takrupp

Link:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLIT...1/abortion.ap/

So both the House and Senate have pased the bill and now its headed for born-again-Bush to be rubber stamped. What are ya'lls feelings on this?

Frankly, I'm not a big fan of partial birth abortions and they are a pretty insignificant subset of abortions (something like <1%), but I see this as the first step to tackling Roe Vs. Wade for good. While personally I'm pretty mixed on the topic of abortion and I default to the women's better senses to make the decision. Overall, though, I am very against any law that intrudes into peoples personal lives, and this crosses the line.

Yet another reason to work my ass off for the Democrats in 2004.

T

TheKak

Its a grey area, because some people feel life starts at conception, and some believe that live starts at birth. So some people will be completely agaisnt abortion, but many more will be agaisnt partial birth abortions. Im pro-choice, but even I think that partial birth abortions should go. At that stage in the game it isnt too hard to just give it up for adoption.

__________________
Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

filtherton

For mor information, refer to:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...birth+abortion

Ustwo

The average person works from Jan-May just to pay their taxes. I find that to be an intrusion into peoples personal lives far more then not allowing an abortion to someone who decides to wait until the point that the fetus needs to be taken out in pieces.

I'm all for allowing abortions in rape, health issues, incest, and early term, but there comes a point where enough is enough.

Stare At The Sun

*shrugs* i'd rather see a kid aborted even if it is a partial birth abortion, than be born to a mother that isn't going to raise him right, because if that kid doesnt have a good family situation, chances are, hes not going to grow up right, and just have a shitty ass life anyways. If you're religious, the kid doesnt suffer anyways, if you're an atheist, it was never really born. So, who cares. I am all for the choice of the woman, regardless of the circumstance.

Peryn

Why should it be the womans choice. At the point where it is a partial birth abortion, its not the womans body thats the issues. At what point should it no longer be the womans choice to kill the kid? By partial birth abortion phase...chances are very good that the kid could survive outside womb. Why then should the mother be allowed to say it should die? When i baby is born a few weeks premature, should she then be allowed to have it killed? A week after the baby is born, should she be allowed to have it aborted, and kill it? Where do you draw the line at it being the womans choice to kill someone else? When does the child get the say on if should be killed or not? When it can talk? Why should the mother get to make the choice on whether or not someone else lives....

I believe the doors this bill closes are far more important than the ones it opens. That being said, i agree with most of the possible consequences it could lead to as well...

__________________
Dont cry kid, It's not your fault you suck.

seretogis

I find it funny to see ultra-liberals supporting partial birth abortions in the US, but even the most liberal of European countries have long since outlawed it. Wacky, isn't it?

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

takrupp

I think the only reason why liberals support partial birth abortions is because it is just a stepping stone. They don't want to give an inch for it could lead to giving up a mile. I think most would relinquish PBAs if they could be assured that it would not lead to a complete ban. I mean really, PBAs are barbaric and really irresponsible, and shouldn't ever need to be performed. However, I think the fear of all abortions being banned in this current political climate is warrented, and for that alone I worry.

I agree Ustwo, taxation definitely limits one's freedoms. I think one of the best ways to cut taxes in the long run is by not over spending. I mean for every dollar we are in debt we have to pay back with interest. If we simply paid upfront for what we spent, not only could taxes in the long run drop (due to no longer paying off interest), but we could possibly be a net lender again and start drawing money into this country instead of shipping it out. So far this new breed of Republicans (Reagan and Bush Jr) haven't been very responsible in this respect.

T

Tman144

Abortions should be legal until the featus can survive outside the womb. I can't call a couple of cells a human being. This really isn't the problem, its when they try and charge a man for a double homicide when he killed a woman who was 3 months pregnant that they are trying to erode abortion rights.

__________________
"Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat

sipsake

Two problems with the bill as I see it.

Partial Birth abortion is not a medical term and therefore it's definition is somewhat vague. It could be used to define any abortion after the first trimester.

More importantly, there is no exception made for the health of the mother.

__________________
When life hands you a lemon, say "Oh yeah, I like lemons. What else you got?"

Henry Rollins

seretogis

The problem with that is that it is a determination which is limited only by technology. It's simply a matter of time/technology before a sperm cell and egg will be able to develop full-term into a child completely outside of the womb. At that point, thirty years from now, will you be willing to say that even contraception is wrong? I'm not.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

filtherton

Doesn't the catholic church say contraception is wrong?

I don't have any problem with "partial birth" abortions because such a procedure doesn't exist. It is a phrase invented by anti-abortionists to evoke a knee-jerk reaction. Those words actually mean nothing specific, and as such are pretty misleading.

rgr22j

There have been an estimated 40 million abortions performed in the United States since 1973, so 0.25% of that would still be 1 million late term abortions, a monstrous amount. I define late term abortions as ones performed later than the 20th to 22nd week of pregnancy out of a normal 36-40 week pregnancy.

Late term abortions (a.k.a. partial birth abortions) are actually fairly unpopular amongst the general American population. It's not a "Democrat" issue or a "Republican" issue, merely a fringe of the far left wing. Most Gallup polling puts support for abortion in all cases (include late term) at 15%, some of which is in part due to people fearing the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. Support for the ultra-right position, no abortion in any case (including rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother), is less than 10%.

The two issues most ignored in the abortion debate is that first, while 47% of American identify themselves as pro-choice and 45% as pro-life, when specifically polled, the support for the general pro-life position (no abortion except in case of rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother) is something like 65-70%. Only a small amount of Americans support what I call "abortion on demand" or "no abortions, period."

Which brings me to the second ignored issue, which is the weakness of Roe v. Wade, of which the original plaintiff "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey) has since recanted her lawsuit and is a strident pro-life campaigner. It is one of the weakest precedents in the 20th century, up there with Bakke v. California and Bush v. Gore. The former being the invention of "diversity" and the latter being the "this applies to this instance only" ruling (which kind of violates the whole idea of precedence).

The best thing for pro-choice advocates would be the repeal of Roe v. Wade and the substitution of a stronger law, one not crucially relying on the invention of linking the right to privacy with a a married couples' right to use contraceptives. From there, Justice Blackmun asserted that thus, the 14th Amendment and thus due process is invoked and a woman can have an abortion up until the third trimester (late term abortions were not originally included in Roe v. Wade). I have yet to discover the logic behind it. Neither did 36 states, who suddenly found their 10th Amendment constitutional rights trampled when they saw the Supreme Court, and not the federal government, overrule their existing abortion laws.

Unfortunately, due to the first issue, popularity of the general pro-life position, it is fairly certain that were Roe v. Wade repealed, the reach of abortion would be severely curtailed; more, the Gallup organization posits that pro-life voters are generally more reliable. And this is why extreme pro-choice advocates fight so fiercely against any restrictions on abortion, including ones that encompass such a monstrosity as late term abortion.

Having once been in a position to have to seriously consider my own stance on abortion, I can tell you two things. One, I was recklessly stupid. As teenagers nowadays say, "Worst decision EVER." Two, in no way is this only the woman's decision or that my opinion doesn't matter because a woman has a "right to privacy." It takes two to tango. We can't say that men don't have a right to cut-and-run and then turn around and cut their opinion right out of the whole abortion decision. My opinion matters; half of the situation is my fault.

How can I so uncaringly destroy my own flesh and blood? Would I be able to live with myself after evoking a wanton dismissal of my own child? Fortunately for me, I didn't have to make the decision. She was just very, very, very late. I don't know about her (we broke up shortly after), but I am still scarred many years later.

-- Alvin

rgr22j

The Catholic Church indeed says contraception is wrong. The Catholic Church is wrong on a lot of things.

WARNING: Description of partial birth abortions follow. If you are easily offended, please skip the rest of this post.




Late term abortions are a process which involves cutting the developing fetus into pieces and withdrawing them, one by one, from the uterus. It is a variant of the "Dilation and Extraction" procedure. The typical "medical" process uses forceps to tear apart the baby, an intolerably revolting thought.

Very late term abortions, the ones banned by the "partial birth" bill, involve crushing the skull of the baby as it is being delivered or presented. The latest bill bans the procedure after the after the baby's head has pushed clear of the mother; in the past, it was apparently legal to murder the baby as long as part of it remained in the mother. How anyone thought this was permissible is unbelievable, unforgiveable. It is a horrific process, one that is abhorrent to any common sensibility. The baby is literally minutes away from taking its first breath; it is infanticide, not "abortion." There is a reason pro-choice activists are so eager to ban the display of pictures of a murdered baby: the damage done to the baby is so cruel that any normal person would revulse in horror.

-- Alvin

filtherton

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090215/

Here is what an actual abortion doctor has to say about the bill.

I didn't copy the complete article because the last paragraph contained a rather clinical description of an alternative procedure. I didn't want to surprise anyone. If you want to read it click the link.

So i guess this bill really doesn't accomplish anything except outlawing a procedure which apparently,
doesn't really exist.

I have a hard time believing any doctor would perform such a procedure as a woman is giving birth. Maybe it does, but do you have any proof that such a thing actually happens?

Phaenx

Ramifications are smelly women with no bras protesting somewhere or another. Noone cares they're there.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

filtherton

You very clearly have a firm grasp of what you are talking about.

rgr22j

I had a feeling you were going to post that; Slate seems to be "flooding the zone" with pro-partial birth abortion articles, it seems.

The reason no articles or whatever have been published using "partial birth" and/or Intact D&E is because those are ambiguous terms thrown around by both sides. Partial birth is a realistic way of describing it, but pro-life advocates always seem to want to push partial birth from what it really is (as the baby is being delivered) to what it is not (late term abortions from the 20th to 22nd week onward). This is counterproductive, because the techniques used to accomplish both are different, though in my mind, both barbaric.

However, pro-life advocates want to jump on the public revulsion to partial birth and encompass all abortion. Clearly there are multiple battles to fight; pro-lifers want to use the boost from the ban on partial birth to accomplish everything in one fell swoop. Hence the confusion regarding what is partial birth and what is not, a fault of pro-lifers.

Here is a procedure as described by the Los Angeles Times (in light of recent events, clearly not a conservative newspaper), originally quoted in the Rocky Mountain News :

And the numbers, as reported in the Rocky Mountain News :

And finally, the actual text of the bill, as reported by the Boston Globe :

We can see that the latter provision was aimed directly at the procedure defined by the Los Angeles Times, and the first at crushing the skull of the baby.

-- Alvin

EDIT: The LA Times procedure was originally quoted in the Rocky Mountain News (October 25, 2003). I edited my post to reflect that.

filtherton

I don't know how that article is "pro" partial birth abortions, since it claims they don't really exist.


The phrase "partial birth" shouldn't come into play at all. It is a loaded word with no real basis in reality. It is only accurate if you are trying to use it to evoke a kneejerk reaction in people. As such, it has no place in any kind of reasonable debate.

These descriptions make it sound as if the child is in the process of being born. As if the doctors are taking a child who is literally moments away from living outside of the mother and killing it. I'm no a doctor, but don't think that is generally the case. The fact that it
i think is your proof that no child is about to be "born" in the traditional sense. I have a hard time envisioning most women feeling their first contraction and, knowing that soon they will have to give birth, rushing to the abortion clinic as opposed to the maternity ward at her local hospital. Especially since the women in question, apparently, have had nine full months before giving birth to have an abortion. Why would anyone wait until the last and worst possible minute?
The procedure involves terminating the fetus and extracting it intact. But it seems to mention no timetable as to when it is usually performed. Just because the fetus' legs are out doesn't mean there is about to be a child born. Or that if it were removed completely and uninjured it would survive. Remember, most of these procedures are performed on a child with extreme genetic defects.
As part of the procedure the doctor pulls the body out to have easier access to the head. The same procedure can be done while the fetus is still fully inside of the woman.

This isn't really going to effect anything except how the procedure is technically accomplished. All this back patting by the pro-life movement amounts to nothing more than empty legislation.

That is what is wrong with this bill. It doesn't really outlaw anything except an easily circumvented method and is also thought to be a stepping stone for the further erosion of a woman's reproductive rights. The ramifications of this "ban" is that nothing of substance is going to be banned and maybe the pro-life movement finds a backdoor way to get abortion criminalized. Sounds like a good use of my tax dollars.

rgr22j

By that line of reasoning, one could be against the assault weapons ban and by virtue of claiming that assault weapons "don't really exist," be cradling an M-16 and not be pro-assault weapons.

The fact that it requires a physician to extract the fetus does not mean a child is not about to be "born." Premature births require a physician, as do C-sections. Inducing a birth because of prolonged labor also requires a physician. All of these babies would be considered "born."

Perhaps you object that the babies would not have been "viable" if instead of jamming a sharp knife into the back of its skull and sucking out its brains, the physician delivered it. The only data we have is from Kansas, which in 1999 reported that in 182 cases, the doctor aborting the child considered it viable. Not pro-life advocates, I remind you, but the abortionist himself/herself.

In written testimony to Congress in 1995, abortion doctors testified to performing late term abortions on healthy babies up to the 29th week in pregnancy, when 23 weeks is typically the cut-off for consideration for premature delivery; maybe it is not coincidence that late term abortion advocates typical quote 20th to 22nd week.

It is quite clear, at least in written documentation submitted to the government by abortion clinics, that in many cases the baby would have survived at the time of abortion, that the abortion doctor partially delivered a premature baby and then mutilated it by cutting open the base of its skull in order to pull the brains from the body. We are looking at hundreds (in Kansas alone), if not thousands of babies that were minutes away from drawing their first breath of life that were instead barbarically murdered by an abortion doctor.

We are not talking about aborting a shapeless, formless mass of cells early in the pregnancy. This procedure requires locating the head and inflicting grevious damage to it. In many cases, in a gruesome twist, in the process of withdrawing the now-dead baby from the mother, the pressure from the birth canal crushes its skull. In many cases described above, this is a fully formed, healthy, viable baby, and not ones with severe genetic defects. At least as reported by abortion clinics to Congress.

You don't like it because it is particularly evocative and persuasive, not because it has no basis in reality. While I am not a fan of the term, I can think of many less representative things to describe partially delivering a child and then killing it. However, since you seem particularly incensed by the term, I have used "late term abortion" where I could.

Depression is the most common reported reason. By that line of reasoning, why would anyone wait six months? Seven months? Why would a woman all of a sudden decide at the 22nd week (but not the 23rd, or the 24th) that she wanted to abort, after carrying it for almost a half year?

The 70% of the population that want this bill to pass (and late term abortions banned) understand that there are two separate issues, and thus only 45% follow up as being pro-life. To be honest the only reason abortion is not criminalized is a circumventing of the democratic process by the courts; as I described earlier the American population is much less supportive of abortion on demand. It is this vocal minority that is willing to put aside democratic principles in order to impose their will on the rest of the population.

-- Alvin

Sparhawk

From what I'm told the problem with the legislation is that it makes no allowances for the health of the woman, ie bringing the baby to term endangers the mother's life.

This is an issue that I, and a great many more Americans, feel very conflicted about. But I feel that this needs to remain a private issue between consenting adults, and not for a legislature to decide on.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Killconey

Disagreeing with the partial birth abortion law is one thing, but trying to claim that partial birth abortions don't exist is as ridiculous as those people who don't believe in the Holocaust. Horrible things do happen in the world, even if you yourself are not there to see them. I think that partial-birth abortion is barbaric and that Congress did the right thing by passing it. If this bill leads to a reversal of Roe v. Wade then maybe people will have to learn to take responsibility for their actions again.

__________________
Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

seretogis

Heaven forbid!@

I'd be fine with a ban on all abortion after 12 weeks of conception, unless the mothers health is in immediate danger. I would also want the parents to be notified if anyone under the age of 18 gets an abortion -- shutting the parents out of something that important is nothing but nanny-state idiocy.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

filtherton

Allright, you win. Sounds like a horrible experience from any direction. Sorry for not completely trusting the line of the pro-life movement. I concede everything except for the argument that this law will really have no effect other than what will probably be a only slight change in procedure.

burntmonkey

Abortion is sickening.