"Partial Birth Abortion" Ban

[TiredX2]

There's gotta be some opinions on *this*

http://www.msnbc.com/news/983016.asp

[MotherNatrsSon]

I have been to every pro-choice rally that has happened since all the "hoopla" over Roe v Wade. I just hope it does not go any farther so as to take away anyone's right to choose. They can't getit all in one fell swoop but now thatthis has won, there will be attemts at more I'm afraid. It is an established pattern.

cutting taxes, cutting social programs and cutting people's right s seem to b all that is happening at this point.

Sometimes I feel like the gubermint has got a gun pointed at me already and just itching for an excuse to pull the rigger. KWIM?

MNS

[isleta]

Yes, I agree. This is a matter for a family, not the lawmakers of our country. This is a personal issue that should stay personal. No one should have to look to the US gov't for their health issues, which this is under. I do not need to know other peoples personal family matters!

This is the first attack on the right of a woman and her family to choose and another way to force their beliefs on to others. The republicans are really going to go for this one! Clinton vetoed it every time.

[bloobug]

I personally believe that abortions should not be performed after 12 weeks. My little brother was born at 23 weeks, some dr.'s perform abortions that late. He is a healthy 17 year old. Obviously he was a person and had some will to live or he wouldn't be here today.

Megan

[Avonlea]

Megan, I have to agree with oyu. I find that the thought of aborting a fetus at the point of potential viability sickening.

I am sorry if that gives me a black mark by my name here on the boards..but it is the truth. I find abortion at that point sickeing. I don't care why it is being done. If , on another floor of a hospita , an infant of that age is being kept alive..why is this one being killed? Is it just not special enough?

[isleta]

If you find it horrible or sickening, then don't have one. But, please let people make their own choices between their family and their higher power. No one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body! This might be pointless to argue, but I just do not understand why others have the right to impose their beliefs on this subject on to others. This should not be decided by the government. Period!


Megan-I am happy that your brother survived at this age. He has no doubt brought your mother tremendous joy! However, not everyone has the same position in life or ability to chose to do the same. I was a single mama from conception and would never had thought of it-but, that is me-my body and my decision. The way it should be.

[MotherNatrsSon]

That is the wole point. We all have to be jst like GDubya and Co. and if we don't like it, then you don't like merica and need to go live somewhere else you damn commie freak...LOL

It is xian fundamental militantism at it's worst.

:Puke

MNS

[joesmom]

Originally posted by Avonlea
Megan, I have to agree with you. I find that the thought of aborting a fetus at the point of potential viability sickening.

I am sorry if that gives me a black mark by my name here on the boards..but it is the truth. I find abortion at that point sickeing. I don't care why it is being done. If , on another floor of a hospital , an infant of that age is being kept alive..why is this one being killed? Is it just not special enough?

i TOTALLY agree!

Originally posted by isleta
No one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body!

i agree with this, too. that is why i will not advocate abortion until the day i hear of a baby who asked to be ripped from his mother's womb.

sorry if that is harsh. but it is what i believe, & we are ALL allowed to state our opinion, right?

i have never understood how AP & GD women can be at the same time pro choice. it seems like such a contradiction to me. there is no point debating this because we will never change each other's minds. (this is NOT a judgment, but genuine confusion. i have honestly intended to post asking this very question.)

a few years back, i heard gianna jessen speak, she is a young woman who miraculously survived her "mother's" abortion, & she travels the country speaking out against it. she was amazing & much more than just the lump of tissue the pro-choice propaganda would make us believe she was.

[Ilaria]

Ideally, there would be no abortions, ever.
However, unwanted pregnacies happen, rapes happen and severe genetic problems happen too...if that were the case for ME and MY FAMILY, I would want MY FAMILY AND I to make choices, not the government or some nutjob out there, because WE would be the one to deal with the consequences.

If every person who wants to take that choice away from those involved, and who would have to deal with the consequences, would adopt just one kid-then they would have a point.
Until then, I will respectfully expect those who want to pry into my life and that of my family to butt out and mind their own.

If you find it horrible or sickening, then don't have one. But, please let people make their own choices between their family and their higher power. No one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body! This might be pointless to argue, but I just do not understand why others have the right to impose their beliefs on this subject on to others. This should not be decided by the government. Period!

[JessicaS]

This is going to be a pretty volitile subject with many of us and I would like to remind everyone to keep discussions peaceul and not attack one another.

I am not complaining about the thread at this point just reminding everyone as this is a sore point for a lot of us and the discussion will go far better if we can keep it at a reasonable tone.

[TiredX2]

This entire subject bothers me because I feel like it has been hijacked by the religous right and totally distorted. The majority of abortions are performed before 8 weeks, the vast majority before 15.

Why would someone have a "partial birth" abortion? They are exceedingly rare and most doctors would not perform one.

One possible reason is extreme hydroencephalytis (spelling). In this condition there is NO chance of viability, though the fetus grows normally (except for the head). The head can reach up to 20 inches in diameter. The body is able to be delivered "normally" but there is literally no way to vaginally birth a child with a 20" DIAMETER (not circumferance, the average newborn would have like a 4" diameter head) head. The fluid is drained from the head after the body is born, allowing the head to be born vaginally. This allows the mother to avoid serious abdominal surgery (which a c-section is) *and* allows the parents to see a "normal" looking newborn. These are generally people (the parents) who are heartbroken over this and the doctors are trying to make have as little trauma as possible.
In fact, some women cannot have anesthesia, so this would be the only way certain women could deliver.

My DBs best friend is the carrier for a rare genetic disorder. His wife, unfortunately, has a different disorder that that when added with his carrier *can* produce a child that cannot live past the eighth month gestation. It is only observable after the 20 week mark. They have had three very late term still births. They want a child sooo badly. They have the option of a partial birth abortion, but have never taken it. Instead they just wait it out (once for three months knowing it was a growing, but non-viable baby). Why a partial birth rather than a "regular" abortion. Because these are much longed for children. They want to hold and stroke and cry over these babies. Each time they have gone for that ultrasound at 20 weeks (if not miscarried before) they have learned that their dream is dead. (btw they no longer are trying to concieve). Far be it for ME (or in this case a law, not their doctor) to say that NO she either needs to carry a dying baby inside of her for up to three months or have a quick, ugly proceedure that rips her longed for baby from her womb.

I could come up with more reasons, more possibilites, more anguish, but why? *These* are the real faces of partial birth abortions. It is a proceedure almost impossible to recieve and is usually done to alow the parents to holda "normal" looking child. I have been sooo lucky. Ihave had two healthy pregnancies followed by two easy birth of two perfect babies. I was not faced by the choices these poor people are. But this I *know* it is not my decision to make. It is not my congress persons decision. It is a decision between the parents, their doctors and their God.

Kay

[Ilaria]

Thanks for bringing up great points...here is a site for parents who have actually been through this.
http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/

[TiredX2]

For a hint at the "magnitude" of this proceedure:

How many third trimester abortions are performed?

Fewer than 1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they are extremely rare after 26 weeks of pregnancy" [Ibid]. Typically abortions provided in the third trimester are limited to cases of severe fetal abnormalities.

I feel this entire rant against partial birth abortions is actually a cover to illegalize *any* abortions. Once you draw the line, it is much easier to move the line.

[Arduinna]

Thank you Kay for sharing your friends story.

I agree with the ladies that said, Gov should stay out of personal decisions, especially medical ones.

[Super Pickle]

Although I am totally pro-life, I have to say I do not understand WHY in the world the pro-life organzations have poured so much money, time, and energy into this issue. To me it doesn't make any sense.

In medical cases such as the ones mentioned by TiredX2, banning the procedure only poses further risk to the mother.

In cases of elective abortions, are any lives going to be saved? No! The baby will probably still be killed, and the alternate method is more drawn out and certainly more agonizing for the baby!!!!

I must be missing something.

But I think TiredX2 is right...it's more of a symbolic victory than anything else. The pro-life side "won" : this time...maybe that will help in future skirmishes.

But I don't think it should be about winning or losing. I think it should be about saving lives. At the end of Bush's term, I'd like to see some stats and do some number crunching and see if, taking into account both the war in Iraq and how much the abortion rate either fell or shot up, fewer or more lives were lost to violence.

[barbara]

Super Pickle you bring up some interesting points. ITA that the pro-life movement seems more interested in the symbolic victory, and it is a shame that so much energy has been directed at this small percentage of abortions. And the irony of this in light of the lives lost in Iraq. :

If you find it horrible or sickening, then don't have one. But, please let people make their own choices between their family and their higher power. No one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their body!

To a point I agree with you isleta, however when one's right to do what they want with thier own body involves taking the life of another human being, I think that we as a society do have to say that the child's rights superceed the right of the mother to do what she wants with her body. I understand that the argument is that the baby can be considered not yet a life, however, I would have to say that it is also not the woman's body! Now, perhaps you could say a family has the right to do whatever they want with their child's health, but in that case I think most would draw the line at a painful and brutal death.

[MotherNatrsSon]

Originally posted by Super Pickle
Although I am totally pro-life, I have to say I do not understand WHY in the world the pro-life organzations have poured so much money, time, and energy into this issue. To me it doesn't make any sense.

In medical cases such as the ones mentioned by TiredX2, banning the procedure only poses further risk to the mother.

In cases of elective abortions, are any lives going to be saved? No! The baby will probably still be killed, and the alternate method is more drawn out and certainly more agonizing for the baby!!!!

I must be missing something.

But I think TiredX2 is right...it's more of a symbolic victory than anything else. The pro-life side "won" : this time...maybe that will help in future skirmishes.

But I don't think it should be about winning or losing. I think it should be about saving lives. At the end of Bush's term, I'd like to see some stats and do some number crunching and see if, taking into account both the war in Iraq and how much the abortion rate either fell or shot up, fewer or more lives were lost to violence.

Pro-Lifer's in general do not care about the mother. The fetus is the all important object. They deny the right of the womena whose body the fetus is part of, the ability to make these very difficult choices for herself. Between her and her maker.

That is why I refer to it as xian fundamentalist militantism. Pushing their way on everyone else. Look at what the US is doing n the world. If they do it to others, what makes you think they won't do it to you?

The pro-lifers won this time and the next time they want to movethat line they will be even more bigger better ZEALOTS and hypocrites than they were this time around..

The new 3rd Reich. is what the US seems to be becoming very very quickly.....

MNS

[barbara]

Pro-Lifer's in general do not care about the mother. The fetus is the all important object.

That is a pretty sweeping statement! If that is ture then why are there so many crisis pregnancy centers in every city that offer free services and run on a non-profit basis? It is easy to deamonize those with opposing views, but not very productive in helping the women and babies involved.

Let's all try to be respectful of each other in this discussion.

[MotherNatrsSon]

..

[MotherNatrsSon]

Simply put: To promote the pro-life agenda....

I give respect when and where it is deserved. Not "just becasue".....

What do they do for the mother once she has the baby? What social services are provided by those that so want all women to go through with these pregnancies? What kind of social stigma do pro-lifers put on women that have children that they are not really capable of financially supporting?

They want no abortions but on the other hand also do not want to pay for the child or help these mothers in any meaningful way once they do have a baby to take care of. For the most part these women are left with welfare and food samps, to be abused by the government and at every turn have to make even harder coices when it comes to raising their children. A majority of the women having abortions are lower income people.

In the "ideal" world there would be no need for abortion because the community as a whole would support these women. When the pro-lifers adopt the position of actually wanting to be supportive of these women after they give birth, I'll sign up....

MNS