• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Partial Birth Abortions:

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The procedure is called : Intact D&X Surgery

This procedure is used to abort women who are 20 to 32 weeks pregnant -- or even later into pregnancy.

Preliminary procedures are performed over a period of 2-3 days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents, sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell. Sometimes hormones are used to induce the process of labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is commonly known as the 'partial-birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently births the rest of the baby, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal.
- This is VERY important because if the head comes out, the baby is considered, by the extreme legal definition pro-abortionists got pushed through as part of the legislation, to have been born thus and only then considered a person with a right to life.
--- One extremists actually said that, at any point in a woman's pregnancy, a woman should be allowed to abort (murder, in this case) her child, even on the delivery date, if she so chooses as long as the child has even 1 TOE still inside the mother!

CONTINUED:
With sufficient force, the doctor inserts scissors into the base of the back of the skull. The doctor spreads the scissors to widen the opening, and then inserts a suction catheter. The brain tissue is removed, killing the fetus, and allowing the rest of the fetus to pass easily.
- The doctor kills the child by shoving a pair of scissors up into the Medula Oblangata, the brain stem, opening a hole through which to insert a suction tube to suck the child's brains out.

Circumstances in which the procedure is performed
They are performed at any time between the fifth and ninth month of pregnancy for various reasons, such as:
The mother and baby are healthy, but the mother wishes to terminate her pregnancy. (Isn't that special?!)
• The fetus is dead (in which case the procedure is not an abortion).
• Fetal abnormality, mother's health in jeopardy, or other medical complications to pregnancy.


There has been much debate about what the procedure entails, the latest time this procedure can be performed, and more, so I decided to post the facts off a goverment page. The article also mentions the debate and questions raised in the Scott peterson trial about the apparent decision of an unborn baby's potential right to life afterScott was found guilty of 2 murdrers.

The article finished up by stating that already the 1st challenge to late term Abortions is headed to the Supreme court for interpretation and decision.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is an unwritten rule in discussion forums that when copying data or an article, you provide the link or proper credit to your sources.
 

doughgirl

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
In September, 1993, Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse with thirteen years or experience, was assigned by her nursing agency to an abortion clinic. She considered herself "very pro-choice," she didn't think this assignment would be a problem. She was wrong. This is what Nurse Shafer saw and said in her own words....

I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant. The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen."


http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/brendatestimony.html

This site contains the statement of Brenda Pratt Shafer that she read before the Subcommittee on the Constitution Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives on March 21, 1996, concerning The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833)

Read her statement, it's chilling. Chilling to those who value ife that is.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Ah, another pro-life lie. :roll:
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
Ah, another pro-life lie. :roll:
I'm pro-choice (although I think so called partial-birth 'abortions' are a travesty), but, Steen, you're getting tiresome, even to me:roll: ....
Just as I mentioned linking the OP's info, explain why you say what was posted is a lie? Refutation would go a lot further if you had a counterpoint-just a suggestion.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
ngdawg said:
I'm pro-choice (although I think so called partial-birth 'abortions' are a travesty),
but then there is no such thing, at least not even remotely per the way the pro-lifers present it.
but, Steen, you're getting tiresome, even to me:roll: ....
Oh, I get it. You think I should spend 15 minutes replying in detail to the facts regarding pro-life lies so they can go right back to spewing the same lie again?

Just as I mentioned linking the OP's info, explain why you say what was posted is a lie? Refutation would go a lot further if you had a counterpoint-just a suggestion.
And how would it be different this time than all the other times I have pointed out, documented, verified and referenced that the pro-life claim is a lie? Why the hell should I bother when the other side lie all the time on just about everything?

pro-lifers are liars who spew lie after lie. there is absolutely no point in even trying to dig into the evidence of every lie, when this doesn't change their incessant lying, is there?

You want clarification? Second line of the text, the D&X procedure is done mainly at 16-22 weeks, it is a second-trimester procedure done to minimize cervical dilation and thus making lying claims about 32 weeks pregnancy abortion through this method is.., well it is a lie. So this post starts out with a huge lie. There is nothing gained by spending to much time on such outright lies.

I have now spent all the time I have interest in spending on this, because it will have no effect. In a few days, you will see the same lie about the 32 weeks coming up again. Would it change if I spent 15-20 minutes providing the details of fetal skull circumference. should width, surgical statistics etc?

No, it wouldn't. The 32 week lie would come right back regardless of how much evidence I provided. You know why?

Because pro-lifers lie. They lie all the time, they lie a lot and their lies never change.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
But if you feel this is worth a discussion, lets have a real one with facts.

FACT: The procedure is the Dilation and Intact Extraction (D&X), a procedure developed as an alternative to the Dilation and Extraction (D&E) where the fetus is dismembered inside the uterus.


FACT: The D&X is safer than the D&E, predominately because not nearly as much cervical dilation is needed as with the D&E, but also as there is less risk for perforation of the uterus or leaving behind fetal parts.

FACT: It is done in the end of the second trimester, generally weeks 16-22, when the fetal head still is significantly wider diameter than the fetal shoulders and torso. Much later, and there would be no benefit to the cervix of doing the D&X, and we then also get to the time when the much simpler process of inducing uterine contractions is easier and safer.

FACT: per the timing, there is still no fetal sensation present. The fetus at this time is still non-sensate and non-sentient.

So ngdawg, what is it despite these facts that troubles you about the procedure?
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
easyt65 said:
- This is VERY important because if the head comes out, the baby is considered, by the extreme legal definition pro-abortionists got pushed through as part of the legislation, to have been born thus and only then considered a person with a right to life.
Not true. That statement reeks of an attempt to make abortion doctors seem like evil, conniving people. Why the hell would that be true? Wouldn't that mean my friend who was born breech isn't legally a person? :roll:

As for the statement by Brenda Pratt Shafer... um, what the hell? Why should we believe her testimony when she can't keep her story straight? How on earth could she have seen the baby's face if his head wasn't delivered, did she see his face? It would've been mutilated beyond recognition by the time the body was disposed of.

However, I'm personally against abortions past 20 weeks except in the case of foetal abnormality, or danger to the mother's health.
 

FISHX

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
212
Reaction score
0
Location
uk
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
The Dilation and Intact Extraction procedure is barbaric and inhumane hell when you put a prisoner to death it is done in a more humane way than when you put the unborn to death. I really cannot beleive that even pro choicers can find this procedure acceptable.

Oh yes and steen can you prove your claims that the d&x is not used after 22 weeks please your say so does not constitute proof.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FISHX said:
Oh yes and steen can you prove your claims that the d&x is not used after 22 weeks please your say so does not constitute proof.

No, Steen can NOT prove that this procedure is NOT used after the 22nd week. I have engaged in quite a few discussions on this board about partial birth abortions. Most of the pro-abortionists defend the practice yet would demand that I showed proof of everything I talked about, refusing to do any of the work themselves - too lazy to look things up, I guess. That is OK, because it got me doing quite a bit of research.

The very 1st post that began this thread was from an article I found, but there are also a couple of linef from another article. I found quite a few articles on the proceure. I found many that told of how these are done more than you would think would be done after the 22nd week. The justification behind this procedure is, more often than not, the definition of a living human being/baby. There have been many pro-abortionists who believe, as my post stated, that life does not begin until after the baby is outside the womb - COMPLETELY outside the womb. The comment in the 1st post about 'many believing that a woman should have the right to abort a boaby as long as 1 toe/foot is still inside the mother' is not from me, not my words, but are instead opinns found in several of the articles I researched. THAT is no lie, just citing the opinions of those in favor of abortions. Again, the mainarticle I cited mentioned leaving the baby's head inside the womb while the procedure is done BECAUSE of THAT definition of when life begins. While 'it' is still in the mother, 'it' is still a 'thing'...a 'choice'. Once out of the womb, 'it' miraculously becomes a baby, complete with rights.

I have to admit part of the reason I posted this thread was to bring up a point on which I was basically 'shouted down' and called a liar on in another thread. THAT defuiinition of when life begins is about to be heavily debated, thanks to Scott Peterson. He was convicted of two - 2 - counts of murder: 1 for his wife, and the 2nd being his unborn child. THAT opens up the debate about when life begins and at what point does the fetus/child have rights. Several pro-abortionists demanded that Peterson was convicted of killing a 'Choice', Laci's choice of whether to keep or abort her baby. I said then and say it again now, you can NOT be charged with 'murder' of a 'choice'. Like it or not, Peterson was convicted of murder for killing an unborn child, leaving the door wide open for interpretation and debate, which will find its way into the Supreme Court.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So once again, I ask you, provide your sources via link.
When YOU bring up a subject open to debate it is your onus to back it up, not you detractors to look it up.
Peterson was convicted under the California law posted in another thread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=7750
Connor peterson was in 8 months gestation and considered a viable fetus, hence murdered. A man who killed his 5 week pregnant wife a year later was NOT charged with murder a second time in that case.
 

FISHX

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
212
Reaction score
0
Location
uk
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
ngdawg said:
So once again, I ask you, provide your sources via link.
When YOU bring up a subject open to debate it is your onus to back it up, not you detractors to look it up.
Peterson was convicted under the California law posted in another thread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=7750
Connor peterson was in 8 months gestation and considered a viable fetus, hence murdered. A man who killed his 5 week pregnant wife a year later was NOT charged with murder a second time in that case.

Yes conner was viable but then so are most 24 week gestational fetuses yet the intact d&x procedure is still used on them what is the difference from a legal point in conner peterson and all the other humans that are being terminated in such a inhumane barbaric way?
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ngdawg said:
So once again, I ask you, provide your sources via link.
When YOU bring up a subject open to debate it is your onus to back it up, not you detractors to look it up.
Peterson was convicted under the California law posted in another thread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=7750
Connor peterson was in 8 months gestation and considered a viable fetus, hence murdered. A man who killed his 5 week pregnant wife a year later was NOT charged with murder a second time in that case.

I will try to go back on Google and get the link to the article I used, but I cut and pasted form the article, so it may take me a little bit of time.

In regards to your opinion/remarks on Connor Peterson, more than one of your fellow 'pro-choice' bubbas in another thread adamantly demanded that Connor was NOT a viable fetus, did not deserve any protection under the law, and insisted that Peterson's 2nd murder charge was for taking away laci's right of choice. They would not hear me when i said that this was their opinion and interpretation, that it was not others', and that I believed it would lead to a hearing in the Supreme court. I am pleased to read you are more open, at least to the idea that there can be more than 1 way to read the peterson verdict.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
easyt65 said:
I will try to go back on Google and get the link to the article I used, but I cut and pasted form the article, so it may take me a little bit of time.

In regards to your opinion/remarks on Connor Peterson, more than one of your fellow 'pro-choice' bubbas in another thread adamantly demanded that Connor was NOT a viable fetus, did not deserve any protection under the law, and insisted that Peterson's 2nd murder charge was for taking away laci's right of choice. They would not hear me when i said that this was their opinion and interpretation, that it was not others', and that I believed it would lead to a hearing in the Supreme court. I am pleased to read you are more open, at least to the idea that there can be more than 1 way to read the peterson verdict.
Not my 'fellow pro-choice bubba'....while in making points we almost have to deal in generalizations, it would behoove us to address either the person we are quoting or the posted agenda. I regard some here as total fundie fanatics who talk thru their A$$es and some at least worthy of responding to, even if they don't care for the response and that goes both ways(pro- or anti-choice)-truly some go over the top and in trying to make a point, lose the point completely.
I will repeat this once more: NONE here are pro-abortion as that would mean using it as an alternative in all situations of pregnancy, ie; forcing abortions on those that did not ask for it. No one here is a 'murderer'-not one person posting has admitted to being convicted of a crime. (we all KNOW murder is a felony so why it's used here is strictly to be childishly insulting, which, quite truthfully makes the word user look like an emotional fool).
No, there is only one way to read the verdict-Connor was quite ready to come into the world. In fact, that was probably a deep motivation for Peterson's actions. In theory, had Laci not been pregnant, she might very well still be alive.
On the other hand, the husband who murdered his 5-week along wife(whose name escapes me at the moment-he killed her, they found her body in a dump, remember?) was not charged with a double homicide. There has to be a presumption of two things: viability of the fetus and the mother's actions or intent. Since Laci obviously was past the earliest point of viability, it was clear she meant to carry to birth and this would be considered true in any case of a murdered pregnant woman, regardless of their life situation.
Other cases that made news include the cancer patient who fell into a coma while pregnant-she had made it clear she wouldn't abort while ill as she most likely would have done so before falling into the coma (and eventually dying), so she was kept alive to allow the fetus to mature til ready for birth, after which the mother passed away. It comes down to CHOICE and, barring that, the presumption of it.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I understand your dis-like of the label 'pro-abortion', but I find your argument a little funny.

YOU might be for abortions only in the case of medical necessity to save the mother or in cases of other medical emergencies; however, the majority of the 'pro-choice' crowd i run across are rabid defenders of abortion. many have told me on this board that whether to have an abortion or not, when to have one or not, is totally up to the mother, and all abortions should be attainable by women. Many have even defended the right to abortions to be used as some sort of post-sex contraceptive, should the woman so choose to do so. THAT, my friend, is NOT 'pro-choice...unless you count the choice to be totally irresponsible and not have to worry about the consequences of your actions'! THAT is "Pro-Abortion".

You demand to be called 'Pro-Choice' yet call us 'Anti-Abortion', which is just as absurd! We are also 'Pro-Choice' - we just choose LIFE.

I still believe in abortions for the sake of medical emergencies/to save the mother's life. I believe in the 'morning after' pill for rape victims, meaning no need for any 'abortion'. I am AGAINST the views of many of the pro-abortion people I have talked to on this board who believe a woman should be allowed to kill a baby at any point , as long as there is any body part still inside the mother. They are the Uber radicals you mentioned in your post.

But your point is well taken - there are Pro-Abortionists, and there are Pro-Choice. There are Pro-Choice members among your ranks that do not fall into the Pro-Abortion category but still desire a more liberal abortion rights attitude and policy than the members in my Pro-Choice circle.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
easyt65 said:
I understand your dis-like of the label 'pro-abortion', but I find your argument a little funny.

YOU might be for abortions only in the case of medical necessity to save the mother or in cases of other medical emergencies; however, the majority of the 'pro-choice' crowd i run across are rabid defenders of abortion. many have told me on this board that whether to have an abortion or not, when to have one or not, is totally up to the mother, and all abortions should be attainable by women. Many have even defended the right to abortions to be used as some sort of post-sex contraceptive, should the woman so choose to do so. THAT, my friend, is NOT 'pro-choice...unless you count the choice to be totally irresponsible and not have to worry about the consequences of your actions'! THAT is "Pro-Abortion".

You demand to be called 'Pro-Choice' yet call us 'Anti-Abortion', which is just as absurd! We are also 'Pro-Choice' - we just choose LIFE.

I still believe in abortions for the sake of medical emergencies/to save the mother's life. I believe in the 'morning after' pill for rape victims, meaning no need for any 'abortion'. I am AGAINST the views of many of the pro-abortion people I have talked to on this board who believe a woman should be allowed to kill a baby at any point , as long as there is any body part still inside the mother. They are the Uber radicals you mentioned in your post.

But your point is well taken - there are Pro-Abortionists, and there are Pro-Choice. There are Pro-Choice members among your ranks that do not fall into the Pro-Abortion category but still desire a more liberal abortion rights attitude and policy than the members in my Pro-Choice circle.
Kind of a Duh here but...it SHOULD be only up to the woman! Of course anyone that continuously gets stuck on stupid and gets one after the other is not stable enough to be making those choices, but it IS still ultimately hers to make-not ours. She just really needs serious counselling.
I think to some extent those arguments are made in exageration of trying to take a stance. I would think no one completely approves of such procedures wholly. If they do, they 'are', in my opinion, more pro-abortion. But this procedure is more hype than reality-so few are done. It IS included because there is the desire to have NO limitations on choice on the pro-choice side and to accentuate the anti-abortion crusade on the other.
I am NOT anti-abortion except for my own personal choice. To inflict my values on someone who doesn't have them is simply wrong. I don't even do that to my own kids-they are given choices and information, learn their consequences and subsequently, continue on the path of making the choices that are correct for them.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ngdawg said:
I am NOT anti-abortion except for my own personal choice. To inflict my values on someone who doesn't have them is simply wrong. I don't even do that to my own kids-they are given choices and information, learn their consequences and subsequently, continue on the path of making the choices that are correct for them.
There are many out there, even in our own Goverment that believe otherwise, though. I can not 'force' my values on others by praying aloud in school, but the Federal govt. has made it legal for the school principal to be able to take my 13yo daughter to have an abortion during school hours without ever notifying me/consulting me!

THAT is a product of the extreme side of 'pro-abortionists', stripping the rights of parents away to ensure their right 'force' their values on my family!
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
easyt65 said:
There are many out there, even in our own Goverment that believe otherwise, though. I can not 'force' my values on others by praying aloud in school, but the Federal govt. has made it legal for the school principal to be able to take my 13yo daughter to have an abortion during school hours without ever notifying me/consulting me!

THAT is a product of the extreme side of 'pro-abortionists', stripping the rights of parents away to ensure their right 'force' their values on my family!
From: http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_restrictions.html
Forty-four states have adopted laws requiring a young woman to obtain the consent of or notify one or both parents prior to an abortion, but in nine of those states, the laws are enjoined or not enforced. Most of the statutes apply to young women under 18 and provide for a court bypass procedure should a young woman be unable to involve her parents. Most measures include exceptions for medical emergencies.

Your contention that the Federal Government has made it legal for a " school principal to be able to take my 13yo daughter to have an abortion during school hours without ever notifying me/consulting me!" is not entirely true at all. Six states are without any parental notification laws currently-so unless you live in one of those, then your daughter can obtain an abortion without your consent.
The site covers this more in detail than I'm willing to copy and paste.
 

easyt65

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2005
Messages
2,061
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ngdawg said:
From: http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_restrictions.html
Forty-four states have adopted laws requiring a young woman to obtain the consent of or notify one or both parents prior to an abortion, but in nine of those states, the laws are enjoined or not enforced. Most of the statutes apply to young women under 18 and provide for a court bypass procedure should a young woman be unable to involve her parents. Most measures include exceptions for medical emergencies.

Your contention that the Federal Government has made it legal for a " school principal to be able to take my 13yo daughter to have an abortion during school hours without ever notifying me/consulting me!" is not entirely true at all. Six states are without any parental notification laws currently-so unless you live in one of those, then your daughter can obtain an abortion without your consent.
The site covers this more in detail than I'm willing to copy and paste.
Thank you for that update. I am glad to see that sanity has begun to take hold again! I can not believe that we had to pass such legislation to begin with! Thanks again!
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
so unless you live in one of those, then your daughter can obtain an abortion without your consent.
Sorry about that...should read: so unless you live in one of those, then your daughter can't obtain an abortion without your consent.
Figured you got that, but I hate grammar errors, specially when they're mine:mrgreen:
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ngdawg said:
so unless you live in one of those, then your daughter can obtain an abortion without your consent.
Sorry about that...should read: so unless you live in one of those, then your daughter can't obtain an abortion without your consent.
Figured you got that, but I hate grammar errors, specially when they're mine:mrgreen:
Umm it appears to me that that is true for only 22 states--the other 28 states--you as a parent ain't got a say--although they'll "tell you about your daughter getting an abortion" in 13... "Notification" is not the same as "consent."

Also--It would be interesting to see how many abortions are performed in those 22 states -vs- the number performed in those 28 states....
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I didn't do the math, so you'll have to take it up with them-I direct quoted. The first 44 states listed include parental notification enjoined/not enforced-meaning the laws are there-just no arrests on record in breaking them to simplify the implications of the list. Notification is not covered on this page as to its strictness, ie; must the parent be called beforehand by the clinic, etc.
 

doughgirl

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
60
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
ngdawg said, “NONE here are pro-abortion”
I believe you are wrong.

And…. what is wrong with being pro-abortion if abortion is nothing more than aborting nothing? Many people who are pro-choice/abortion think that the fetus is NOTHING until its natural birth, when it automatically becomes something. They do not think the fetus needs protection because quite frankly it's nothing. They think they are nonhumans until the actual birth takes place.
Something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger; whatever is human must be human from the beginning. That isn’t their view however. They think personhood is a matter of size, skill or degree of intelligence. Many on here think the human fetus is no better than that of an animal fetus.

They think abortion is nothing, so you tell me why they should be opposed to being labeled………..PRO-ABORTION?

IF ABORTION DOES NOT KILL CHILDREN WHY WOULD SOMEONE BE OPPOSED TO IT? BE OPPOSED TO THE LABEL?

And if it does kill children, why would someone defend anothers right to do it?

And if they do… they condone it, because to be pro-choice about abortion is to be pro-abortion.

“To inflict my values on someone who doesn't have them is simply wrong. I don't even do that to my own kids-they are given choices and information, learn their consequences and subsequently, continue on the path of making the choices that are correct for them.”
Society inflicts its views on people every day. Would you let your child play at the home of a pedophile? What is wrong with pedophilia anyway? Shouldn't’t they have the right to do what they want?
Who are you to tell them they can’t? What is wrong with pot, drugs? What is wrong with bestiality?
You mean to tell me you do not teach your kids your brand of morality? Would you let them hang out with a gang that was into drugs if THEY wanted too. Even after you gave them all the information?

If what you say is true, we should not inflict views………….then we should not have any laws at all. We should all do what we want. And if what I want hurts you so be it. If I want slaves, you shouldnt stop me. What right would you have?

I am curious to what you think.

Do truth and morality actually exist or is everything an opinion? Do you buy into this...a value, moral precept or outlook on life-can be "true for you and at the same time "not true for me."

Abortion to help world population control should be wrong......but abortion because the woman can't afford the child is ok. Abortion to sell its fetal body parts is wrong.....but abortion because the woman doesn't know who the father is is ok. Abortion in the 3rd month is ok, but in the 7th month is not ok.....Abortion is ok if a woman is pregnant with a boy and has three boys already and wants a girl..........but abortion to terminate a child with a cleft palate is wrong. All be allowed? Some be allowed? None be allowed? Who decides? Are any morally wrong? Some morally wrong? None? Who decides?

Is it wrong if I think fascism is true and you think liberal democracy is equally true? Should my repression be tolerated by you? If not, on what grounds? Why not permit Satanism, Nazism? Who determines truth?


Do you think an absolute universal truth exists?
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If you are curious as to what I think, hit 'view posts'. Frankly, I'm not going to continuously repeat myself to you. You twist, lie, invoke god, attack, attach misnomers and just go off the deep end.....
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15167815&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the relative safety of 2 techniques for surgical abortion late in the second trimester.Study design Retrospective review of patients who underwent surgical abortion at >or=20 weeks' gestation at our hospital from June 1996 through June 2003. Records were reviewed to determine whether the technique used was dilation and evacuation or intact dilation and extraction. Subsequent pregnancies at our hospital were identified, and obstetric outcomes were recorded. ....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15229018&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_docsum
...Twelve percent of abortions are performed in the second trimester, the majority of these by dilation and evacuation (D&E) after laminaria dilation of the cervix. Uterine evacuation is accomplished with heavy ovum forceps augmented by 14-16 mm vacuum cannula systems. Cervical injection of dilute vasopressin reduces blood loss. Operative ultrasonography is reported to reduce perforation risk of D&E. Dilation and evacuation procedures have evolved to include intact D&E and combination methods for more advanced gestations....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8423969&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_DocSum
Abortions performed after 20 menstrual weeks were effected by instillation of intra-amniotic hyperosmolar urea or induction of fetal death by injection of digoxin and/or hyperosmolar urea into the fetus, followed by artificial rupture of membranes, induction of labor, and assisted expulsion or instrumental extraction of the fetus. At less than 20 weeks, dilation and evacuation following serial multiple laminaria treatment of the cervix was the method of choice
 
Top Bottom