They are hearing about the partial birth abortion ban. At first I was for the ban honestly. I didn't fully understand what it was. There is no such medical procedure called partial birth abortion... that was the name bestowed on the procedure by it's opponents. The real terminology is called ...
| |||||||
 |
| Register to Post a Reply |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
11-08-2006, 04:59 PM
| #1 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal  Democrat South Jersey 
| The Supreme court is now hearing arguements on abortion They are hearing about the partial birth abortion ban. At first I was for the ban honestly. I didn't fully understand what it was. There is no such medical procedure called partial birth abortion... that was the name bestowed on the procedure by it's opponents. The real terminology is called "dilation and extraction or an intact dilation and evacuation abortion" It's essentially used in a case where the fetus is not viable and presents a health danger to the mother. There are 2 methods for this abortion to take place. one in which the fetus is sectioned into pieces while still in the womb and then removed. The other is this so called partial birth abortion where the fetus is partially delivered and then 'killed' for lack of a better term. Neither procedure is particularly palateable but they are only done in a case where the fetus has some sort of terrible problem and simply can not survive or even be brought to term. One method where the fetus is killed in the womb is not being contested here. SO it's not the abortion itself it's simply the particular medical procedure.. I don't want my governmet EVER telling my doctor that he can't perform some medical procedure that might be necesary to save my wifes life. This isn't about abortion. It's about banning a medical procedure that some people find distasteful. This procedure makes up about 0.2% of all abortions performed in the country on any given year. It's very rare. | ||||
     |
|
11-08-2006, 05:01 PM
| #2 | ||||
| Banned  Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| If anybody thinks late-term abortions are ok, I feel sorry for them. | ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 05:02 PM
| #3 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz You didn't read one word I said did you 
| ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 05:08 PM
| #4 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 Was I responding to you or the fact that it's in front of the Supreme Court as said in your title?
| ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 05:09 PM
| #5 | ||||
| helluo librorum The Lab Moderator  Humanist Chicago Suburbs
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 I find it very distasteful, but necessary.
I agree with you. I don't think the government should be able to step in and tell my wife she has to die to deliver a baby that won't live. Screw that. | ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 05:10 PM
| #6 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz If you read my post you would have more fully understood the issue that is being brought before the supreme court. It's not about late term abortion as the administration has tried to portray. It's about a specific method to perform a late term abortion. Late term abortion would still be legal even if this passes the supreme court.
| ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 05:13 PM
| #7 | ||||
| Deuteronomy 32:41  Paleolibertarian USA
| When it is a procedure that is necessary to save a life (such as seperating conjoined twins) I don't have a problem with it. When it's done because someone likes waiting too long before they say "oops, I'm preggers, let's dice up the baby and throw him in the trash", there's a problem. They shouldn't even be arguing the METHOD, but rather the PURPOSE of the procedure. Save a life = ok not save a life = murder | ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 05:16 PM
| #8 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent Yes it's a very unfortunate thing. MY wife is currently in her 32nd week due on January 3rd. I can't even imagine ever making a choice to terminate the pregnancy and end the life that is inside her. I have felt the baby kick with my own hands. We have set up her room, she has a name. It's a person in there as far as I am concerned. However, if something were to go terribly wrong, I would want all medical options available to possibly save the life of my wife. OF course we would both be devestated at the loss of our child, but honestly if my wife were to have serious medical complications because our governement decided that it didn't like the medical procedure she needed to save her life or prevent serious injury.. I don't even know what I would do.
| ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 05:16 PM
| #9 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| It has been medical practice for years that the mother's life always comes first. I don't even know why people question this. | ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 05:17 PM
| #10 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz The issue that has been presented to the supreme court right now would ban the medical procedure and has no exemption for the health of the mother.
| ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 05:18 PM
| #11 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 It won't pass.
Other than for the life of the mother, late-term abortions are stupid. | ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 05:24 PM
| #12 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz I agree totally. They should regulate the hell out of abortion. I would even say that they should make it totally illegal after 8 weeks except in cases where the health of the mother is at risk or the fetus is non viable for some reason.
| ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 05:25 PM
| #13 | ||||
| Anti-War, Anti-State, Pro-Free Market  Capitalist
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9
Because that exemption isn't needed.  If a woman is going to die because of a fetus, doctors will remove it. The "exemption clause" is not needed in abortion law. It's common sense. | ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 05:27 PM
| #14 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by lew Not when the doctor could be prosecuted for breaking the law
 You KNOW that some radical christian pro life group would find out if a doctor performed that operation and they would press charges. | ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 05:50 PM
| #15 | ||||
| Anti-War, Anti-State, Pro-Free Market Capitalist
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9
 I am a "radical christian pro life" person and I don't have a problem with abortion in the case of a woman's life being in danger. No one I've ever spoken with or heard at a problem either. They only have a problem with abortion used as a contraceptive. | ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 05:54 PM
| #16 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative  Realist
| So why would any doctor ever use the procedure of partially birthing the fetus and stabbing it in the face or whatever, instead of just doing it all in the womb? If they achieve the same end and are used in the same circumstance, what doctor would prefer to take the fetus out and kill it? | ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 07:34 PM
| #17 | ||||
| Junkie  Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo The normal method of abortion is not available that late.
| ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 08:21 PM
| #18 | ||||
| interwebberus professionalus  Independent
|
| ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 08:30 PM
| #19 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo Doing it in the womb you run the risk of perforating the uterus and in certain high risk patients that could result in a histerectomy ( removal of ovaries and uterus ).
| ||||
| |
|
11-08-2006, 08:30 PM
| #20 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by lew Congress did. THey want to ban this procedure specificaly.
| ||||
