"Partial Birth Abortion" Ban - Page 5

[Wendydagny]

Originally posted by Greaseball
The problem is, where do you draw the line? When is it its own person? Apparently not when it's a viable fetus (child) with the head out...when the rest of the body is out? When the cord is cut? What if the baby shot out so fast the doctor couldn't perform the evacuation...would he then suck out the skull of the whole baby in front of him?

Thought you may be interested in reading some of the actual floor debate from the senate on this particular subject at:

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=1707

My personal favorite part is when Senator Boxer says: "I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born--and there is no such thing as partial-birth--the baby belongs to your family and has the rights."

Also, to the lack of health of the mother clause. Dh informed me (so no I have no link or proof, but I'll be checking now.) that the reason the Republicans declined to include this was that it was not a clause intended to prevent a mother from dying-- it included mental health, etc. as an option for aborting via this method.

Regardless, there are other methods that are more humane that can be used besides this one. Technically, this law would not even ban this procedure if the child were first administered some heart stopping medication (as Marlena mentioned), since the baby would no longer be alive when it was delivered.

And I have yet to hear an explanation as to how it helps the health of a mother to suck out a baby's brain after she has already gone through the birth process. Anyone?

[joesmom]

Originally posted by Potty Diva
A few pages back someone asked how a GD/AP mama could be pro-choice.

Well, for one, I don't believe a fetus is a viable human until after 28 weeks(or whatever the age of true viability occurs- this meaning no interference from doctors with huge life savings measures).

The fetus, until this point is an attached part of the woman carrying it. Not separate because it cannot sustain life on its own by breathing.

Did I believe Kailey was a child while I was pregnant with her? No..but I knew she would grow into one. Was I careful during pregnancy? Definitely. Because she was a wanted child(as in WOULD BECOME a child).

I believe in a woman's right to choose and feel extremely confident that this will be overturned because it fails to leave a clause to protect the mothers life.

thank you for explaining that, potty diva. i guess that is the main difference between the opposing sides: i believe that my son was a person from the second he was conceived. even though a baby could not survive on his own in the early weeks of a pregnancy, he is STILL a person.

really, joe is four now. if left ON HIS OWN, he would not survive for very long, right? so should the murder of children be legalized? maybe until they reach the teen years?

obviously i am exaggerating. but to me it really IS the same thing. one minute it is a lump of flesh whose brain can be sucked out without a thought, but if left to be borne into this world, it is a BABY? that is unbelievable to me.

[Marlena]

I can't vouch for the source, but I couldn't spend much time looking, and the information it contains is, at least to my understanding, basically correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_...and_extraction

D & X procedures are performed during the third trimester of pregnancy if:
The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth.

Many of the fetuses which fall into this category have developed hydrocephalus. Approximately 1 in 2,000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb; this is about 5,000 a year in the United States. The defect is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester of pregnancy.

If a fetus develops hydrocephalus, the head may expand to a size of up to 250% of the radius of an adult skull, making it impossible for it to pass through the birth canal. In such a case, the physician may elect to perform a D & X procedure by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; attempted birth would kill her.

According to the entry (as it continues from the quote given above), the procedure is used in order to collapse the head prior to withdrawing the head from the uterus through the cervix and into the vagina.

[spero]

Originally posted by Greaseball
The problem is, where do you draw the line? When is it its own person? Apparently not when it's a viable fetus (child) with the head out...when the rest of the body is out? When the cord is cut?

...Why doesn't the doctor first check that the fetus can or cannot survive, instead of just assuming it can't?

Absolutely. As someone mentioned before, so many of you ladies are always complaining about doctors who play God...well this is a prime example. I would never put that much blind faith in a doctor, as far as my child's life was concerned. My life would be secondary...by choice.

NM, joesmom, Greaseball...

[Potty Diva]

Originally posted by skellbelle
as far as my child's life was concerned. My life would be secondary...by choice.

This is insane to me. I have been in a debate where other women have said the same thing, that in a life or death situation, they would want their child to live(meaning in a pregnancy situation), if they had to choose between their life and the infants.

Not me. I would never purposefully let my life end so my child or other children would be motherless, or homeless. Nor would I burden my family with the care of this baby. What about breastfeeding? You would deny this child your milk simply to prove a point?

In the end, it is my life and the lives of my existing family and children who are more important than a fetus.

[hmpc2]

This is going to be a rambling here...so read if you want, go to the next post if you don't. I will get to the topic of this thread once I explain myself.

I for years have struggled between pro-life and pro-choice. I have decieded that I am pro-adoption. I don't think abortions should be outlawed until all these children in foster care who are deemed unadoptable find permant families. If you are gung-ho pro-life please adopt these children who weren't aborted...

Now to the topic...I am not fully educated on partial birth abortions-just what I have read recently and this thread. Being a mother to a baby that died during labor @ 40.5 wks...I am appalled that such a procedure exists. I believe partial birth abortions should be illegial... If the fetus is not viable and the woman cannot endure the emotional pain of carrying to term a baby she has been told will not survive...how will her emotional pain be any less knowing this procedure was done to her infant? If she cannot handle the emotional tramua of carrying a non-viable pregnacy...she can be induced and deliver the baby and if the child lives without xtra life support- fantastic, if not the baby dies in a less tramautic way.

This topic may be personal to me because of my loss, but I know other moms who have chosen to abort and grieve the same as I do. I just cannot imagine the pain and tramua that the child is going through...I cry knowing that my daughter died from suffication (cord around her neck), No this procedure is not humane...and yes the child even if they are non-viable can still feel...Will I ever blame the mother that makes this choice- no...I do blame the doctors that do this procedure knowing they can just deliver the baby. Isn't that what pro-choice is about... knowing ALL of our choices? I don't think any of us would chose to have this procedure if we were given other humane choices.

[Wendydagny]

Marlena,

First off, I keep meaning to give you a big hand for your ability to come out and say that the actual procedure is inhumane, even though you are pro-choice.

Thanks for the info on the hydrocephalic babies, which is technically true.

However, just because a baby has hydrocephalus, it doesn't mean that the baby will die or even be less than normal. There are pre and post delivery treatment options for it. See here:

http://fetalsurgery.chop.edu/HYDRint7.shtml

What strikes me is the normal outcomes they quote (48% for fetal, and between 50 and 80% for neonatal hydrocephalus.) There are many other sites on the web that have similar numbers.

I do understand the point that if the baby were delivered vaginally with a 250% sized head, that the mother would die. But delivering vaginally is not the only option, especially considering that doing a c-section could also save the life of the baby.

Should I have the option (in 4 weeks when I deliver baby #4) to have a quicky PBA if she's in a transverse position, just to save myself from a c-section? I really don't see how it's any different. : My mental health would certainly be at stake if I had to go under the knife.

[spero]

Most women (pro-life and pro-choice alike) I know would give their own lives to protect the life of one of their existing (already born) children. Why should it be any different just b/c the child is still in utero? Because the "fetus" is "not viable"?

Not IMO.

Originally posted by Potty Diva
I would never purposefully let my life end so my child or other children would be motherless, or homeless. Nor would I burden my family with the care of this baby. What about breastfeeding? You would deny this child your milk simply to prove a point?

In the end, it is my life and the lives of my existing family and children who are more important than a fetus.

My unborn child would become a member of my existing family the moment he/she was conceived.

Denying this child my milk would be worse than denying this child his or her own life?!? Please :

If, by some tragic circumstance, I were to pass away in childbirth, my children would be lovingly cared for by their father, with the help of our large, extended family. They would not be homeless. The baby would not die from formula feeding. And my children would grow up knowing that their mother loved them so much that she would give her own life for one of theirs.

[spero]

Originally posted by TiredX2
...regarding my statement:

The vast majority of "social" abortions occur before 12 weeks, partial birth abortions are generally only given in extream situation with much trepidation, agony and grief.

What part don't you believe/want backed up.

All of it...where are you getting your stats?

[lotusdebi]

*

[Greaseball]

What if it's breech - do they then deliver the whole baby and then suck out the brains? Or do they do it with half the body hanging outside the mother and the head still inside? What if the baby is transverse and has to be cesarean born - what do they do with it then?

While I would not sacrifice my life for that of my unborn, I would sacrifice my convenience, my health, and just about everything else. I would be willing to deliver surgically if there was no chance the baby would survive a vaginal delivery and a very slight chance it would survive a cesarean. Wouldn't most of us? In the case of placenta previa, for example, who in the world would say "No, I don't want to have surgery, just kill this one and then I can have another one later."

Also, some of these abortions (from what I hear) are done when the only danger to the mother is "suicidal thoughts." So put her in a mental hospital or do something to improve her life! Is she really going to be any healthier when she sees her baby killed in front of her?

Our Bodies, Our Selves, which is a very pro-choice book, does say that partial-births are performed. I don't understand why some people say they don't exist.

About those pregnancy crisis centers - most of them I've been to just to get free tests are not very supportive of anything but adoption. It takes about an hour to get the test because of all the mandatory praying they do first, and then if you test + and are unmarried or a teen they do not even provide parenting support, only adoption info. If there really are places that provide parenting support, that's great.

[Potty Diva]

Skellbelle~

That's because we are coming from two different viewpoints. I do not believe a child is a child at conception. If it were, it would be called such. As it is we have stages of developement while inutero.

And from where I am sitting, living, what I have now if FAR more important that would 'could be'.

Just remember just because I don't share your opinion, doesn't mean I am wrong.

[spero]

Originally posted by Potty Diva

Just remember just because I don't share your opinion, doesn't mean I am wrong.

Likewise, Potty Diva.

I'll agree to disagree.

[lotusdebi]

*

[joesmom]

Originally posted by Potty Diva
I do not believe a child is a child at conception. If it were, it would be called such. As it is we have stages of developement while inutero.

respectfully, i think you have this backwards. calling unborn children embryos & fetuses doesn't make them any less children. it just makes them easier to kill.

[gardenmommy]

Mothernatrson,
Of course the mother's rights do not disappear the moment she becomes pregnant. That is absurd. She is a person, she has rights, feelings, choices. The problem is, she must now also think about how those rights, feelings, choices, etc. affect another person, one who is completely dependant on her. Just because the baby is dependant on her for survival doesn't make the baby's needs, rights, feelings, etc. any less important.

I think that viability is a red herring. Babies are "viable" from about 24 weeks, but no baby is truly able to be "viable" until at least age 5 yrs. Babies and children are extremely dependant on adults to make decisions for them, feed them, clothe them, educate them, and the list goes on.

My point is this: there is no one on earth equipped to make such a dramatic decision as ending another human being's life. No doctor can know for sure which babies are or are not viable. And no woman can truly know how a baby will affect her life. If she really cannot handle adding a child to her life at that time, she needs to investigate adoption, grandparents care, or placing the child with another family member. Why kill the child, especially in such an inhumane and barbaric manner as PBA, when there are other options available?

Why kill the baby? If you don't want it, find someone who does. If the baby is sure to die, birth the baby as peacefully as possible, then be there during its final moments. If the baby is already dead, then birth it, and hold the body while you grieve. Don't use a cruel procedure such as this to end a precious life.

[Potty Diva]

Joesmom~

Using emotionally charged words doesn't change the scientific fact that embryos are NOT children.

[Wendydagny]

Originally posted by lotusdebi
Oh, yeah. MENTAL HEALTH shouldn't count! It doesn't matter if the woman is about to KILL HERSELF because of her situation! All that matters is that precious fetus! :

So, prolifers would rather have a pregnant woman kill herself (and that fetus she's carrying) than have an abortion... That's just brilliant!

Uh no. Not at all. I don't think any pro-lifer would prefer a woman commit suicide, and that's a ridiculous accusation. Please stop yelling and resorting to rhetoric.

There is a legal difference between the life of the mother and the health of the mother. The Feinstein substitution (which was voted down) would have allowed for exceptions based on "preserving the health of the mother." Technically, this would have allowed for PBA's for any risks to the mother's health-- the possibility of depression, the risks associated with c-section, etc etc. These are not cases of the mother dying, but of her overall general health being diminished because she was denied a PBA. You can read the Senate floor discussion on this in the Congressional Record March 12, 2003 SD-3587. (I can't get anything other than a PDF file to come up for it.)

If a pregnant woman is going to kill herself if not allowed a PBA, i seriously doubt that the procedure would improve her situation. If anything, there are studies that clearly show that it would worsen it. Perhaps she should be seeking the assistance of a psychiatrist instead of a PBA doctor.

Greaseball-- you can see the way they perform the procedure on a breech baby here (WARNING DO NOT CLICK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE IT!!!!):

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html

[shelley4]

my views on abortion in general... *I* would never do it myself, i do believe that it's killing a life, no matter how far along the pregnancy is... however, i don't think it's right for ME to be able to tell YOU (in general) what to do with your own body.. if you want to have an abortion, as sad as that would make me, i have no right to tell you not to. and the gov'ment should have no say either.

as for partial birth abortion, i think this is sad too. i can understand why some people do this (hydrocephalus or whatever), but i'm worried that doing PBA's will allow for healthy children to aborted later in the pregnancy, when they are viable. i think that partially birthing a healthy child, then killing it, is cruel, IMO. why not wait a few weeks then birth the whole child and give it up for adoption if you don't want to raise it?

i would rather there were no abortions, PBA or otherise, ever. but since that's not going to happen, i think that adoption should be considered before abortion.

i think that making abortion illegal, however, would force women intent on getting abortion to have 'back alley' abortions.. much more risky!!

[Greaseball]

No, I don't really want to see it!

My unborn 8-week-old child is just that - a CHILD. It became a member of our family before it was conceived. A few weeks before conception, I had already found a midwife, picked out clothes, made a list of everything else I would need, looked for bigger places to live, etc.