late-term abortion, this the procedure left to doctors.


As for why late term abortion should remain legal, from an amicus brief filed in Gonzalez vs. Planned Parenthood: http://www.nirhealth.org/sections/howwepartner/documents/amicus-brief-womens-stories.pdf

A. Wanted Fetuses Diagnosed with Grave
Anomalies in the Second Trimester.
One of the tragic realities of second-trimester abortions
is that many women who obtain them are carrying pregnancies
that were entirely wanted. As many of the women note,
tests to assess whether certain grave conditions or disorders
affect a pregnancy cannot be administered prior to the
second trimester.11 As a result, a woman whose fetus is critically

9 In their accounts, individual women self-identified as Baptist,
Catholic, “conservative Christian,” Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jewish,
Muslim, Presbyterian, atheist, and “spiritual.” Individual women
identified as members of different racial and ethnic groups, including
African-American, Asian-American, Caucasian, and Latina. The women
who submitted their stories are from more than half of the States,
including, inter alia, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, New
Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington.
10 While two of the women’s stories make clear they obtained D&X
procedures, some of the women’s testimonials refer alternatively to having
obtained a D&E and a D&X procedure, suggesting that more than two of the
women who submitted stories may have obtained a D&X procedure.
11 Amniocentesis is the most common and accurate prenatal test used
to diagnose serious birth defects. It is generally not available before the
(Continued on following page)
7​

impaired will often not learn that fact until well into the second
trimester of her pregnancy. Often women learn, only for the first
time in the second-trimester, of mortally serious conditions and
disorders such as Trisomy 18 or Patau’s syndrome;
12 Trisomy 18or Edward’s syndrome;13 Cat Eye syndrome or chromosome 22
disorder;14 congenital CMV;15 or Turner Syndrome.16

fifteenth week of pregnancy. “Chorionic villus sampling,” or CVS, is a test
available starting at ten to thirteen weeks in pregnancy but is useful to
identify a limited subset of abnormalities identifiable by amniocentesis.
See F. GARY CUNNINGHAM, ET AL., WILLIAMS OBSTETRICS 329-30 (22d ed. 2005).
12 Median survival rate for infants born with Trisomy 13 is seven
days. Only 10% of infants with the chromosomal disorder will celebrate
their first birthday. Eighty to 90% of infants with Trisomy 13 will suffer
from cardiac defects, and 70% will suffer from a spectrum of significant
cranio-facial malformations. See WILLIAMS, supra n.11, at 291; see also
Support for the Trisomy 13, and Related Disorders, Trisomy 13 Facts,
www.trisomy.org/html/trisomy_13_facts.htm (visited Aug. 9, 2006).
13 Most infants born with Trisomy 18 die within fourteen days of birth
and only 10% survive more than one year. Those who survive are profoundly
retarded and 95% have cardiac defects. WILLIAMS, supra n.11, at 290; see also
Support for the Trisomy 18, and Related Disorders, Trisomy 18 Facts,
www.trisomy.org/html/trisomy_18_facts.htm (visited Aug. 9, 2006).
14 Cat Eye syndrome typically results in the grotesque malformation
of a fetus’s skull and facial features. Additional conditions associated
with the chromosomal disorder include malformations of the heart,
kidneys, and intestinal and anal systems. See Nat’l Inst. of Health,
Nat’l Library of Med., avail. at www.nlm.nih.gov/cgi/jablonski/syndrome_
cgi?index=93 (visited Aug. 9, 2006); see also Nat’l Org. for Rare Disorders,
Cat Eye Syndrome, avail. at www.rarediseases.org/search/rdb
detail_abstract.html (visited Aug. 9, 2006).
15 In 90% of infants born that show no symptoms of CMV at birth,
15% will develop one or more neurological abnormalities, usually in the
first two years of life. Of the 10% that show symptoms at birth, up to
20% will die and about 90% of the survivors suffer from serious
neurological defects. See WILLIAMS, supra n.11, at 1282-84; see also March of
Dimes, Cytomegalovirus Infection in Pregnancy, avail. at www.marchofdimes.
com/professionals/681_1195.asp (visited Aug. 9, 2006).
16 The majority of fetuses with Turner Syndrome that survive until
the second trimester have major cardiac malformations. It is also
common for these fetuses to have “cystic hygromas” or sacs of fluid that
(Continued on following page)
8​

As the women describe, not only are some of the
initial diagnostic tests administered only in the second
trimester, but confirmatory tests – essential to the woman
making an informed decision – take additional time.


Erin, a 35-year-old woman from the West Coast,
describes her life as “pretty ‘apple pie’.” She explained the
timing involved in receiving a diagnosis for her pregnancy:


In addition to the terrible news about the probability
of the baby having a serious problem came another
nasty surprise: We would not be able to
confirm if there was a problem or make any decision
about how to proceed for quite some time. . . .
Waiting to get the amnio was one of the most
stressful, heart-rending, agonizing times of my
life. My belly was growing, and my pregnancy
was no longer a private matter because of that. I
wanted to be upbeat, but I was terrified. The
more research I did on Trisomy 13 and 18, the
more terrified I got. . . .
The amnio date finally arrived in the middle of
my 15th week of pregnancy. During the amnio,
they discovered that I also had a complete placenta
previa – a condition where the placenta
implants over the cervix. They felt my case was
unlikely to resolve itself, which meant I would be
at risk for severe bleeding as the pregnancy progressed.
. . . [W]e tried to remain hopeful that the
amnio results would show that the baby at least
didn’t have a fatal trisomy. . . . But unfortunately,
the amnio results came back confirming our baby

form from the neck and may be the size of or larger than the fetal head.
WILLIAMS, supra n.11, at 395. Less than 2% of fetuses with Turner Syndrome
survive pregnancy. See id. at 291. Of those infants who survive, 98% will be
infertile and some will have heart, kidney, and neurological problems. See
also Nat’l Inst. of Health, Turner Unit, avail. at Turner Syndrome - Home
ClinFrTables.html (visited Aug. 9, 2006).
9​

had trisomy 18. At this point I was 16 weeks
along and had begun feeling the baby kick. It
should have been sweet, but instead the kicks
were torture. We were utterly crushed.
Erin, submitted by e-mail, May 11, 2006, at 62-63.


Cara, a married Catholic woman with an almostthree-
year-old son, has “always dreamed of having a big
family.” She described the time it took to obtain information
needed about her pregnancy:

I was about 17 weeks pregnant at the time. . . .
[T]hey scheduled us for our Level II ultrasound a
few weeks early so they could look in more detail
at the baby. . . .
A few days [after the ultrasound], we received
the news that would change our lives forever.
Our son was infected with CMV (cytomegalovirus).
This was the worst possible scenario (of the
possibilities we were given). . . .
Although I have always been pro-choice, I had
winced at the thought of late-term abortions or
“partial birth” abortions, thinking that it was
just inhumane or irresponsible. Now I know differently.
In my case, we were not able to confirm
our diagnosis until 19 or 20 weeks gestation. I
terminated at 22 weeks. . . . I was completely
heartbroken. . . .
Cara, submitted by e-mail, May 11, 2006, at 42-43.17

A few more heart breakers:

Another woman and her husband learned at 18-20
weeks (“depending on which sonogram was right”) that
their pregnancy had Turner Syndrome. They too decided
to abort to spare their child’s suffering:
12
Apparently, the lymph nodes didn’t seal off, and
the body was filled with fluid. This fluid was
pushing on all the organs, and restricting the
growth of the heart and lungs. . . . She was
drowning from the inside, and I was able to save
her from that immeasurable pain.
Jane Doe, submitted by e-mail, May 9, 2006, at 78-79.


Kara, a married woman with a three-year-old daughter
from the Mid-Atlantic, learned at 25 weeks that her
fetus was “missing a chamber of her heart which was
causing a back flow of blood into another chamber and
good and toxic blood were mixing”:

The physician . . . said if everything goes perfectly,
[the child] will have to undergo 3 open
heart surgeries and still will not have a long life
expectancy. She couldn’t tell us how long she
would survive. She said “it could be a year,
maybe three, maybe ten. That is, if she survives
the pregnancy to term, the C-section, and all the
surgeries.” After the surgeries, she would be
plagued with heart infections and would be constantly
monitored at the hospital. If we were
lucky and she did survive long enough to walk,
she would never be able to run and play with her
sister. . . .
This is not the life we wanted for our precious little
girl. Not only would she suffer her entire existence
but it would have emotionally destroyed
our other little girl as well.
Kara, submitted by e-mail, May 17, 2006, at 115-16.


Jane Doe, a 21-year-old woman from the Northeast,
decided to end her pregnancy after her fetus was diagnosed
with Turner Syndrome:
t was my first pregnancy so I went to the doctor
and they found out [it] had Turner Syndrome
and they told me my options and . . . they were
13
surprised that she lived as long as she – her legs
– she was swollen, one side of her body was swollen
and she had a tumor around her neck and
there wasn’t enough fluid. . . . I made up my
mind to have the procedure done ‘cause I didn’t
know if she was suffering, ‘cause she didn’t have
enough fluid, so I didn’t know if she was ill. Nobody
knew. They couldn’t tell me so I feel like I
had to do . . . what was best for her and that’s
what I thought was best for her. . . . I know like I
did it for a good reason but it’s like I don’t regret
it, but it’s still hard. Because I really wanted my
child. . . . Me personally I would [have] never
thought I would have to get an abortion because
no matter how young, if I was 15 and I got pregnant
I would you know and everything was okay.
Even if my child had Down Syndrome I would’ve
had my child. But knowing that my child is swollen
and there’s not enough fluid and they don’t
know . . . if there’s something wrong with her like
if she suffers. . . .
Jane Doe, telephone interview, May 5, 2006, at 134-35.

These were cases of profound birth defects. There are others in the brief discussing the obstacles to first trimester abortions that caused delays, like money and the lack of early term abortion services in their area forcing them to travel.

 

[Chuz Life]

Fair enough. As the D & E existed before the D & X, as I quoted, the procedure has been there for law makers to look into for decades. For those states that have not banned late-term abortion, this the procedure left to doctors.


As for why late term abortion should remain legal, from an amicus brief filed in Gonzalez vs. Planned Parenthood: http://www.nirhealth.org/sections/howwepartner/documents/amicus-brief-womens-stories.pdf A few more heart breakers:

These were cases of profound birth defects. There are others in the brief discussing the obstacles to first trimester abortions that caused delays, like money and the lack of early term abortion services in their area forcing them to travel.

"The Court decided to "assume ... for the purposes of this opinion" the principles of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

The Court said that the lower courts had repudiated a central premise of Casey — that the state has an interest in preserving fetal life — and the Court held that the ban was narrowly tailored to address this interest. " -- Wiki

 

[molten_dragon]

The child we are discussing (late term mind you) is but inches away from being a fully born American Citizen.

Close doesn't count. Being an 'almost citizen' doesn't count for anything. You are either a citizen or you aren't.

There are 4 situations under which this procedure could be used, and only under one of them should it be illegal (though under a second it is somewhat iffy).

1. Mother desires a late-term elective abortion, and the fetus is not yet viable. The fetus isn't a person and has no rights, so it's between the mother and her doctor as to what procedure is used to extract it. Intact Dilation and Extraction should be as legal as any other procedure.
2. Fetus is past the point of viability, but mother's life/health are threatened by her continued pregnancy. The fetus is a person, but has given up its right to life by threatening the mother's. If she desires to end the pregnancy, it is between the her and her doctor as to what method to use (and should be based on what is safest/easiest on the mother). Intact Dilation and Extraction should be as legal as any other procedure.
3. Fetus is past the point of viability, but has some condition that will not allow it to live outside the womb. The fetus is a person and has rights, but if a doctor has certified that it is incapable of living outside the womb and the parents wish to kill it, they should have the right. The mother and doctor should decide what method should be used. Intact dilation and extraction should be legal, but since this is essentially a mercy killing, some consideration should be given to doing it quickly and painlessly. Anesthetizing the fetus before the procedure would solve this problem.
4. Mother desires a late-term elective abortion and the fetus is past the point of viability. The fetus is a person and has rights. Intact Dilation and Extraction should be illegal, as should any other method of abortion.

The Supreme Court (I think rightly) disagreed with you.

It's their right to do so of course. I'm even sure that they have a more complete view of the situation than I do. If there are facts that I'm unaware of, I may change my opinion, but I believe I have a pretty good overview of the situation.

I have no reason to believe (in light of our technological and medical advances) that the founders would not have told you to pound sand as well.

You have no reason to believe that they would have told me to 'pound sand' either. What they would have thought is impossible to know (as well as irrelevant) since they're dead.

But thanks for showing your true colors on the issue.

When have I done otherwise? It's not like I go out of my way to hide my views.

 

[Gina]

"The Court decided to "assume ... for the purposes of this opinion" the principles of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

The Court said that the lower courts had repudiated a central premise of Casey — that the state has an interest in preserving fetal life — and the Court held that the ban was narrowly tailored to address this interest. " -- Wiki

Ok. But I don't know what that has to do with the fact that doctors are left with the more brutal D & E for those in heartbreaking situations like the cases I cited. Or do you think those women should be forced to give birth to children with profound and painful birth defects?

 

[Chuz Life]

Ok. But I don't know what that has to do with the fact that doctors are left with the more brutal D & E for those in heartbreaking situations like the cases I cited. Or do you think those women should be forced to give birth to children with profound and painful birth defects?

I think that the right that children have to their lives superceeds the rights of others to not be inconvienienced by them.

People in pain or with severe problems or defects still have a right to their life.

I just love how so many here are "pro-choice" on elective abortion,... because prior to a certain point a fetus "can't feel pain." But, if that same fetus matures to a point that it MIGHT be in pain,.... well that's a valid ****ing reason to kill it too.

The irony and logic (and words to describe it) escapes me.

 

[Gina]

I think that the right that children have to their lives superceeds the rights of others to not be inconvienienced by them.

People in pain or with severe problems or defects still have a right to their life.

I just love how so many here are "pro-choice" on elective abortion,... because prior to a certain point a fetus "can't feel pain." But, if that same fetus matures to a point that it MIGHT be in pain,.... well that's a valid ****ing reason to kill it too.

The irony and logic (and words to describe it) escapes me.

Inconvenienced? Didn't you read what would happen to these children upon birth?

But unfortunately,the amnio results came back confirming our baby had trisomy 18.

Most infants born with Trisomy 18 die within fourteen days of birth
and only 10% survive more than one year. Those who survive are profoundly
retarded and 95% have cardiac defects.​

their pregnancy had Turner Syndrome....Apparently, the lymph nodes didn’t seal off, and
the body was filled with fluid. This fluid was pushing on all the organs, and restricting the
growth of the heart and lungs. . . . She was drowning from the inside,

The majority of fetuses with Turner Syndrome that survive until the second trimester have major cardiac malformations. It is also common for these fetuses to have “cystic hygromas” or sacs of fluid that form from the neck and may be the size of or larger than the fetal head. WILLIAMS, supra n.11, at 395. Less than 2% of fetuses with Turner Syndrome survive pregnancy. See id. at 291. Of those infants who survive, 98% will be infertile and some will have heart, kidney, and neurological problems.​

These are not cases of inconvenience. These children would suffer pain and be forced to have operation upon operation in order to survive. Have you ever been around children with severe birth defects? I have. The first child care giver I used also took in kids with "special needs" because her own son was born hydrocephalus from a botched delivery. She was certified and capable of dealing with kids requiring feeding tubes or injections and other kinds of special care.

For these kids, every cold is potential death as they end up in the hospital with pneumonia a couple times a year because their immune systems are deficient.

Then there are operations for shunts and then more operations or procedures because the shunts become blocked.

Then there are operations to repair heart or other organ defects.

Did the parents of these kids whine about inconvenience to me? No, their concern was for the pain and suffering their children were subjected to on a regular basis. Pneumonia sucks. Laying in a hospital, laboring for breath and choking on the crud in one's lungs hurts and it's scary for children. Shunts hurt when they become obstructed. Procedures and operations require needle sticks, nurses and doctors handling them and because they are strangers, it scares the kids, even if they are "retarded". Recovering from major organ surgery is painful.

A couple of my children had several minor surgeries when they were young and that was hellacious enough for me. They screamed or cried because the strangers poked their fingers for blood and then when more strangers took them away to the operating room. The recovery room is more of the same as they struggle to come out of anesthesia.

Convenience is not even a factor for these parents and specifically, that care giver would beat you senseless if you suggested it to her.

The parents in the cases I posted, with the foreknowledge given them, the certitude of what the child would face, chose not to subject their babies to a life filled with pain and suffering.

Your lack of compassion is amazing and I never used fetal pain as an argument.

 

[Chuz Life]

Your lack of compassion is amazing and I never used fetal pain as an argument.

Your post is too long and raises far more points than I have time for.

Suffice it to say, we define compassion differently.

"There are things we only learn by caring for the weakest among us" Gianna Jessen

 

[The Uncola]

Inconvenienced? Didn't you read what would happen to these children upon birth?

Most infants born with Trisomy 18 die within fourteen days of birth
and only 10% survive more than one year. Those who survive are profoundly
retarded and 95% have cardiac defects.​

The majority of fetuses with Turner Syndrome that survive until the second trimester have major cardiac malformations. It is also common for these fetuses to have “cystic hygromas” or sacs of fluid that form from the neck and may be the size of or larger than the fetal head. WILLIAMS, supra n.11, at 395. Less than 2% of fetuses with Turner Syndrome survive pregnancy. See id. at 291. Of those infants who survive, 98% will be infertile and some will have heart, kidney, and neurological problems.​

These are not cases of inconvenience. These children would suffer pain and be forced to have operation upon operation in order to survive. Have you ever been around children with severe birth defects? I have. The first child care giver I used also took in kids with "special needs" because her own son was born hydrocephalus from a botched delivery. She was certified and capable of dealing with kids requiring feeding tubes or injections and other kinds of special care.

For these kids, every cold is potential death as they end up in the hospital with pneumonia a couple times a year because their immune systems are deficient.

Then there are operations for shunts and then more operations or procedures because the shunts become blocked.

Then there are operations to repair heart or other organ defects.

Did the parents of these kids whine about inconvenience to me? No, their concern was for the pain and suffering their children were subjected to on a regular basis. Pneumonia sucks. Laying in a hospital, laboring for breath and choking on the crud in one's lungs hurts and it's scary for children. Shunts hurt when they become obstructed. Procedures and operations require needle sticks, nurses and doctors handling them and because they are strangers, it scares the kids, even if they are "retarded". Recovering from major organ surgery is painful.

A couple of my children had several minor surgeries when they were young and that was hellacious enough for me. They screamed or cried because the strangers poked their fingers for blood and then when more strangers took them away to the operating room. The recovery room is more of the same as they struggle to come out of anesthesia.

Convenience is not even a factor for these parents and specifically, that care giver would beat you senseless if you suggested it to her.

The parents in the cases I posted, with the foreknowledge given them, the certitude of what the child would face, chose not to subject their babies to a life filled with pain and suffering.

Your lack of compassion is amazing and I never used fetal pain as an argument.

Thank you Gina, for injecting some reality of just what it is forcing a woman to carry a profoundly defective fetus to term yields. I reject that anyone is showing compassion to either mother or "child" in doing so. All they are truly showing is that they have an unremitting psychotic drive to control other people. What that costs others, in terms of physical suffering, emotional trauma, ruined finances, destroyed dreams, or anything else just isn't part of the equation.