Apparently, Politicians are Doctors in Disguise... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

archetypal fool · 04-19-2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a law that banned a type of late-term abortion, a ruling that could portend enormous social, legal and political implications for the divisive issue.

The sharply divided 5-4 ruling could prove historic. It sends a possible signal of the court's willingness, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to someday revisit the basic right to abortion guaranteed in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.
...
Three federal appeals courts had ruled against the government, saying the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional because it does not provide a "health exception" for pregnant women facing a medical emergency. The outcome of this latest challenge before the court's new ideological makeup could turn on the legal weight given past rulings on the health exception.

In states where such exceptions are allowed, the lists of possible health risks include severe blood loss, damage to vital organs and loss of fertility. Court briefs noted pregnant women having the procedure most often have their health threatened by cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure or risk of stroke. Doctors are given the discretion to recommend when the late-term procedure should be performed.

The federal law has never gone into effect, pending the outcome of nearly three years of legal appeals.

Specifically, the ban encompasses what doctors call "intact dilation and evacuation" (also known as IDX), which Congress in its legislation termed inhumane.

It is a rarely used second-trimester procedure, designed to reduce complications to the woman. More common is "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), used in 95 percent of pre-viability second-trimester abortions, according to Planned Parenthood. Both are generally performed after the 21st week of pregnancy.
...

Source: CNN

I have to admit that I've never been a fan of politicians, but I've always respected what they do. After all, how can a single person find time to read proposed bills, campaign for re-election, make legislation, and keep in touch with their constituents, while also working healing the wounded, conducting surgeries, keeping up with new techniques and technology, and saving lives everyday? It just isn't possible, but somehow, they manage to do all these things, while keeping half of their occupation completely secret...

I understand that the subject of abortion is a touchy one, but I really take offense that politicians suddenly think they know about the practice of medicine. According to this ruling, the ethics which define the Pro-Life movement (i.e, life is more important than anything and everyone deserves life) is completely hypocritical in certain cases. I say this because the SC has just held that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is perfectly legal, even if the denial of later-term abortion leads to the death of the mother. The IDX procedure exists for the sole purpose of saving the life of the mother when an irresolvable pregnancy complication will likely lead to severe medical problems or death of the mother. For example, when the umbilical chord wraps itself around the baby's neck, it's deprived of oxygen and irreversibly brain-damaged, and if the mother goes through with labor she would likely die from the trauma. Frankly, in this scenario, I'd rather have the mother survive and be able to reproduce in the future than a dead mother and a brain-dead baby who will likely die hours after birth.

I'm pro-choice, but I can see where some of the objection is coming from when it comes to teens or adults just having unprotected sex and aborting the baby because of irresponsibility. However, the IDX procedure isn't there for aborting an unwanted baby, especially since the procedure is usually conducted in the second trimester, months after the mother should know she's pregnant. It's there to save the mother's life. I've heard several doctors' opinions on this ruling, and not a single one is happy about it, yet politicians who agree with this ruling go on record saying "Oh, they're just over-reacting, etc...". Politicians are now officially practicing medicine by pushing their own ideals and ethics onto the country, regardless of the facts. This is sickening to say the least.

Willravel · 04-19-2007, 03:31 PM

It's medicine and morality as they should be applied to rule of law. You can't just make it medicine because medicine doesn't have conscience. Late term abortions put the mother at higher risk, and they come much closer to the moral boundary that everyone watches, birth. It's not an arbitrary line, but a line that represents what they think is the best decision based on both the science and the reasonable morality. Laws are, after all, based in reason and morality.

Are they right on this issue? I really can't tell you.

I've personally been back and fourth on the issue of abortion a few times. Generally I'm against it, but only because that in many cases it's about the loss of responsibility. In my mind, reproduction cannot be a right because parenting is a responsibility. If slutty Suzy decides that condoms just aren't her thing and has 3 kids between the ages of 17 and 20, then gets 3 abortions, that's a fundamental lifting of her responsibility to parent her offspring. What kind of a society doesn't give a shit about a parent's responsibility?

That being said, there are situations, rape, incest, retardation, failed contraceptives, that I can understand why people consider abortion.

I had a very good friend of mine consider it a year and some change back. It was a damn hard time for her. She had the kid, a wonderful, brilliant boy named Niki. She was victimized by her boyfriend who purposefully used poor contraceptives. It changed my perspective on the situation considerably.

I'm not one to follow the crowd. Just because I'm liberal by nature doesn't mean I'm going to swing liberal no matter what. I still feel that abortion is often wrong, especially considering how many wonderful people there are who want to adopt. BUT, I've learned to be more flexible on the subject.

I hope others can keep an open mind.

Elphaba · 04-19-2007, 03:33 PM

Thanks for a great topic. Actually, one of our former politicians was a physician who diagnosed Schiavo via video as sensate.

I strongly believe that medical practices should be under the purvue of the AMA and not by those whose only interest is buying a vote. This SCOTUS decision disgusts me, particularly because for the first time the health of the mother no longer matters. This may open the door for worse to come.

archetypal fool · 04-19-2007, 03:49 PM

I'm totally with you, willravel. Though I'm pro-choice, I admit there are cases where abortion is not a good thing, like when teens are irresponsible. However, as Elphaba and I are saying, now there is no regard for the mother's life in extreme situations where the baby IS wanted, but there's an extraordinary risk to the mother due to a complication.

Of course, if a mother decides the risk is worth it, then dammit, that's an amazing human being. However, if the family, faced with the decision of mother and baby dead vs. only baby dead, decides that the risk to the mother is too large, then who are we to stop them? After all, the baby is wanted, but look at the case. And besides, the family will most likely try again to have a baby, so it's not a case of disrespect of human life, like that of the irresponsible teens. It's the complete opposite, in my opinion.

SecretMethod70 · 04-19-2007, 03:53 PM

willravel: If I may be so lazy as to directly quote from another statement on the subject:

Quote:

90% of abortions occur in the first trimester.
Intact dilation and extraction (also known as IDX, or sometimes just D&X) is used in approximately .17% of all abortions.
It is probable (though definitive data do not exist) that the majority of IDX procedures are performed because of fetal abnormalities.
IDX, because it delivers a fetus whole, creates less risk of uterine perforation from bone fragments than other forms of late-term abortion.
IDX has less risk of infection than other forms of late-term abortion, because it takes less time and requires the insertion of fewer instruments into the uterus.
IDX (like other late-term abortion procedures) can prevent a woman who has found that her fetus is dead or not viable from having to undergo labor and delivery of a dead fetus.
IDX can allow women whose fetuses are not viable to view and hold their dead babies after delivery.
Most IDX procedures are performed between 20-24 weeks gestation--that is, within the second trimester, and before fetal viability.
In cases where a fetus has severe hydrocephalus (water on the brain, which can cause a fetuses head to be grotesquely enlarged), the options to a woman may be IDX or a Cesarean section--that is, a three-day outpatient procedure or major surgery, with attendant potential complications.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists explicitly opposed the ban.

The law allows for IDX to be performed to save a woman's life--but not to save, say, her uterus. Because there are other surgical options for late-term abortions, it is highly unlikely that banning IDX will prevent a single abortion. It may, however, prevent some women from having the safest procedure for their particular circumstances.

[...]

Sources consulted for this article:

Willravel · 04-19-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

willravel: If I may be so lazy as to directly quote from another statement on the subject:

I'd prefer if an abortion was to be done, it be done as early as possible.

I still take issue with irresponsible men and women. If a woman can't keep her legs closed AND won't use contraceptives, she should have the kid. I'd also like to perfect a procedure that a pregnancy can switch from the mother to the father if he's found to have raped or otherwise been responsible for a pregnancy that he was planning on walking out on.

Elphaba · 04-19-2007, 04:06 PM

Secret, isn't that data from the debate that Politicophile and I had some time back?

I must have borrowed from the same source.

SecretMethod70 · 04-19-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'd prefer if an abortion was to be done, it be done as early as possible.

I still take issue with irresponsible men and women. If a woman can't keep her legs closed AND won't use contraceptives, she should have the kid. I'd also like to perfect a procedure that a pregnancy can switch from the mother to the father if he's found to have raped or otherwise been responsible for a pregnancy that he was planning on walking out on.

I have to be honest, willravel, I'm not sure if you actually read my post. I'll quote the relevant parts again:

Quote:

Intact dilation and extraction (also known as IDX, or sometimes just D&X) is used in approximately .17% of all abortions.
It is probable (though definitive data do not exist) that the majority of IDX procedures are performed because of fetal abnormalities.

[...]

Because there are other surgical options for late-term abortions, it is highly unlikely that banning IDX will prevent a single abortion. It may, however, prevent some women from having the safest procedure for their particular circumstances.

So, not only does the procedure almost never happen (0.17% of all abortions), and have almost nothing to do with irresponsible pregnancies, banning it also does absolutely nothing to accomplish what you claim to want in your above post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Secret, isn't that data from the debate that Politicophile and I had some time back?

I must have borrowed from the same source.

Nope, the blog post I quoted was made just yesterday (April 18). The sources for the data, however, are obviously older.

Willravel · 04-19-2007, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

I have to be honest, willravel, I'm not sure if you actually read my post.

I did, but I didn't seem to understand what it had to do with mine.
I'll quote the relevant parts again:
So, not only does the procedure almost never happen (0.17% of all abortions), and have almost nothing to do with irresponsible pregnancies, banning it also does absolutely nothing to accomplish what you claim to want in your above post.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I agree. I was speaking in generalities. It's hard to establish f before establishing a, b, and c.

To be clear, I don't understand why they're banning IDX. I was speaking to the OP more than the article in the OP. Lawmakers must include reason and morality in their decision making.

archetypal fool · 04-19-2007, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I was speaking to the OP more than the article in the OP. Lawmakers must include reason and morality in their decision making.

Agreed, they very well should. However, I don't see either in this particular case. They've banned IDX, which makes absolutely no sense, since it's by far the rarest and is used to save a life rather than lose two. It isn't there to absolve the parent from responsibility. And morality? The same case. Is it more moral to let a mother and baby die, or to intervene and save the mother?

By the way, I'm not picking on you, willravel, I know what you're saying

SecretMethod70 · 04-19-2007, 05:22 PM

"Partial birth abortion" (which is not a medically recognized term) *is* IDX. To support banning "partial birth abortion" is to support banning the procedure whose benefits are laid out in my first post in this thread. There is nothing other than IDX to discuss in terms of this decision by the SCOTUS.

Elphaba · 04-19-2007, 05:37 PM

There is one more thing to discuss. SCOTUS can uphold a law, but Congress can undo a law. I have some hope that might happen in the future, but not under the narrow majority currently held by the 110th.

Willravel · 04-19-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

Agreed, they very well should. However, I don't see either in this particular case. They've banned IDX, which makes absolutely no sense, since it's by far the rarest and is used to save a life rather than lose two. It isn't there to absolve the parent from responsibility. And morality? The same case. Is it more moral to let a mother and baby die, or to intervene and save the mother?

By the way, I'm not picking on you, willravel, I know what you're saying

No, it's fine. I was speaking in generalities when it comes to the legality surrounding abortion. In this specific case, it's clear that politics has won over reason and morality, unfortunately.

I've heard Noam Chomsky say a few times that the balance between tyranny and freedom fluctuates, giving us times of great freedom and times of great tyranny. I won't go as far as to say that this is a great time of tyranny, but I will say that the relationship is that of causation. One causes the other, which causes the other. Irresponsible lawmaking eventually leads to responsible law making. I hope I get to see the latter in my lifetime.

archetypal fool · 04-19-2007, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

No, it's fine. I was speaking in generalities when it comes to the legality surrounding abortion. In this specific case, it's clear that politics has won over reason and morality, unfortunately.

I've heard Noam Chomsky say a few times that the balance between tyranny and freedom fluctuates, giving us times of great freedom and times of great tyranny. I won't go as far as to say that this is a great time of tyranny, but I will say that the relationship is that of causation. One causes the other, which causes the other. Irresponsible lawmaking eventually leads to responsible law making. I hope I get to see the latter in my lifetime.

You and me both, man. I think we can all agree on that much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

There is one more thing to discuss. SCOTUS can uphold a law, but Congress can undo a law. I have some hope that might happen in the future, but not under the narrow majority currently held by the 110th.

I'm disappointed, but I hope they see the error - and I hope it doesn't take a mother dying needlessly for them to see the mistake.

analog · 04-19-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

I'm disappointed, but I hope they see the error - and I hope it doesn't take a mother dying needlessly for them to see the mistake.

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone read what Secret posted... it does not ban the procedure to save the life of the mother, and there are many other procedures that can also be done, instead, to save the life of a mother.

No mother is going to die because of this law.

No mother is going to die because of this law.

No mother is going to die because of this law.

Maybe it will be noticed now.

archetypal fool · 04-19-2007, 06:49 PM

You're right, it doesn't stop other procedures from taking place. I forgot to mention that the D&E procedure is still accessible, and is more often used. HOWEVER, from the same facts that Secret presented:

Quote:

* IDX, because it delivers a fetus whole, creates less risk of uterine perforation from bone fragments than other forms of late-term abortion.
* IDX has less risk of infection than other forms of late-term abortion, because it takes less time and requires the insertion of fewer instruments into the uterus.
* IDX (like other late-term abortion procedures) can prevent a woman who has found that her fetus is dead or not viable from having to undergo labor and delivery of a dead fetus.
* IDX can allow women whose fetuses are not viable to view and hold their dead babies after delivery.
* In cases where a fetus has severe hydrocephalus (water on the brain, which can cause a fetuses head to be grotesquely enlarged), the options to a woman may be IDX or a Cesarean section--that is, a three-day outpatient procedure or major surgery, with attendant potential complications.
* The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists explicitly opposed the ban.

The law allows for IDX to be performed to save a woman's life--but not to save, say, her uterus. Because there are other surgical options for late-term abortions, it is highly unlikely that banning IDX will prevent a single abortion. It may, however, prevent some women from having the safest procedure for their particular circumstances.

This is clearly the better procedure, with less trauma caused to the mother, and is over-all more efficient. I accidentally jumped the gun in my formal post.

This isn't relevant to the discussion, but:

As for the difference, I think things are very strange. The D&E procedure basically consists of the abortionist cutting the fetus into pieces and removing them one by one. IDX is creating an incision in the fetus's skull and suctioning out the brain. To be frank, the former sounds much more barbaric than the latter, yet all this controversy is around IDX. I don't understand

.

FoolThemAll · 04-20-2007, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

As for the difference, I think things are very strange. The D&E procedure basically consists of the abortionist cutting the fetus into pieces and removing them one by one. IDX is creating an incision in the fetus's skull and suctioning out the brain. To be frank, the former sounds much more barbaric than the latter, yet all this controversy is around IDX. I don't understand

.

As I see it, it's pretty much an aesthetic or semantic difference: the baby's already partially out of the mother's body, so how could anyone argue that the mother should still be able to treat it like property?

THAT is the part which grabs everyone's attention, while the situation of choosing one dead life over two dead lives - an arguably ethical choice even if you consider the mere zygote to be a human being - just isn't as noticeable.

When both pro-lifers and pro-choicers denounce pba vehemently, they're more likely thinking of a hypothetical elective usage of the procedure. And, indeed, I see it as difficult to argue that the mother shouldn't be forced to give birth when only hours - and not any significant health risks - stand in the way. But that goes for ANY late-term abortion procedure, in my mind, not just the one that we can see with the naked eye.

I don't see a good point to prohibiting the pba procedure and not the other, or to prohibiting the health reason, but not the life reason. With the latter, moderate health concerns could possibly - often? - turn to life-threatening concerns. I see analog's post, but unless I'm misunderstanding the health/life distinction, it still doesn't strike me as impossible that this bill could prove harmful. And yet, I doubt that it will save a single life. I say this as a pro-lifer who would like to see all medically unnecessary abortions criminalized.

04-19-2007, 03:33 PM	#3 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Thanks for a great topic. Actually, one of our former politicians was a physician who diagnosed Schiavo via video as sensate. I strongly believe that medical practices should be under the purvue of the AMA and not by those whose only interest is buying a vote. This SCOTUS decision disgusts me, particularly because for the first time the health of the mother no longer matters. This may open the door for worse to come. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

04-19-2007, 03:49 PM	#4 (permalink)
archetypal fool Crazy Location: Florida	I'm totally with you, willravel. Though I'm pro-choice, I admit there are cases where abortion is not a good thing, like when teens are irresponsible. However, as Elphaba and I are saying, now there is no regard for the mother's life in extreme situations where the baby IS wanted, but there's an extraordinary risk to the mother due to a complication. Of course, if a mother decides the risk is worth it, then dammit, that's an amazing human being. However, if the family, faced with the decision of mother and baby dead vs. only baby dead, decides that the risk to the mother is too large, then who are we to stop them? After all, the baby is wanted, but look at the case. And besides, the family will most likely try again to have a baby, so it's not a case of disrespect of human life, like that of the irresponsible teens. It's the complete opposite, in my opinion. Last edited by archetypal fool; 04-19-2007 at 03:53 PM..

04-19-2007, 04:06 PM	#7 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Secret, isn't that data from the debate that Politicophile and I had some time back? I must have borrowed from the same source. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007 Last edited by Elphaba; 04-19-2007 at 04:09 PM..

04-19-2007, 05:22 PM	#11 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	"Partial birth abortion" (which is not a medically recognized term) *is* IDX. To support banning "partial birth abortion" is to support banning the procedure whose benefits are laid out in my first post in this thread. There is nothing other than IDX to discuss in terms of this decision by the SCOTUS. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

04-19-2007, 05:37 PM	#12 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	There is one more thing to discuss. SCOTUS can uphold a law, but Congress can undo a law. I have some hope that might happen in the future, but not under the narrow majority currently held by the 110th. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

04-19-2007, 03:31 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It's medicine and morality as they should be applied to rule of law. You can't just make it medicine because medicine doesn't have conscience. Late term abortions put the mother at higher risk, and they come much closer to the moral boundary that everyone watches, birth. It's not an arbitrary line, but a line that represents what they think is the best decision based on both the science and the reasonable morality. Laws are, after all, based in reason and morality. Are they right on this issue? I really can't tell you. I've personally been back and fourth on the issue of abortion a few times. Generally I'm against it, but only because that in many cases it's about the loss of responsibility. In my mind, reproduction cannot be a right because parenting is a responsibility. If slutty Suzy decides that condoms just aren't her thing and has 3 kids between the ages of 17 and 20, then gets 3 abortions, that's a fundamental lifting of her responsibility to parent her offspring. What kind of a society doesn't give a shit about a parent's responsibility? That being said, there are situations, rape, incest, retardation, failed contraceptives, that I can understand why people consider abortion. I had a very good friend of mine consider it a year and some change back. It was a damn hard time for her. She had the kid, a wonderful, brilliant boy named Niki. She was victimized by her boyfriend who purposefully used poor contraceptives. It changed my perspective on the situation considerably. I'm not one to follow the crowd. Just because I'm liberal by nature doesn't mean I'm going to swing liberal no matter what. I still feel that abortion is often wrong, especially considering how many wonderful people there are who want to adopt. BUT, I've learned to be more flexible on the subject. I hope others can keep an open mind.