Patterico's Pontifications

4/19/2007

What Partial Birth Abortion Actually Involves

Filed under: Abortion,General — Patterico @ 12:00 am



Here’s a quote from the partial-birth abortion opinion, just so you know what we’re dealing with.

Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26½-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . .“‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. “‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . . “‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’”

A 26 1/2 week old fetus, by the way, has a decent chance at survival. And only a small percentage of babies aborted that late are done because of medical complications or fetal abnormality.

It’s not just about relieving the mother of the burden of carrying the child, you see. It’s also about her sacred right to see it dead.

You think I’m wrong?

What if the state were to say, concerning a viable child such as the one whose murder is described above, that it can deliver the child intact and alive — just as safely as it can abort it? If the mother is considering an abortion under such circumstances, I think the state should be able to force the mother to deliver, rather than have the abortion — as long as the state is willing to take custody of the child.

But of course, that would horrify abortion rights advocates. Because the mother has a sacred right to see the child dead.

More from the opinion:

Dr. Haskell’s approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and “the process has evolved” since his presentation. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965. Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced “so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through.” App. in No. 05–380, at 41; see also Carhart, supra, at 866–867, 874. Still other physicians reach intothe cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus’ skull. Carhart, supra, at 858, 881. Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it. Id., at 864, 878; see also Planned Parenthood, supra, at 965.

Just so you know what we’re talking about.

P.S. I love the citations there, which is why I leave them in. “And then the doctor vacuums out the baby’s brains and crushes its skull. See also Res Ipsa Loquitur, supra, at 666.” It just adds to the bizarre legalistic casualness with which these real-life gruesome issues are discussed.

44 Responses to “What Partial Birth Abortion Actually Involves”

  1. They hold in high regard the woman’s right to choose yet I am a woman who never knew the details of this procedure until the ban in 2003 at the age of 43. I cannot tell you just how horrified I was to learn that this is what I had supported all in the name of women’s rights.

    How am I empowered if they are able to hide under the umbrella of ‘right to privacy’ all of the nasty business required to keep the abortion industry thriving?

    It wasn’t religion that made me pro-life it was the deceptive, manipulative manner in which the feminist movement has infantized my gender by keeping dirty little secrets from ever seeing the light of day.

    syn (7faf4d)

  2. Our esteemed host made an error when he wrote:

    What if the state were to say, concerning a viable child such as the one whose murder is described above, that it can deliver the child intact and alive — just as safely as it can abort it?

    No so. At that point, it is safer for the mother (not to mention her child) to deliver him alive. In what our friends on the left want to call “intact dilation and extraction,” because they figure the medical term obscures what they are doing, the forced delivery is stopped most of the way through, and another surgical instrument is inserted, to puncture the child’s skull and “aspirate” his brain. This creates a greater trauma on the delivery process and add the risk of additional surgical procedures, which would not be present if the forced delivery were simply continued.

    The only reason for killing the child while he is still partly in the birth canal is to avoid the charge of homicide. If the law permitted active “euthanasia” of an unwanted child, abortionists would completely deliver the child before killing him, because such would be both safer for the mother and simpler for the abortionist.

    Dana (3e4784)

  3. Dana-
    I think our host is correct for the most part, and making some of the factual evidence clear. I think you are adding emphasis to the reality.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  4. The pro-abortion loby (as opposed to the pro-choice people like me) does not want these details exposed. They want to hide behind the “health” exemption in full knowledge that the unlimited abortion folks would drive a virtual truck through that loophole. The original legalization of abortion in California, long before Roe v Wade, was through a “health exemption” decision that allowed a psychiatric exemption. At that time (1969) a psychiatrist routinely certified that the young woman would be psychologically harmed if she had to carry the pregnancy to term. As long as these were first trimester abortions, I supported this and still do. However, there is no medical justification for late term abortion with very rare exceptions. Those exceptions could probably be dealt with by ceasarian section and live birth. I have done this in a few cases of cancer developing during pregnancy and we got a live baby and a live mother.

    Mike K (86bddb)

  5. It’s interesting. We always hear people tell of “the right to choose” but from the way Syn responded above, it appears that we’re not really supposed to know what we’re “choosing.”

    Joral (5ec61e)

  6. You’ve got it all wrong. It’s all about men dominating women. The Constitution guarantees that women don’t have to give birth as a result of sex if they don’t want to, just like men. But conservatives, enforcing ancient values, insist that women alone must bear the burden of pregnancy.

    Women and men must be made functionally identical, even if that means sucking out their half-born child’s brain to make it so. Our modern values require it. Any inherent link between women and motherhood is intolerable.

    Please note – tongue-in-cheek mode in effect

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  7. For those who support partial birth abortion:

    Do you support infanticide for newborns?

    If not, why not?

    gahrie (de5a83)

  8. It is an abomination, clearly. But do you all understand the intent of those who oppose ANY ABORTION, FOR ANY REASON? Or where you aware
    these same folks oppose birth control methods
    (with the exception of the famously unreliable,
    ‘rhythm method’)?

    It’s not really so simplistic as the example cited.

    semanticleo (2f60f4)

  9. Semanticleo: you should try to add the word ‘some’ into your sentences. As i oppose abortion but not birth control.

    I also feel the woman’s right to choose happens at the time of conception, not after.

    Lord Nazh (d282eb)

  10. Two links:

    A doctor’s right to choose

    Defending the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban… requires arguing to judges that pulling a fetus from a woman’s body in dismembered pieces is legal, medically acceptable, and safe; but that pulling a fetus out intact, so that if the woman wishes the fetus can be wrapped in a blanket and handed to her, is appropriately punishable by a fine, or up to two years’ imprisonment, or both.”[8]

    And what about the life and health of the mother?

    AF (9c6cd6)

  11. “I also feel the woman’s right to choose happens at the time of conception, not after.”

    Should she ask the rapist to use a condom?

    semanticleo (2f60f4)

  12. The same ones who support abortion are the same ones with SAVE THE WHALES,SAVE THE REDWOODS SAVE THE RAINFORESTS,SAVE THE SEALS,SAVE THE SPOTTED OWLS,SAVE THE PRARIE DOGS,SAVE THE FLOWER LOVING FLY bumper stickers on their cars

    krazy kagu (6c9901)

  13. AF – It’s far more dangerous to the mother to do a partial birth abortion. The child is basicly being born ANYWAYS.

    Scott Jacobs (feb2f7)

  14. More from the opinion:

    I can’t quote anymore from the opinion.

    I’ve been around the block too many times to count and I’ve seen a lot, but those descriptions turned my stomach.

    Bill M (c00fa3)

  15. In my family, relics of old western imperialists who had to fight Indians and weather to raise a crop, the rule was:

    “Wait till they’r 18 and see how they turn out.

    Post partum abortion.

    happyhill (3c2be6)

  16. “The same ones who support abortion are the same ones with SAVE THE WHALES,SAVE THE REDWOODS SAVE THE RAINFORESTS,SAVE THE SEALS,SAVE THE SPOTTED OWLS,SAVE THE PRARIE DOGS,SAVE THE FLOWER LOVING FLY bumper stickers on their cars”

    -krazy kagu

    I’d like a show of hands: how many of you are sick of this bullshit?

    I’m pro-life, but I’m smart enough to know that people don’t get abortions for the fun of it. I’m also smart enough to know that poor, pregnant teenagers aren’t thinking about politics when they walk into that clinic.

    Patterico: krazy kagu is an illiterate troll. If you’re going to ban anyone in the future, he should be right at the top of your list.

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  17. The poor, pregnant teenagers shouldn’t be screwing if they really, really don’t want to have a kid. It’s 100% effective at preventing pregnancy.

    I’m sick of a HUGE number of abortions being nothing more than retroactive birth control. Keep the legs closed, or at least get the damn pill or “wrap the package” (as it were). You aren’t the Virgin Mary, we know what causes pregnancy these days.

    I’m pro-choice only because I really CAN’T tell a woman what to do. I would prefer they choose life, but if they don’t, it’s a decision they have to live with, not me. ‘Free will’ is annoying that way.

    There’s a lot of my moral code I can wish people would follow, and a lot I can suggest people follow, but I can’t really FORCE them to follow. There are certain things (“Don’t rape kids”, “don’t murder people”, “don’t steal”) that I can enforce because society as a whole benifits from those sorts of acts not being committed, but there are many others where all you screw up is yourself.

    And Kagu just pointed out the irony in the fact that those who are pro-abortion (in favor of the termination of a soon-to-be sentient life form) will then scream about how you can’t hurt . It’s a logical disconnect, he’s pointing out.

    And if Kagu is a troll, I shudder to think what the hell that makes you… I would guess his king or something…

    Scott Jacobs (feb2f7)

  18. seconding leviticus on banning kagu. kagu’s statements are so devoid of thought, i figured him at one time for a bot, although i remember a patterico post a few months back linking kagu to several other cyberdolts.

    getting back to the topic, many medical procedures are gruesome. the grue is recited to distract us from the issue, which is whether a woman should have the same level of autonomy over her body as i have, and i’m on the side that says yes, she should. i also see a contradiction among the anti-abortion people who say there’s no constitutional underpinning for roe v. wade, then turn around and advance anti-abortion legislation which, unless there’s an interstate market in dead fetuses i’m unaware of, has no constitutional underpinning itself.

    this is what you get when you have five catholics on the court, five people who believe that the pope (a former member of hitler youth) is infallible. no more catholics! i’d rather have five jews on the court, because jews are more respectful of non-jews than catholics are of non-catholics.

    assistant devil's advocate (f7a98b)

  19. ADA – I don’t see the courts banning birth control (or, frankly, banning abortion). It’s just this one aspect of abortion that’s pretty god aweful they aren’t for.

    And I agree completely. Like I said, I’m all for the right to choose, but this isn’t something that should be on the table…

    Scott Jacobs (feb2f7)

  20. Used to work in an office next door to an abortion mill. Most depressing sight I ever saw. Mostly girls showing up alone and sobbing. Very few “fathers” around for backup. Worst was when we went for drinks after work with one of the nurses. After about five drinks she “went off” and started yelling about throwing real people into the trash every night, “Don’t tell me we are tossing warts and hair or other parts of a woman’s body into the trash. They are people.” We all shut up. We moved our office a few months later.

    Howard Veit (625cb1)

  21. ADA:

    whether a woman should have the same level of autonomy over her body as i have

    Women can get pregnant, men can’t. I don’t think that lawmakers and justices are ever going to be able to change that.

    You would kill children in pursuit of a fantasy.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  22. One of the dirty little secrets I educated myself on over the last three years is regarding one of the most contorted and twisted viewpoints of the abortion debate that being, the idea that ‘poor people breed proverty so don’t let them breed’ philosophy. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was not only a classist, a sexist whose only concern for the female was her right to an orgasm but a racist as well, since she encouraged the idea to rid society of unwanteds particulariy blacks.

    If wealth were a condition to pro-creation then none but really rich people would be encouraged to have children and most of us would never exist. Secondly, blacks have the right to bear children. Further, the idea that a teenagers should be able to have sex without responsibility because ‘they’re going to do it anyway’ is a rather low standard for teaching healthy sexuality.

    Lastly, if the feminist movement is insistant upon making abortion a women’s right so we can enjoy unfettered orgasms without any notion to the concept that our sex organs primarily function for the purpose of reproduction then are they not in fact supporting racism, classism, and all around ignorance.

    Whenever I read comments from males supporting a women’s right to choose I cannot help but consider that the guy has found himself a sexual paradise without having to take any responsibility for his actions.

    What I know for a fact is that the feminist movement has placed the entire burden of reproduction on the female’s shoulders despite the fact that we are only half the equation.

    Some equality we have achieved.

    syn (7faf4d)

  23. ADA:

    whether a woman should have the same level of autonomy over her body as i have

    Your dream is for women to be men.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  24. “Should she ask the rapist to use a condom?”

    Since we know ALL abortions are the direct result of a rape… right sammy?

    If you raped a woman, should we kill your child because of it?

    Lord Nazh (d282eb)

  25. […] the record (via Patterico), this is what was banned yesterday: Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the […]

    Hoystory » Blog Archive » A first, small step (f2fa8b)

  26. A few comments:

    To ADA: As Patterico states in the original post, the Partial birth abortion procedure is not about the woman’s autonomy or safety. It’s about whether the mother has the right to kill her own child as long as it has not completely passed through the birth canal.

    1) Re: Autonomy- The procedure and care the mother goes through is essentially the same* whether the child is born alive or killed prior to the head emerging. The mother is not exercising control over her own body, but control over the unborn child. In fact, control of the brain os another human being.

    2) Re: Safety- It is safer to let the child deliver than to halt the birthing process “mid-push” so the doctor can isert a sharp instrument into the birth canal aimed at the back of the child’s skull. There is the inherent risk of cutting the cervix or uterus of the mother instead. That could cause severe bleeding leading to death for the mother or “at least” an emergent hesterectomy to control the bleeding. If the baby was born brain intact that risk to the mother would not exist.

    Also to ADA, Re: “i also see a contradiction among the anti-abortion people who say there’s no constitutional underpinning for roe v. wade, then turn around and advance anti-abortion legislation which, unless there’s an interstate market in dead fetuses i’m unaware of, has no constitutional underpinning itself.”
    Do you really believe that, or trying to point out an absurd irony, or ironic absurdity. Once the Supreme Court claimed a constitutional underpinning for abortion “rights”, it made up the “rules of the game”. To blindly pretend there is no constitutional right to abortion is to go home and say “we won anyway”.

    Susan B. Anthony, of the dollar coin fame, was a women’s rights advocate of the 19th century. She was strongly opposed to abortion, reasoning that legal abortion would essentially make women “more enslaved as sex objects”. When a man is held responsible for the support of a child that is born, it adds a level of responsibility in how to interact with a woman where the sex act can no longer be the primary interest without consequences. The situation is like the “Virginia Slims” cigarettes and sponsorship of women’s tennis. Yeah, “you’ve come a long way baby”, know you can have increased lung cancer, emphysema, heart attacks, etc., just like men.
    Is it then just to allow abortion because smoking while pregnant can cause harm to the developing fetus, which is a bother that men don’t need to be concerned with?

    Lastly, no engineer, chemist, computer scientist, or doctor is a completely autonomous decision maker. If an engineer chooses a design for a car part even though he knows it is not as dependable as another design, but he wants to save cost, he might be held liable for injuries and deaths. If a computer scientist puts a software packet on the web for 20 dollars a pop that will allow you to convert a 30 day trial of Office 2007 to a “legitimate legal authorized copy” I think he will have a few legal issues. So, for society at large to say there is a procedure on the human body that is not considered ethical is not de novo without foundation.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  27. “Your dream is for women to be men.”
    And your dream is that men get to say when women have babies.

    “As Patterico states in the original post, the Partial birth abortion procedure is not about the woman’s autonomy or safety. It’s about whether the mother has the right to kill her own child as long as it has not completely passed through the birth canal.”

    To which I can onlt reply by quoting what i quoted above, and which no one here read:

    “Defending the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban… requires arguing to judges that pulling a fetus from a woman’s body in dismembered pieces is legal, medically acceptable, and safe; but that pulling a fetus out intact, so that if the woman wishes the fetus can be wrapped in a blanket and handed to her, is appropriately punishable by a fine, or up to two years’ imprisonment, or both.”

    The people praising this decision do so because they’re opposed to abortion. The details of law don’t interest them; and the risks to women don’t matter, since the interest is in banning abortion not limiting it. Of course there are “two sides” to the question of safety, as there are two sides to everything. That’s the end of arguement: We won!

    I’d like a detailed response to the two articles linked to above, but I won’t get that here. Minds are made up and the rest, including Pat’s “measurerd” comments are bullshit.

    AF (9c6cd6)

  28. AF-

    How do you find the justification to proclaim what I think, what I have and haven’t read, that I’m not interested in details, and I’m not interested in the health concerns of women?

    You quoted the beginning of my post, but either did not read my specific points or did not think it was worth your time to comment on specific issues that I raise concerning the risks to the woman and the views of a major woman’s rights advocate.

    I went to the first article you linked to and read enough to know I disagreed with the premise that a third party can have no legitimate say regarding the decision of a patient and a doctor. I discussed the point in terms of showing how the basic primciple doesn’t apply to other fields (as well). If no third party ever had a say there would be no hospital review boards, ethics committees, or insurance company policies that limit what a patient can have covered when their doctor orders it.

    The second link does not work (for me anyway), and it also doesn’t make sense.
    “Defending the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban… requires arguing to judges that pulling a fetus from a woman’s body in dismembered pieces is legal, medically acceptable, and safe;
    No, defending the ban requires arguing that the procedure is not medically necessary, is not safer than other options, and has been made illegal because the produre is perilously close to infanticide,
    but that pulling a fetus out intact, so that if the woman wishes the fetus can be wrapped in a blanket and handed to her, is appropriately punishable by a fine, or up to two years’ imprisonment, or both.”
    What I have read about the topic does not seem to be related to that staement at all. I have not read the entire piece of legislation and am curious how this claim is justified. It is interesting to see the use of the term “fetus” when usually the “object” handed to the mother, as described, would be called a “premature newborn”.

    Actually, objecting to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban requires arguing that the doctor should be able to do a procedure that is felt to not be necessary, causes more risk to the mother than letting the child be born alive, and literally is a few inches and/or seconds from being infanticide.

    My mother, my wife, and my daughter all are or will be women. I do care about their well being.

    Am I opposed to abortion in general? Sure I am. Does that mean, a prior, that I can’t say anything that is reasonable? If you believe that then I guess you have reason to think my posts are BS and there is no point for either of us to bother having the discussion.

    A point I forgot to make in my previous post. Many people who get abortions aren’t poor teenagers. They are in their twenties and thirties. Some indeed use it as birth control, I’ve had educated para-professional types who have had multiple abortions because they “can’t remeber to take the pill”.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  29. “I’d like a detailed response to the two articles linked to above, but I won’t get that here. Minds are made up and the rest, including Pat’s “measurerd” comments are bullshit.”

    That’s a fine way of inviting a response. I don’t know about the rest of you, but when someone says my comments are “bullshit” I’m not real interested in having a discussion with them.

    Patterico (1c470e)

  30. AF,

    I’ll respond to your first link. Let’s agree for the sake of argument that partial birth abortion (or, if you prefer, intact D&C) is a safer choice for women in the latest stage of pregnancy. By itself, that isn’t enough to justify its legality. Most complicated legal issues come down to a balancing test and I submit that – when it comes to this procedure – the balance should always be resolved in favor of the viable child, not the mother.

    Frankly, it’s hard for me to contemplate a civilized society such as America condoning the death of a viable child to protect the mother from a risk that isn’t certain and can’t be quantified. However, even if we knew there was an added risk to the mother, the potential risk to the mother would be outweighed by the certainty of the viable child’s horrific death. The bottom line is that added medical risk to the mother is worth it to prevent what amounts to bludgeoning a viable child to death.

    DRJ (50237c)

  31. By the way, AF, I’m responding because you insinuate that no one will debate with you in good faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. MD in Philly in particular has “labored” mightily to discuss this with you, as have others.

    DRJ (50237c)

  32. AF:

    And your dream is that men get to say when women have babies.

    The baby is already there. The only question is whether it is born dead or alive.

    Also – most women are against PBA.

    Amphipolis (fb9e95)

  33. Rape and incest are capital offenses. For the fetus that is, perhaps we should extend the same penalty to ther perps?

    ThomasD (9714e1)

  34. […] Description over the fold – you have been warned. […]

    Partial Birth « $800,000 (3c072b)

  35. http://www.abortiontv.com/Pics/AbortionPictures1.htm

    Here’s an idea for you all. visit this site. it’s pretty gruesome. Bear in mind, while you view these human wastes, that all of these fetuses have there own unique genetic code; they all have faces and developing human organs. All but the earliest have beating hearts, detailed limbs, and a set of unique fingerprints. Then decide. Decide for them. I, for one, doubt they would want to live. I am certainly pissed off at my parents. Think, I could have had my brain sucked out at birth, before I was legally a person, and not had to put up with all this life. Too bad they can’t make the call. You you look at them and tell yourselves that they would rather be dead than live a life, any life. Even a wretched life. Hell, some of them might even have bad lives. No, it is better not to put them through life. besides, they aren’t legally people yet. they are lumps of tissue until their heads leave the cervix. It’s the law, so it must be true. I think when the air touches the forehead it does something to make them persons.

    By the way, I haven’t got a sarcastic bone in my body. In fact, I think abortion should be retroactive on all children under 18. Say you have a two week old tissue mass that won’t shut up. simply grab a pair of scissors and jam them up the base of the skull, and open them. babies are soft, it’s not hard. And for queasy parents, there should be retroactive service available at all abortion clinics. Got a six year old that you can’t bear to cut open? take him on down to the clinic, they’ll even dispose of the carcass for you. Got a kid with Down Syndrome? You don’t deserve to spend the rest of you days taking care of that babbling idiot. Cut his useless brain out before he turns eighteen and the rest of us have to put up with him.

    We don’t accept inconvenient people. No one should have to live with a kid they don’t want. So let’s get rid of them all. all the useless or inconvenient ones.

    i wonder how many readers here are familiar with Jonathan Swift. You should read his essay “A Modest Proposal,” if you haven’t. It’s another take on what we could do with kids we don’t want or need. Is it that far from abortion? no, indeed. In a way it’s better, because it’s less wasteful and provides cash flow from the rich to the poor.

    Tell you what, call you mothers and ask them if they are pro choice. Ask them if they ever considered having you killed. Or aborted, since you weren’t technically a person ten seconds before you were born. Then ask yourself if you are happy with your mother’s decision. If you aren’t, ask yourself then why you haven’t killed yourself yet. If you are reading this, I assume you haven’t. You know why? I’ll tell you. You know, some people have lives that really suck. Some people are born with birth defects, others die of birth defects. Some people are mentally retarded. Some of those people overcome their handicaps and achieve great things, but many don’t. But you know what they all had? Life. Some people die in car accidents four months before graduating high school and going on to play ball for Kentucky State. Some people are killed by terrorists who fly jets into skyscrapers. People die each year by, no joke, coconuts falling on their heads. Literally walking along some beach, and a coconut falls on their head and they die. On the beach. There is a word for all of these lives. You know what it is? It’s Life. And I would not deny that to any person, regardless of it’s duration, or quality, or content of happiness, or any other criterion. Because I don’t know how that life may be. I cannot know; therefore I cannot reasonably end any life. i would like the same courtesy extended to me, were i in that position.

    Anyway, that took a lot longer than i thought it would. Have a nice day.

    Atticus (8839cd)

  36. “that took a lot longer than i thought it would.”

    Emotional overload does that.

    semanticleo (2f60f4)

  37. The majority of people in the US do not want abortion made absolutely illegal. If you believe in an exception for rape and incest, then you can’t make the argument that abortion is “murder.”

    PBA as you call it, is the difference between cutting up the foetus in the womb or removing it whole. The arguments for “PBA” being safer and for a doctor’s right to make the decision were ignored.

    “By the way, AF, I’m responding because you insinuate that no one will debate with you in good faith.”

    I won’t insinuate it I’ll simply state it:
    The decision is a mess. The people defending it here are doing so because they are opposed to all abortions, and the court gave them the result they wanted. Their attempt to defend the specific legal reasoning behind it, concerning precedent and case-law, is done more in indifference than good faith.
    What do you care?
    You won.

    AF (d700ef)

  38. If you believe in an exception for rape and incest, then you can’t make the argument that abortion is “murder.”

    Why not?

    You’re familiar with justifiable homicide, aren’t you? Can you believe in that and still believe that murder is possible? How about the death penalty?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  39. Justifiable homicide will involve self-defense. Being really, really upset about the existence of another is never justification for murder. You can’t square that circle, Pablo.

    jpe (6768f5)

  40. I won’t insinuate it I’ll simply state it:
    The decision is a mess. The people defending it here are doing so because they are opposed to all abortions, and the court gave them the result they wanted.

    While I dislike abortion for obvious reasons I don’t think that the federal government has a place flat out banning it nor enshrining into law. Roe was a horrible decision because of it’s absolute lack of any basis in the law, the issue should have been left up to the states as the constitution calls for. That being said, the federal government is well within it’s rights to ban specific medical practices it feels are dangerous, unethical, unwaranted, etc.

    So, you’re wrong(in my case at least).

    Taltos (c99804)

  41. Justifiable homicide will involve self-defense. Being really, really upset about the existence of another is never justification for murder. You can’t square that circle, Pablo.

    jpe, I’m not suggesting that they’re equivalent. I’m simply pointing out two things that one could logically agree with that would seem, on their face, to be incompatible. See also: murder and the death penalty, which I also noted.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  42. From AF #37

    PBA as you call it, is the difference between cutting up the foetus in the womb or removing it whole. The arguments for “PBA” being safer and for a doctor’s right to make the decision were ignored.
    The people defending it here are doing so because they are opposed to all abortions, and the court gave them the result they wanted. Their attempt to defend the specific legal reasoning behind it, concerning precedent and case-law, is done more in indifference than good faith.
    What do you care?

    From my posts #26

    Re: Safety- It is safer to let the child deliver than to halt the birthing process “mid-push” so the doctor can isert a sharp instrument into the birth canal aimed at the back of the child’s skull. There is the inherent risk of cutting the cervix or uterus of the mother instead. That could cause severe bleeding leading to death for the mother or “at least” an emergent hesterectomy to control the bleeding. If the baby was born brain intact that risk to the mother would not exist.
    Lastly, no engineer, chemist, computer scientist, or doctor is a completely autonomous decision maker. If an engineer chooses a design for a car part even though he knows it is not as dependable as another design, but he wants to save cost, he might be held liable for injuries and deaths. If a computer scientist puts a software packet on the web for 20 dollars a pop that will allow you to convert a 30 day trial of Office 2007 to a “legitimate legal authorized copy” I think he will have a few legal issues. So, for society at large to say there is a procedure on the human body that is not considered ethical is not de novo without foundation.

    and # 28

    You quoted the beginning of my post, but either did not read my specific points or did not think it was worth your time to comment on specific issues that I raise concerning the risks to the woman and the views of a major woman’s rights advocate.
    I went to the first article you linked to and read enough to know I disagreed with the premise that a third party can have no legitimate say regarding the decision of a patient and a doctor. I discussed the point in terms of showing how the basic primciple doesn’t apply to other fields (as well). If no third party ever had a say there would be no hospital review boards, ethics committees, or insurance company policies that limit what a patient can have covered when their doctor orders it.
    Am I opposed to abortion in general? Sure I am. Does that mean, a prior, that I can’t say anything that is reasonable? If you believe that then I guess you have reason to think my posts are BS and there is no point for either of us to bother having the discussion.

    AF- Twice you have stated that specific issues have not been addressed when I have addressed them. Perhaps you did not find my responses adequate, in which case I would think you would try to reinforce your case by demonstrating they are inadequate.
    You have also twice maligned any discussion against PBA by saying those opposed to it “do not care about women” and “are against all abortions” (which I plainly stated, truth in advertising), while de facto assuming that your position of supporting all abortions are justifiable without further discussion and that is the only way to “be concerned about women”.

    Following the tradition of our host, when I break off discussion because someone is not demonstrating willingness to have a discussion I will state: Enough. [See , #42.

    Anybody else want to comment on this: The second link does not work (for me anyway), and it also doesn’t make sense.
    “Defending the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban… requires arguing to judges that pulling a fetus from a woman’s body in dismembered pieces is legal, medically acceptable, and safe;
    No, defending the ban requires arguing that the procedure is not medically necessary, is not safer than other options, and has been made illegal because the produre is perilously close to infanticide,
    but that pulling a fetus out intact, so that if the woman wishes the fetus can be wrapped in a blanket and handed to her, is appropriately punishable by a fine, or up to two years’ imprisonment, or both.
    What I have read about the topic does not seem to be related to that staement at all. I have not read the entire piece of legislation and am curious how this claim is justified. It is interesting to see the use of the term “fetus” when usually the “object” handed to the mother, as described, would be called a “premature newborn”.

    Last. As we all know the language of a debate is important, perhaps we could rename “Partial Birth Abortion” as “Mid-Birth Infanticide”

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  43. “There is the inherent risk of cutting the cervix or uterus of the mother…”
    Less so than multiple passes of the knife inside the uterus!!?

    AF (d700ef)

  44. i cant even fathum how someone could do this to there child. i was 16 when i had my daughter and it was the best thing in my life. people that are willing to perform such a CRIME make me sick i dont care what the law says it is murder.

    kellie (157329)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0963 secs.