• 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
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

When you can get back to this post and have the time, I would appreciate your opinions. Even if you cannot address them all at once. Just take it in pieces.



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.

You are welcome and well put. I agree and would add the same is true of normal children. Once born, pro-lifers do not seem concerned with that child's well being. I know I could take a hit for saying that, but when one says "No abortions. Period", and then decries welfare as robbing the rich to pay for the children of the poor, it gets my dander up.
 
You are welcome and well put. I agree and would add the same is true of normal children. Once born, pro-lifers do not seem concerned with that child's well being. I know I could take a hit for saying that, but when one says "No abortions. Period", and then decries welfare as robbing the rich to pay for the children of the poor, it gets my dander up.

I think you are spot on Gina, there is no real compassion in most anti-choicers, be it a serverely deformed fetus or a normal one. It just seems somewhat more obvious with that situation. It's no accident that, as you point out, the very same people screaming against free choice for women's control over their own bodies, are indeed the very first ones to scream against programs to house, feed, educate and provide health care for the very same "poor defenseless children" they DEMANDED be brought into this world. I've said it before and I'll say it again, anti-choicers "compassion" for "children" starts at conception and ends at birth.
 
I think you are spot on Gina, there is no real compassion in most anti-choicers, be it a serverely deformed fetus or a normal one. It just seems somewhat more obvious with that situation. It's no accident that, as you point out, the very same people screaming against free choice for women's control over their own bodies, are indeed the very first ones to scream against programs to house, feed, educate and provide health care for the very same "poor defenseless children" they DEMANDED be brought into this world. I've said it before and I'll say it again, anti-choicers "compassion" for "children" starts at conception and ends at birth.

Bingo! I've said the very same thing. One further point to make in this conundrum is their opposition to birth control. You'd think they would be standing on street corners handing out condoms and fully funding family planning clinics. Birth control is cheap, especially in comparison to raising a child.
 
Well ultimately partial birth abortions are very infrequent when compared to other abortions. Still, I think it's the most egregious type of abortion as well. While there are arguments for abortion at earlier stages (not that I agree with them), there's virtually nothing beyond life threatening medical needs which can excuse partial birth abortion. It should not be an elective abortion choice.
 
Well ultimately partial birth abortions are very infrequent when compared to other abortions. Still, I think it's the most egregious type of abortion as well. While there are arguments for abortion at earlier stages (not that I agree with them), there's virtually nothing beyond life threatening medical needs which can excuse partial birth abortion. It should not be an elective abortion choice.

Don't be mislead, what you've called for is already almost the entire reality. 99.82% of all abortions arenot late term and of those, almost all are performed for critical medical reasons. The entire "late term abortion" brouhaha, is nothing more than a red herring. Ask any of the "do-gooders" who squeal about it just how many of the special needs kids they are personally caring for that they "saved" from this procedure and you'll have a clearer picture of what they actually "care" about and it damn sure isn't children.
 
Well ultimately partial birth abortions are very infrequent when compared to other abortions. Still, I think it's the most egregious type of abortion as well. While there are arguments for abortion at earlier stages (not that I agree with them), there's virtually nothing beyond life threatening medical needs which can excuse partial birth abortion. It should not be an elective abortion choice.

But you know that only 37 states have banned late term abortion? So for those states that allow it, they are left to the more brutal D & E procedure.

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
 
Those extreme forms of late term abortion should not be allowed outside serious medical condition.
 
I voted legal, but only in extreme cases - protection of the mother's life or if the fetus is dying or will be severely, severely disabled (i.e. won't survive upon birth).
 
Decriminalized.
 
Back
Top Bottom