# "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.

uke

MNS


----------



## joesmom

Quote:

_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!

Quote:

_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.

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.







:

Quote:

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

Quote:

_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

Quote:

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


----------



## Marlena

Quote:

_Originally posted by isleta_
*
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.*
Not so. Attacks on the legal right to choose an abortion have been ongoing since early in the 19th century. This is yet another skirmish.

As for the procedure itself, I personally find it absurd that an exceptionally rare procedure, usually performed with respect to non-viable fetuses anyway, would generate the furor and consume the time and energy that this one has. This is particularly so given how pathetically little concern so many of the people who are frothing at the mouth about this issue show towards the impoverished and less-fortunate members of our society once they are actually born. (Note, by the way, that I said "so many", and not "all".)

That being said, although I support the right to choose an abortion, I believe it should be performed in as humane a manner as possible. A D&X, while much better for the physical health of the woman, can hardly be considered "as humane as possible", at least as presently practiced, for the fetus.


----------



## Marlena

T

Super Pickle!!!

Since you're reading this thread: PLEASE CLEAN OUT YOUR PM BOX!!







I've tried to reply to the two PM you sent me in the past couple months, but have had no success either time, as your PM box is always full!


----------



## barbara

Quote:

I give respect when and where it is deserved. Not "just becasue".....
MNS, I was refering to respecting the mothers on this board, not the issue. YOu know, having a respectful discussion as per the MDC guidlines. I don't expect you to respect my position, nor I yours, but I would hope that we could all discuss the issues in a respectful way without attacking one another and name calling.

Where I live in Ohio, the Crisis pregnancy centers do extend help to women through pregnancy and beyond. They provide layettes and car seats where needed, help with finding housing and financial assistance, as well as providing childbirth education and breastfeeding information. They offer free pregnancy tests and sympathtic ears available by phone 24/7. Rides to doctor's appointments are provided for those that need them, and safety in battered women's shelters, or private homes, is provided when necessary.

What is it exactly that you would like to see done that is not already being offered by these non-profit organizations?


----------



## mommy2maya

Quote:

_Originally posted by Marlena_
*
That being said, although I support the right to choose an abortion, I believe it should be performed in as humane a manner as possible. A D&X, while much better for the physical health of the woman, can hardly be considered "as humane as possible", at least as presently practiced, for the fetus.*
Can you explain a 'humane' way to kill an innocent child?

Many of us as parents disagree VEHEMENTLY with circumsicion, how horrible it is to disfigure a child, how it should not be allowed. Yet, in the same breath, some say we should be able to kill our unborn babies if we so choose. We say it is not our choice to disfigure our sons- if they want to make the decision to cut off part of their body, well then, when they are older they may make that decision. In the case of abortion, the murdered baby doesn't have the choice to say, HEY! DON'T KILL ME! I WANT TO BE BORN!!


----------



## barbara

Good question Mary. Seems to me that in this day and age, both the mother and baby can, and should, be treated with medical integrity.


----------



## spero

Quote:

_Originally posted by mommy2maya_
*Can you explain a 'humane' way to kill an innocent child?

Many of us as parents disagree VEHEMENTLY with circumsicion, how horrible it is to disfigure a child, how it should not be allowed. Yet, in the same breath, some say we should be able to kill our unborn babies if we so choose. We say it is not our choice to disfigure our sons- if they want to make the decision to cut off part of their body, well then, when they are older they may make that decision. In the case of abortion, the murdered baby doesn't have the choice to say, HEY! DON'T KILL ME! I WANT TO BE BORN!!*








well said!



> _Originally posted by joesmom_
> *i have never understood how AP & GD women can be at the same time pro choice. it seems like such a contradiction...*
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, I don't get that either
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *...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.*{quote]
> 
> I have Gianna's book. It's a beautiful, inspiring, life-affirming story. She's an absolutely amazing young woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## joesmom

Quote:

_Originally posted by mommy2maya_
*Can you explain a 'humane' way to kill an innocent child?

Many of us as parents disagree VEHEMENTLY with circumsicion, how horrible it is to disfigure a child, how it should not be allowed. Yet, in the same breath, some say we should be able to kill our unborn babies if we so choose. We say it is not our choice to disfigure our sons- if they want to make the decision to cut off part of their body, well then, when they are older they may make that decision. In the case of abortion, the murdered baby doesn't have the choice to say, HEY! DON'T KILL ME! I WANT TO BE BORN!!*
my son was circumcised in the hospital, that was before i knew i had a choice. (it sounds dumb but it is true.) the few times i have mentioned his circumcision here i have felt the judgment of many other mamas, whether it was outright or implied.

& yet i am supposed to stand by & not challenge the misconceptions many people have about abortion? you won't allow a dr. to snip off a tiny portion of your child, but you expect all women to have the right to evacuate their womb, for whatever reason? we need to realize it is a baby. NOT random cells & tissue.

we have a prolife pregnancy center in our area too, they provide clothes & carseats etc. the media portrays the prolifers as religious zealots, & ok, some of them are. but most of them are like me, & the other women who have posted here, people whose hearts literally break at the thought of a doctor being given the right to end the life of someone who had the POTENTIAL to accomplish great things.

i am so glad other prolife moms are speaking up. sometimes i feel like i am the only one!


----------



## MotherNatrsSon

Quote:

_Originally posted by barbara_
*MNS, I was refering to respecting the mothers on this board, not the issue. YOu know, having a respectful discussion as per the MDC guidlines. I don't expect you to respect my position, nor I yours, but I would hope that we could all discuss the issues in a respectful way without attacking one another and name calling.

Where I live in Ohio, the Crisis pregnancy centers do extend help to women through pregnancy and beyond. They provide layettes and car seats where needed, help with finding housing and financial assistance, as well as providing childbirth education and breastfeeding information. They offer free pregnancy tests and sympathtic ears available by phone 24/7. Rides to doctor's appointments are provided for those that need them, and safety in battered women's shelters, or private homes, is provided when necessary.

What is it exactly that you would like to see done that is not already being offered by these non-profit organizations?*
I do not see where I was disrespectful to anyone in this dicussion. My comments have not been directed at any one person and are my opinion. Are you referring to the fundamental xian militantism? That is what I se it as. A group of zealots pushing their way on others. Onward xian soldiers. convert or die. It has been that way for along time and the US is now takng it to new levels, at home and abroad.

I live in OhiO also. I know women here that have gone through the hoops and tricks necessary to get "help". It is a major pita for them to have to go, give people their life history, wait for hours, to get a car seat or whatever. I guess what I mean is support with some sense of dignity for those that ask for it, and not at a "bare minimum" level.

There ae programs, yes but for subsidized housing there is a 8 to 10 moth wait. What are these women to do in the meantime? It gets a little more complex than just having underfunded programs availble that cannot actually meet the need and and having prgrams available that cover everyone that needs.

MNS


----------



## TiredX2

We're getting a*bit* off track. I'd rather not have an abortion debate, but a debate over "partial birth abortions" GIVEN that abortion is currently legal in this country.

Kay


----------



## TiredX2

From the responses here, it doesn't seem like there is a logical objection to "partial birth abortions," per se, but more like this is the first step to degrading reproduction rights.

Anyone with a different view, I''d love to hear it!


----------



## ~Megan~

Quote:

i have never understood how AP & GD women can be at the same time pro choice
I've thought the same thing too. I personally would never have an abortion. I couldn't do it. To me if I am pregnant that is a child and I could never kill my child. I can respect that some women choose to abort for medical or rape reasons. I would carry a child that was the result of rape or that had genetic problems. But I know that not all people can do that.
What really makes me sad are the people who abort because of "accidental" pregnancy. My wish is that they never got pregnant to start with. And I think that issue needs to be addressed before we can start to come to a better compromise in regards to abortion.

I have a question for those who are pro-choice. Often times I hear the arguement that the government shouldn't make moral decisions for people. But it is done is several other cases. Rape is illegal. Some people may not feel that rape is wrong. Other kinds of murder are illegal but again some people don't think they are wrong if they kill someone.
What is the difference between the gov't making a moral decision on abortion and rape?


----------



## MotherNatrsSon

Quote:

_Originally posted by joesmom_
*my son was circumcised in the hospital, that was before i knew i had a choice. (it sounds dumb but it is true.) the few times i have mentioned his circumcision here i have felt the judgment of many other mamas, whether it was outright or implied.

& yet i am supposed to stand by & not challenge the misconceptions many people have about abortion? you won't allow a dr. to snip off a tiny portion of your child, but you expect all women to have the right to evacuate their womb, for whatever reason? we need to realize it is a baby. NOT random cells & tissue.

we have a prolife pregnancy center in our area too, they provide clothes & carseats etc. the media portrays the prolifers as religious zealots, & ok, some of them are. but most of them are like me, & the other women who have posted here, people whose hearts literally break at the thought of a doctor being given the right to end the life of someone who had the POTENTIAL to accomplish great things.

i am so glad other prolife moms are speaking up. sometimes i feel like i am the only one!*
That is part of the problem. The fetus is "part" of the mother and not a separate entity until it is born. Are you saying that an adult female should have no choice in making a decision about something that IS part of her body? Are you saying the mother has no rights as soon as she becomes pregnant and the only rights that matter at that point are those of the fetus?

I would have to give the benefit of the doubt here to an adult female and believe that she is capable of making a choice about her body. Comaprig that to circumcision of a baby that is no longer part of the mother, as in literally inside of her, is an apples and oranges comparison.

do you think any reasonable person, in this case female, would chose an abortion if she really did not have to?

I do understand there are those that "abuse" this and use it for birth control, but those instances are in the minority.

MNS


----------



## TiredX2

C'mon, C'mon, back on topic:

NOT would you have an abortion?

BUT, should "partial birth abortion" be illegal?


----------



## spero

I won't make any apologies for being pro-life. If you want to label me a "religious zealot", fine. I'll take that label over "supporter of in-utero infanticide" any day.

I have seen a 12-week old aborted fetus in the (torn-apart) flesh, thrown in a sink like so much garbage. *Don't tell me that child didn't suffer.* Don't try to make me believe that it is anything even *resembling* humane to allow a child to have its head born and then stabbed with scissors so its brain can be sucked out. You will never convince me that abortion (in any form, at any time) is anything less than an absolute horror.

I will agree that there is a tremendous need for WAY better support programs for mothers who need them. But brutally killing their unborn (or partially born) babies is not the answer.


----------



## barbara

MNS, I'm sorry that your friends were not treated with dignity, but at least assistance was available to them and that is more than what the pro-choice folks are offering.









Quote:

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.
This is the quote I was refering to when I suggested that we all speak respectfully to one another. I guess that as a pro-lifer I felt this was not a respectful way to make your point. Perhaps your point is a valid one in speaking about politicians, or even some in leadership or the fringe of the pro-life movement. However, to make a blanket statment that "Pro-lifer's in general do not care about the mother" is hurtful and simply not true, as I have already pointed out.


----------



## PurplePixiePooh

I think it is wonderful and a long time overdue. Those CHILDREN needed someone to stand up for their lives and refuse to MURDER them.

I think all abortion should be illegal and prosecutable by law as the murder it is.

Like me don't like me I don't care. Truth is truth. If it wan't a baby, you weren't pregnant and if it wasn't alive then why if left alone would it have been born into a baby????


----------



## MotherNatrsSon

Quote:

_Originally posted by TiredX2_
*C'mon, C'mon, back on topic:

NOT would you have an abortion?

BUT, should "partial birth abortion" be illegal?








*
OK. Smply put "NO" and more than likely this won't last long when put to a constittional test either. The appeals and court battles to ensue. In the meantime women suffer as a result of it.

Like has been mentioned in the thread, these types of abortin are not the "average" and are usually only done in extreme circumstances where the mothe is at risk or the fetus is not viable anyway.

MNS


----------



## TiredX2

BUT, how about this ban on a specific medical proceedure that the vast majority of the time is performed on a non-viable fetus? Should congress decide it is unnecessary or should DOCTORS be able to practice?

I think you know where I stand.


----------



## barbara

oops I guess I posted while all of you were posting....

Sorry TiredX2, I'll try to keep my comments on topic.

Quote:

NOT would you have an abortion?
BUT, should "partial birth abortion" be illegal?
Well, as another poster put it, there really isn't "anything even resembling humane to allow a child to have its head born and then stabbed with scissors so its brain can be sucked out."

I'm not sure why anyone would want to do this. Why not simply allow the baby to be born? If the fetus is viable then allow it to be adopted if not wanted. If the fetus is not viable then it won't survive and the end result is the same as if you had killed the child during birth as is currently done in the partial birth abortion.


----------



## Marlena

D & X should not be illegal. However, I also believe that, ethically, it should not be performed, at least unless the fetus is first killed through a lethal injection or through another, less violent and pain-producing, means.

That is as far as I can go in responding to the folks who responded to my first post, without taking this off-topic.

Again, let us *please* keep in mind that virtually all of the pregnancies ended through D&X either involve a *non-viable fetus* (ie, the fetus will either die naturally before birth, or will not be able to survive for more than days or weeks following birth - the latter is the case with anencephalic babies, for example), or a case in which *the woman's life is in jeopardy* and she is faced either with continuing the pregnancy and likely having both her and the fetus die, or getting treatment and having the fetus die.

No one FORCES anyone to get a D&X. There are other methods of abortion, even at that late stage. And if the issue is the life/health of the woman rather than that of the fetus, the fetus can be induced or born through c-section, even if it may not be likely to survive.


----------



## barbara

Quote:

It would seem to me clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime. --Gandhi


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

I'm not sure why anyone would want to do this. Why not simply allow the baby to be born?
Well, in the case of severe hydroencephalitus (spelling) the diameter of the head is up to 20" and so CANNOT be vaginally delievered. The mother can either have a c-section or a "partial birth abortion."

If there are severe medical abnormalities found after about 20 weeks (missing brain, etc...) and the parents do not want to wait 20 more months for a stillbirth, they are encouraged to get an abortion. BUT, these are parents who very often really wanted a baby. In a "classical" abortion the results are scraps of bloody body parts, in a partial birth abortion, the parents can be helped through their grieving process by being able to hold the much longed for baby (the baby can be wrapped in a blanket and held, looket at etc...) and start the letting go process. It is supposed to make a horrible situation a bit easier on these grief stricken people. There are also advantages if the parents want to donate organs and such (in the case of no brain development beyond brain stem, the transplant team can be there ready and it can be more controled) and try to make something positive out of a tragedy.

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.


----------



## barbara

If the parents want to hold thier baby and grieve then why would they want the doctor to stab the baby as it is being born. Why not simply give them the baby and allow them to hold this non-viable baby as it dies? Why is c-section so acceptable for mothers of full term babies but those with enlarged heads that will not be viable need to be killed and cut up so that the mother doesn't have to have a c-sec?????

I'm not getting this. Why does the baby have to be killed during birth? Even if the mother is induced why does the child have to be stabbed and cut up??

Of course we want to save the mother's life, but for pete's sake why can't we be humane to the child in the process??

Quote:

It would seem to me clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime. --Gandhi


----------



## TiredX2

Why should a mother HAVE to have major abdominal surgery to allow a child to be born alive that can't live?


----------



## spero

Quote:

_Originally posted by TiredX2_
*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.*
I don't believe that. Do you have *objective* stats to back up that statement?


----------



## AmyB

The predition is that the PBA ban will be overturned by the Supreme Court because it does not contain a provision to protect the life of the mother.

I find the pro-lifers' support of this bill morally repugnant and horrifying. I can not immagine anything more evil than being willing to kill a woman for the sake of rigid adherance to pro-life ideology.

--AmyB


----------



## MotherNatrsSon

I just heard the co-author of this bill from OhiO on NPR say that more legislation restricting abortion is already "in the works". This is just a "first step".

MNS


----------



## Mollie

totally agree w/ Celestial. if this HAS to take place (I have doubts that it would ever HAVE to take place), at least make it as painless as possible for the baby...


----------



## grisandole

My opinion, and this will go a bit OT since I really want to address what Barbara is saying about crisis preg. centers.

I think that it's gross and wrong to have a partial birth abortion BUT in the medically necessary cases mentioned above, they should absolutely have that right.....though I wonder the same thing as Celestial- why can't they stop the heart before the actual procedure? So, imo, if it's medically necessary it should be legal. But, if it isn't, I don't agree with it. Just my opinion.

About crisis preg centers- I've been thinking about them alot lately because I really want to start one in my area. I feel that there are women who are scared/poor/confused, etc. that would certainly choose keeping the baby over having an abortion if they had help (both emotional and financial) from caring people at a crisis preg. center. That being said, the majority of centers that I'm aware of seem to offer mimimal financial assistance; and what help is offered has tons of strings attached, usually in the form of religion being shoved down the mom's throat. Now, I'm not anti religion, or anti Christianity; and I don't care if a preg center preaches or anything. BUT, a lot only offer help if the women start going to meetings or church or such; and if a family "takes in" a pregnant woman, they are again, usually very religious and force it on the woman. I say this not as a generalization; Ive seen it. One woman I know who did this (took in pregnant women, not teens but adults) had curfews for the moms, they HAD to go to church and bible study, and couldn't have men over at all. Now, I can agree with not wanting a buch of guys over your house, but curfews and "morality" standards for a grown woman, come on!!! The local crisis preg center doesn't give things away, the women have to earn them by earning what they call "mommie bucks"; each time the woman shows up for a parenting class, appointment, BIBLE STUDY, etc, they get $1 in mommie bucks. The can then spend them at the "store"; outfits are 1-2 dollars, car seats are 10; A heck of alot of crap to go through for used clothes and car seats. And ime, these women are also encouraged to give their babies up for adoption instead of keeping them.

So, my rambling point is that crisis preg centers don't help the way they need to. What would work is offering free clothes, strollers, cribs, etc; parenting/breastfeeding info; and most importantly- helping these women financially- and that can be as simple as helping them apply for state health care, welfare, food stamps, housing, etc. Many women aren't informed about their options, and if they had someone helping them maybe they could get some help and actually make it.

Ugh. I'm sorry, I do believe that crisis preg centers are well intended, but are pushing their own agenda; and to say "Well, they can get help there" is such a cop out. A few free outfits doesn't help pay the bills.

Sorry for rambling; this is my issue at the moment; I'd really like to start a "REAL" crisis preg center someday

Kristi


----------



## Marlena

Quote:

_Originally posted by Celestial_
*Out of curiosity:
Why, if there is a need to have a late term abortion for medical reasons, CAN'T the medical personel administer a drug to stop the baby's heart beating BEFORE the procedure? Or do something else to allow for a more "humane" death before removing the baby from the uterus?*
Yes. But I understand that it's not always done. As I've said, it absolutely MUST be done, IMO, in order to bring the practice within the ethical pale.


----------



## me&3

My sister ended a pregnancy at 15 weeks, with unbelievable agony and heartache. It was a very much wanted child, but tragically, it was not viable. She was told by her doctors that there was actual danger to her own life if she would carry to term, and the baby would never live. Very sorrowfully, she and my bil decided to terminate.

I am aghast that there is no provision in the law for something of this kind.


----------



## Ilaria

Quote:

I find the pro-lifers' support of this bill morally repugnant and horrifying. I can not immagine anything more evil than being willing to kill a woman for the sake of rigid adherance to pro-life ideology.








Sad, but true!


----------



## joesmom

Quote:

_Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon_
*Are you saying that an adult female should have no choice in making a decision about something that IS part of her body?

do you think any reasonable person, in this case female, would chose an abortion if she really did not have to?
MNS*
i am not saying that an adult female should have no choice in making a decision about something that IS part of her body. if she wants to cut off her leg, or her arm, fine. but when she has an abortion she is not only deciding about HER body. she is also deciding about the body of her own CHILD, tearing it out of the place it should have been safe & warm & protected.

& are you seriously asking me if i think a reasonable woman has ever had an abortion that she did not HAVE to have? um, yes. nearly 5,000 times a day, i believe.



> _Originally posted by TiredX2_
> *Why should a mother HAVE to have major abdominal surgery to allow a child to be born alive that can't live?*
> 
> why should the mother be afforded more rights than the child? most of us here, i would say at least 90%, are ADAMANT that it is a child's BIRTHRIGHT to be nourished, for as long as he wants, by the milk from his mother's breasts. & yet you can advocate abortion, saying the mother has the RIGHT to control HER body. what if a mother just doesn't want to use HER breasts to feed her infant?
> 
> i am genuinely confused.
> 
> HOWEVER, to answer the OP, yes, i think partial birth abortion should be illegal. i think 2nd trimester abortion should be illegal. i think having an abortion when you are one week pregnant should be illegal.
> 
> but that is just me. i realize i am in the minority. but i am here.


----------



## joesmom

In the US each day, there are 4,000 abortions.

Every fourth unborn child is aborted.

An unborn baby is killed *every 20 seconds* in America.

*95% of abortions are done as birth control, 1% are done because of rape/incest, 1% because of fetal abnormalities, and 3% due to the mother's health problems.*

(In a book written about abortions due to rape,...) 192 women were interviewed. These women had had abortions after they became pregnant from rape. Nearly all the women said that they regretted the abortion, and over 90% said they would discourage other rape victims from choosing abortion.

Child abuse has gone up 500% since the legalization of abortion.

Out of all women who have abortions, 75% say they had an abortion because the baby would have interfered with their life; 66% say that they couldn't have afforded a baby; and 50% said they didn't want to be a single mother or were having problems with their partner.

14,000 abortions are done because of rape/incest. (This only makes up about *1%* of all abortions.)

23% of abortions occur at 9-10 weeks, 11% at 11-12 weeks, 7% at 13-15 weeks, 4% at 16-20 weeks, and 1% for 21-40 weeks.

read this. do you feel like crying? if not, READ IT AGAIN!


----------



## Ilaria

Sources?


----------



## joesmom

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention & The Allen Guttmacher Institute


----------



## MotherNatrsSon

Quote:

_Originally posted by joesmom_
*Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention & The Allen Guttmacher Institute*
Please post the link?

Another interesting little anecdote rom NPR tonight. They said that the less education a woman had, the more likely she was to support this ban.

Hmmm....

MNS


----------



## mahdokht

***


----------



## Wendydagny

Quote:

_Originally posted by me&3_
*My sister ended a pregnancy at 15 weeks, with unbelievable agony and heartache. It was a very much wanted child, but tragically, it was not viable. She was told by her doctors that there was actual danger to her own life if she would carry to term, and the baby would never live. Very sorrowfully, she and my bil decided to terminate.

I am aghast that there is no provision in the law for something of this kind.*
Not eager to get into this debate. But the law would not have affected your sister in the slightest. It specifically prohibits one procedure, which AFAIK is not used at 15 weeks.

Unfortunately the media is hyping this up to be the end of all abortions, or even the end to all late term abortions. Can't imagine why they'd want to do that.







: It's not. Read the law:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c108umnmPa::

The specific ban is on procedures in which:

Quote:

the person performing the abortion --
`(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
`(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus


----------



## EFmom

Quote:

I find the pro-lifers' support of this bill morally repugnant and horrifying. I can not immagine anything more evil than being willing to kill a woman for the sake of rigid adherance to pro-life ideology.
Amen!!!


----------



## mommy2maya

Quote:

_Originally posted by grisandole_
*My opinion, and this will go a bit OT since I really want to address what Barbara is saying about crisis preg. centers.

I think that it's gross and wrong to have a partial birth abortion BUT in the medically necessary cases mentioned above, they should absolutely have that right.....though I wonder the same thing as Celestial- why can't they stop the heart before the actual procedure? So, imo, if it's medically necessary it should be legal. But, if it isn't, I don't agree with it. Just my opinion.

About crisis preg centers- I've been thinking about them alot lately because I really want to start one in my area. I feel that there are women who are scared/poor/confused, etc. that would certainly choose keeping the baby over having an abortion if they had help (both emotional and financial) from caring people at a crisis preg. center. That being said, the majority of centers that I'm aware of seem to offer mimimal financial assistance; and what help is offered has tons of strings attached, usually in the form of religion being shoved down the mom's throat. Now, I'm not anti religion, or anti Christianity; and I don't care if a preg center preaches or anything. BUT, a lot only offer help if the women start going to meetings or church or such; and if a family "takes in" a pregnant woman, they are again, usually very religious and force it on the woman. I say this not as a generalization; Ive seen it. One woman I know who did this (took in pregnant women, not teens but adults) had curfews for the moms, they HAD to go to church and bible study, and couldn't have men over at all. Now, I can agree with not wanting a buch of guys over your house, but curfews and "morality" standards for a grown woman, come on!!! The local crisis preg center doesn't give things away, the women have to earn them by earning what they call "mommie bucks"; each time the woman shows up for a parenting class, appointment, BIBLE STUDY, etc, they get $1 in mommie bucks. The can then spend them at the "store"; outfits are 1-2 dollars, car seats are 10; A heck of alot of crap to go through for used clothes and car seats. And ime, these women are also encouraged to give their babies up for adoption instead of keeping them.

So, my rambling point is that crisis preg centers don't help the way they need to. What would work is offering free clothes, strollers, cribs, etc; parenting/breastfeeding info; and most importantly- helping these women financially- and that can be as simple as helping them apply for state health care, welfare, food stamps, housing, etc. Many women aren't informed about their options, and if they had someone helping them maybe they could get some help and actually make it.

Ugh. I'm sorry, I do believe that crisis preg centers are well intended, but are pushing their own agenda; and to say "Well, they can get help there" is such a cop out. A few free outfits doesn't help pay the bills.

Sorry for rambling; this is my issue at the moment; I'd really like to start a "REAL" crisis preg center someday

Kristi*
There is a pregnancy crisis center like this near my house- it is a home for pregnant mothers to live in while pregnant/ after the birth, and to help them learn to support themselves & their child. I have donated some of my unused baby equipment to them. They truly are grateful for all donations.

I don't think the Partial Birth Abortion is at all about the health of the mother. How can partially delivering your child & then killing it be of any benefit to the mother?


----------



## MotherNatrsSon

Quote:

_Originally posted by mahdokht_
*If you have something legitimate to contribute, then by all means do so. If you can do nothing but accuse those who disagree with of being ignorant and/or uneducated then you might as well keep your opinions to yourself. They really aren't worth being aired.







:*
It wasn't my opinion if you read at all. It was from NPr. They did a survey andthat was ne of the results they said onair during "All Things Considered" tonight.

Please do not accuse me of "my opinon" being "out of line" when I clearly stated it was from NPR

You can listen to it online here:

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/index.html

It isn't just the media "hyping" it up. Thee co-author of the bill stated there is more restrictive legislation on the way. Maybe it is hype but based on the pattern of chipping away at rights, I'd call it a first step towards more restrictions.

MNS


----------



## gardenmommy

Can someone please tell me why it is okay for one person to decide when it is acceptable to end another's life? Who has the right to decide that an individual, born or unborn, is not worthy to live? If an unborn child is not a person, than it does not matter what is done to the tissue growing within the woman's body. If an unborn child is a person, than it is wrong to end its life, even if that is accomplished using so-called "humane" methods.

We can't have it both ways: either the fetus is a person, with rights, or it isn't a person, in which case it doesn't matter what we do with it.

As far as PBA is concerned, it is extremely brutal. If I decided that my pregnant cat, horse, dog, cow could no longer support the fetus, and paid the vet to perform such an operation on the animal, I would be called an animal abuser. In fact, I highly doubt that my vet would perform such a barbaric procedure.

Why then, is it acceptable to perform it on the most vulnerable members of our society? If the baby is not viable (and who really knows? Doctors are not gods, as I've read in so many posts here on these boards), what does it hurt to perform a C-sec, or allow the mom to birth vaginally, and then let the baby die in its parents arms? Non-viability does not diminish a person's worth. It makes it all the more precious, since we know that that person's time on this earth is so very short.

All babies (wanted or not) deserve to be loved and cherished, simply because they are a human being. We do not have the right to decide that certain babies are not worth bringing into the world, even those of us with nice titles and letters attached to our names.


----------



## MotherNatrsSon

Quote:

_Originally posted by gardenmommy_
*Can someone please tell me why it is okay for one person to decide when it is acceptable to end another's life? Who has the right to decide that an individual, born or unborn, is not worthy to live? If an unborn child is not a person, than it does not matter what is done to the tissue growing within the woman's body. If an unborn child is a person, than it is wrong to end its life, even if that is accomplished using so-called "humane" methods.

We can't have it both ways: either the fetus is a person, with rights, or it isn't a person, in which case it doesn't matter what we do with it.*
Why is it better for you to decide for any other person what is best in their particular circumstances? And you have pretty much hit the nail on the head of the whole issue. I asked the same question in an earlier post now I would like you to answer it.

Do the rights of the unborn fetus supercede the rights of the mother? Do the mother's rights disappea as soon as she becomes pregnant and the right of the fetus is the only right in existance at that time.

Here is another one:

Have you ever read "The Haindmaid's Tale"?

Your line of thought is relagating women to non-person status as soon as they are determined to be pregnant.

MNS


----------



## MotherNatrsSon

Quote:

_Originally posted by Nursing Mother_
*You ask some good questions Gardenmommy.

Just imagine what PETA would say to someone who performed an abortion on an animal, just because the owner didn't want to bother with a baby animal. Good Gosh!! Can you imagine the outrage.

What determines if it is a "fetus" or "baby" is of course the will of the mother.

Way down deep I think many many women can and do see the damage that abortion does, not only to their psyche, but of course to the life of the baby.

Of course most won't ever admit that a death has been wrought at the hand of an abortion Dr.... its just to painful to admit.....and the biggest denial ever I believe is when abortion is pooh poohed as not a big deal, or not really "killing a baby".

The world (our country) will soon pay for the massacre and holocaust of millions of children....its just a matter of time as God said "vengence is mine............I pity and grieve for what is coming, but we humans who take things into our own hands and play god will deserve it, every bit of it.....that is unless there is forgiveness , repentance, and change, on the side of those who do these evil acts.

.....but of course most of you know my POV,









I have a sister who is a director of a CPC ( Crisis preg. center).... and believe me they DO support, care, and minister to the pregnant women up and through until the baby is born and then help the women with adoption and/or single motherhood. They even pay for medical care, transportation, etc. SHe (my sister) has had many young mothers stay at her home and has arranged hundreds of mothers to stay in home of caring people who actually pay and provide financial and emotional support. I personally know many families who minister in that way. It is a quiet ministry happening all over this country, yet you hear nothing about it, because the people are not out for publicity. Just out to back up their words of with actions.
*
You almostsound like GW..."You are either with us or against us." "Them evildoers."

It is not an appropriate place to lay your xian guilt trip on people like is done when you "minister" to the confused women at your special care centers.

Maybe you should not pass such quick judgements and re read the book you quote from so adamantly in your defense. There is a "special" place for those that "show a "form" of godly devotion and prove false to it's power" as well.

You hear nothing about it? I am quite aware of the "ministry" that these women go through. The good old fashioned "Fire and Brimstone" xian guilt trip, fundamentalist kind of ministry.

The red word is the key word in the post imho. It is a fundamentalist xian agenda that fuels the wole "pro-life" agenda.

The fact that women become non person's with this line of thought is of no concern to these people. All that matters IS the fetus.

Maybe that is because some fundamental xians view women as "property" of the husband and not really having personhood of their own to begin with. They are submissive and subservient, on a par with livestock a "husband" may keep in his barn. Isn't that where "husbandry" came from? Animal husbandry, seeing how we are now comparing people and animals. Women to cows or horses...

I wonder if these same women would be so quick to pass judgement on others if it were actually a matter of women once again having no rights at all. Being relegated to non-person status as soon as they become pregnant.

MNS


----------



## Greaseball

Sorry, but I just don't get why this would be necessary. I consider myself pro-choice (though I would NEVER have an abortion!) but I think if there really is a medical reason for this, why does the baby's skull have to be evacuated?

My stepmother was 29 weeks pg and it was a danger to her life and the life of the baby. Rather than having a partial birth abortion, she had a c/s, though the baby was not expected to live anyway. Well, it lived. She was then told the baby would be brain-damaged. She's a normal 14-year-old.

That's what I would do - if my pregnancy was risking my life, I would have the baby delivered and hope for the best. If I were carrying a fetus that had no chance of surviving soon after delivery, I would deliver it anyway. I think a baby who is going to die at birth deserves to die in a loving, respectful environment and in a painless way. I'd want to hold it for the few minutes we could have together.

I read the example of the 20-inch head thing, but I would rather have a c/s even if the baby was going to die. (If it was already dead, I'd go for the vaginal delivery.) Remember, babies do feel pain! Even unborn ones! I would not put my unborn child through pain just because I wanted to avoid surgery or see a normal looking baby.

The only way I could possibly think of having an abortion is in the case of ectopic pregnancy, when there really is no chance of the baby surviving, and a good chance of the mother dying if it's not done. I'd make them be gentle though.

I'm sure I will now be thought of as a disgrace to the pro-choice movement. But if a mother has the choice of delivering a dead baby and a live one, and in either case does not have to go any farther along in her pregnancy, why on earth would she choose the dead one?


----------



## joesmom

NM, i think i understand where you are coming from & kudos to your sister, the job she does is SO important. hafta go, joe is ready to hit the sack, but i wanted to jump in with a







for ya!

ministering to those who need it can be done by anyone of any religion, imo.


----------



## lotusdebi

*


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

_Originally posted by skellbelle_
*I don't believe that. Do you have objective stats to back up that statement?*
This 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.


----------



## Tigerchild

Just to add something in here...

Just because the D&X procedure is used doesn't mean that something can't be done first.

At the worst point of my boys' TTTS, when we were getting pressure to sacrifice Dylan so that at least Tom would make it, we were told that they would do a cord ligation or an injection into his heart to stop it. I don't see why a compassionate doctor would not offer the injection to a grieving couple. Perhaps they do...but where would it be recorded?

As a buddhist, I have very strong pro-life leanings (and not just about abortion). However...having faced a very difficult situation, I cannot in good conscience villianize parents who have had to make that choice now that I have had a very small taste of what they have to go through.

I believe those who have not faced a situation where they were offered the D&X or a late term abortion should not speak ill of those that have. Period. You don't know how agonizing it is. You don't bother to see that the vast majority of those folks would have traded places with those longed-for children in a heartbeat. If you can't have compassion, if you can only make accusatory statements and want to hurt those folks even more...then perhaps this concern solely for the children is a shield rather than a true motivation.

Knocked up college students wanting a way out don't have late term abortions. It's very hard to get one. Don't believe everything that Focus on the Family and other similar groups upchuck on this one. If you want to save these babies, then start donating to the March of Dimes, and research organizations, that maybe will provide answers and perhaps even prevention.

But sometimes really horrible things happen, naturally. And it makes me sick that people already horribly, horribly wounded should have to deal with others who are all too easily able to distance themselves from the situation and see it as black and white.


----------



## *~*SewHappyNow*~*

My opinion... I think PBS is a disgusting practice, turns my stomach to imagine the pain that fetus sustains. I see no difference in carrying the baby to term, giving birth, killing it, tossing it into a duffel bag and throwing it into the trash and PBA. The only difference is one is considered homicide and abuse of a corpse and the other is a medical procedure.

I have no plans to read this entire thread and your flames back and forth, but the OP asked if anyone had an opinion and this is mine.


----------



## DaryLLL

Quote:

_Originally posted by Nursing Mother_
*.

Just imagine what PETA would say to someone who performed an abortion on an animal, just because the owner didn't want to bother with a baby animal. Good Gosh!! Can you imagine the outrage.

.*
Not sure where you get this idea. When you have a fertile sexually active outdoor cat spayed, there may be another litter in the uterus. It is disposed of along with the animal's reproductive organs.


----------



## barbara

TiredX2 wrote:

Quote:

Why should a mother HAVE to have major abdominal surgery to allow a child to be born alive that can't live?
So that her child doesn't have to experience a painful and agonizing death by being stabbed in the head and ripped apart while still alive! I should hope that a compassionate woman would want her child's only moments outside of her womb to be as peaceful as possible and allow her child to die with dignity.


----------



## barbara

AmyB wrote:

Quote:

I find the pro-lifers' support of this bill morally repugnant and horrifying. I can not immagine anything more evil than being willing to kill a woman for the sake of rigid adherance to pro-life ideology.
This is not an educated statement. There are many ways to save the mother's life without brutally killing the child! In the stated cases where the mother's life was in danger it was because she could not carry the pregnancy to term. There is no reason that this type of inhumane abortion has to be performed. It is simply emotional propaganda.


----------



## barbara

T

Quote:

What would work is offering free clothes, strollers, cribs, etc; parenting/breastfeeding info; and most importantly- helping these women financially- and that can be as simple as helping them apply for state health care, welfare, food stamps, housing, etc.
The crisis pregnancy centers in the greater metropolitian area where I live do offer this assistance free.

I understand the concern that these centers are often religious and many woman don't want to be preached at, however the help is offered free. Also if a woman is living with another family I don't think it is too much to ask her to be home by a reasonable hour, and follow the house rules, afterall, everyone in the household will also be making concessions to accommodate having her and her child living with them.

I do agree with you that centers and homes that are not religious would be great, but the fact is that it almost always has been religious groups that have reached out to those in need.

Sorry...back to the PBA topic...


----------



## barbara

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query...p/~c108umnmPa::

Quote:

the person performing the abortion --
`(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
`(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus
Ladies, after reading exactly what this bill is banning can you still say that you find the pro-lifers' support of this bill morally repugnant and horrifying?


----------



## 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.


----------



## merpk

:stretch

Aaahhh, the air feels good in here.

Anyway, will stay out of the abortion part of the debate.









Will, however, point out that there was an attempt to submit the same bill *but* with the exception included for the mother's health.

The Republicans/backers of the current bill _would not allow it to go through with the mother's health exclusion._

This speaks volumes to me about the true intentions here.


----------



## Ilaria

Quote:

The Republicans/backers of the current bill would not allow it to go through with the mother's health exclusion.

This speaks volumes to me about the true intentions here.
Yep, it sure does...


----------



## Greaseball

There are "animal abortions." A friend's purebred dog got knocked up by a mutt and she was concerned the dog's value would go down if "word got out" so the vet removed all the fetuses.

My dh is very pro-choice, including partial-birth. He believes that the fetus is part of a woman's body and nothing more. (Though he does show inconsistency with this belief, by expressing disapproval toward pg women who smoke.) 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?

When can this procedure not be preformed? 37 weeks? 42 weeks? Or anytime?

Again, I don't know much about these genetic disorders but I don't see why the baby can't be delivered and then hope for the best. If a mother just can't (or won't) have surgery it can be delivered with Pitocin (the way they are in some 2nd trimester abortions) and then if it is born alive, it can go to the NICU. Why doesn't the doctor first check that the fetus can or cannot survive, instead of just assuming it can't?


----------



## Wendydagny

Quote:

_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

Quote:

_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

Quote:

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

Quote:

_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

Quote:

_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.

Quote:

_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

Quote:

_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

Quote:

_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

Quote:

_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

Quote:

_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.


----------



## barbara

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query...p/~c108umnmPa::

Quote:

the person performing the abortion --
`(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
`(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus
From the sounds of the breech pba it looks to me that they are more intent on killing the "fetus" than draining off fluid so that the head can be born.

A c-sec would deliver this "fetus" without such a trumatic death!

I know a couple that gave birth to a baby that they were told was not viable and were advised to abort because of the fluid on the brain. This little boy was delivered by c-sec and is 2 years old now. ?There are good medical reasons for doing a c-sec and this is one of them....it litterally saved the life of the child!!!


----------



## barbara

Quote:

_Originally posted by Potty Diva_
*Using emotionally charged words doesn't change the scientific fact that embryos are NOT children.*
There is nothing _scientific_ about not calling embryos children! That is absurd....like calling a baby not a child or a child not a human or a woman not mankind....it is bable not scientific!!

If you want to believe that babies are not human before they are born go right ahead, but don't think that science backs up your emotional views.


----------



## barbara

Well stated Celestial! I respect your position even though I do not entirely agree with it.


----------



## Greaseball

I think abortion rights always have been and always will be in jeopardy. But I still don't think they should be done on fetuses (children) that could survive in the NICU.

How is it that a human fetus is not a human being? As far as the different names for different stages of in-utero development, it's all "baby" to me. That's what I teach dd - I point to my belly and say "baby," not "embryo."

As far as suicide, that's a huge other issue, but I really believe if a pregnant women does not want to commit suicide it's good for her to know there are options for her. Mental hospitals, while I know all sorts of horrible things go on in there, are one of those options. They do give lower doses of medications to pregnant women, FWIW. Some will even forego it. The more money you can spend on it, the better off you will be. And if a woman wants to commit suicide, she'll do so without leaking to others that she is feeling suicidal.

Most suicidal people's lives genuinely suck. Often, they can be improved. Suicidal thoughts are not the same as being actively suicidal. Some women become suicidal after having an abortion, even when they were certain they did not want the baby.


----------



## MotherNatrsSon

Quote:

_Originally posted by 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.*
If you agree that the woman's rights do not disappear when she becomes pregnant, why does the "pro-life" position place those rights of a living human below the rights of something that has the possibility of life?

Babaies are only "viable" at that early stage of gestation with millions of dollars in equpment and resources to keep it alive. Again there may be a "few" exceptions to that but without massive life support systems and an amazing amount of resources, any birth at that time would not survive. It's not nice to mess with mother nature. At the point yu start saving every premmie, you are "playing god" and intevening in the natural process anyways. Just in the "opposite" direction. You say life at all cost, which are HUGE in resources and equipment, technology, etc..

The fact there is no one equippped to make the choice and or decision is exactly why it should be left up to the woman and not you or anyone else that "thinks" they know what is best for everyone, or that the decision they make meets with your approval.

How far will the law go with giving women's children to a "better" suited person to raise? Will it go to the point that there will be only "approved" members of the society, that all have the "same limited beliefs, motivations, and "moral self-righteousness" will be the only ones allowed to raise children? Once we start down that road, it is bound to get really strange, really fast imho.

I have seen a few posts mention "giving the baby something to stop it's heart" in order t make this a "more humane" procedure. If I recall correctly, a fetus is attached to the mother by the placenta and anything you would give to the fetus at that point could and probably would enter the mother's system through the exchange of blood through the placent and "stop the heart" of the mother as well. I am no medical expert, but it someow makes sense to me.

Why should a woman take the risks involved in having a c-section when they are not necessary to deliver a dead fetus? As with any surgery, there are risks involved and to take them unessarily, putting the mother in a higher risk situation just doesn't make sense.

Should we go to the point where there is absolutely no medical intervention in ANY pregnancy? Then all of the women that have c-sections because it is impossible to give vaginal birth, along with the fetus they are attemting to deliver would die. If a mother hemmorages after birth, she would be left to bleedto death. Medical intervention is ok as long as it is used to do anything and everything possible to save a life or lives regardless of the consequences of that intervention? Regardless of the fact that at some point that is "playing god" as well? Personally, I can't draw that line, pass that judgement, or see myself or anyone else making those choices for another person. Each woman must be able to make her own choice about these things.

MNS


----------



## Potty Diva

Quote:

_Originally posted by Celestial_
*I have a question:
A newborn, and infant, a toddler, a preschooler, a pre-teen and a teenager are all children, right? They are words we use to describe children at various physical, emotional, and cognitive stages of development, yes? Does that make them any less "children"? I mean, a 2 yo's brain is not as developed as a 15 yo's...
So then an embryo (which I beleive has a beating heart), a fetus and and a neonate are all words used to refer to babies in different stages of evelopment, yes? Can you explain to me how that makes them any less "babies"? Or "children for that matter"? Isn't it just different points on a continuum of development?

*
In my opinion the difference is being able to breathe without assistance. Children who are born generally can breathe unassisted.

An embryo or fetus cannot do this until a certain gestational age.

If you can't breathe, you die. Simple as that.

We aren't talking about children who are born, or elderly people on life support, so I wish those arguements would stop.

What we are referring to, is a part of a woman, that cannot breathe unassisted, and therefore, IMO, should not have any rights over the mother, a breathing living sustaining person.

MNS~ my thoughts exactly!!!


----------



## Potty Diva

Let's back up and correct an error here. Not once did I say embryos or fetus'were not human, of course they are made up of human ceells/DNA. What I DID say is that they cannot survive unassisted until a certain gestational stage. And I do not consider a fetus(until that time) or an embryo a child.


----------



## joesmom

Quote:

_Originally posted by Potty Diva_
*Joesmom~
Using emotionally charged words doesn't change the scientific fact that embryos are NOT children.*
that may be true, potty diva, but using the "scientific" terms for aborted babies doesn't make them any less dead.


----------



## Greaseball

Quote:

Babaies are only "viable" at that early stage of gestation with millions of dollars in equpment and resources to keep it alive. Again there may be a "few" exceptions to that but without massive life support systems and an amazing amount of resources, any birth at that time would not survive. It's not nice to mess with mother nature. At the point yu start saving every premmie, you are "playing god" and intevening in the natural process anyways. Just in the "opposite" direction. You say life at all cost, which are HUGE in resources and equipment, technology, etc..
Surely if you were in preterm labor you would go straight to the hospital and try to do whatever could be done for the baby, no matter what the cost? Would anyone really say "Well, I'm only 26 weeks and it would be really expensive even if the baby did live, so I'll just stay home and let it die?"

Many of us here personally know babies who had "no chance" of survival who survived and thrived anyway. It cost $350,000 and 3 months in the hospital to keep my sister alive. My dad and stepmom's income was only $40,000 a year. They decided she was worth it.

My baby is worth an indescribable amount to me and I would do anything to bring it back from the brink of death, even if it wasn't in "god's" plan.

I really don't care what it costs the taxpayers; I care about my baby's life first and foremost. Don't most parents care more about their children than others' taxes?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was mostly low-income women who were offered the D&E, while privately insured women were told of what they could do to keep their baby alive.


----------



## hmpc2

I don't know why I am so attracted to this thread but I do have to say some posters are hitting a personal note with me...

I know this is a very hot topic...and I believe it was a news magazine a few months ago that said the lines are becoming more blurred between when a fetus becomes a child (it was a very interesting article..I believe it was Newsweek) and that pro-life and pro-choice circles are crossing different lines..and I do know that we are each entitled to our personal opinions. It would be a pretty boring world if we all had the same exact thoughts and ideas... With that said here are my personal opinions:

For those who believe that a fetus is not a child until they are either born or are viable to breathe on their own...did my daughter never become a child because she never breathed on her own outside of the womb? Is it different because she was wanted vs me chosing to PBA her? I really just don't understand this logic. With this thought process, do women who are grieving the loss of their child, even though they chose to abort him/her not deserve grief counseling, because it was never a child, so the woman shouldn't be grieving? I honestly am just trying to understand this thought process. Maybe I am to new and active in my grief to be thinking logically, but I am hearing that simply because a fetus isn't born, or because they couldn't breathe on their own, it wasn't a child?

All I know is I lost a child and because I am in grief I will scream at the top of my lungs I would have done anything to have her be here...including if it meant I wouldn't have survived and I know my husband feels the same way (he would be willing to die if it meant that she could have lived). Maybe it is different for me because as soon as I found out I was pregnant I knew I was going to have a baby. Yes I affectionately referred to her as zygote, etc.. during the different stages, but she was always my baby from the beginning.

Well that my .02. We'll never solve or agree on this topic during this thread just remember we all have and are entitled to our opinions...


----------



## MotherNatrsSon

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*Surely if you were in preterm labor you would go straight to the hospital and try to do whatever could be done for the baby, no matter what the cost? Would anyone really say "Well, I'm only 26 weeks and it would be really expensive even if the baby did live, so I'll just stay home and let it die?"

Many of us here personally know babies who had "no chance" of survival who survived and thrived anyway. It cost $350,000 and 3 months in the hospital to keep my sister alive. My dad and stepmom's income was only $40,000 a year. They decided she was worth it.

My baby is worth an indescribable amount to me and I would do anything to bring it back from the brink of death, even if it wasn't in "god's" plan.

I really don't care what it costs the taxpayers; I care about my baby's life first and foremost. Don't most parents care more about their children than others' taxes?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was mostly low-income women who were offered the D&E, while privately insured women were told of what they could do to keep their baby alive.*
I think at that point any woman would be going to the hospital, not only for the baby, but because her own life may be in jeopardy as well. I do not have the correct plmbing to do labor.

If you are free to make the choice to save your baby at all costs, even if it is not part of god's plan, why should others not be free to make the choiice not to have a baby, even if it is not part of god's plan? It is not a good thing to ask for something for yourself and not give the same to others when they ask for the same thing. The "thing" being "god's plan", just to be clear here.

Maybe the right-wing pro-lifers that want abortion made illegal should automatically give any woman that has a child, say, half a million dollars to "help" support and provide for that child to the standards they are setting and willing to throw stones at others for falling short of?

I am sure that women that have plenty of insurance dollars are told anything, and everything to get those insurance dollars from the insurance company into the hospital, even if there is only a marginal chance it "might" work. Again it is an "At all costs" situation. It is a "business" and the idea is based on the "profit" motive for sure.

I hope for you and your "baby" that you are never faced with any of these tough choices and that you are both healthy and happy when your delivery/labor is finished.

For the women that have and are facing these choices, I can't imagine being in that position, and have to trust that each is making the choice that is best for them regardless of what judgements anyone else wants to put on them for making the choice they do/did make.

I just cannot see any woman having a partial birth abortion unless she absolutely felt that was the best thing. I guess we will see what happens with the court cases.

MNS


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

I just cannot see any woman having a partial birth abortion unless she absolutely felt that was the best thing.
*Exactly* Because this does NOT make late abortions illegal. It just makes one form of abortions illegal. If you were to make all abortions past 24 weeks illegal, that would be one thing. But to make a specific medical proceedure illegal makes no sense. So, you would rather the child be ripped completely apart and sucked out with a vacumn? Thats more humane. Because making partial birth abortions illegal WILL not result in these women keeping the baby, it will result in them having a "classic" (more dangerous, more painful) abortion instead.

Kay


----------



## Paxetbonum

Steppin in late in the game here. . . but I just want to say. . .

most of the militeristic hyper-fist pounding dictators in the last century were nuts about abortion. Hitler loved it.

Please don't act like Christians go around pushing pro-life issues because they get some kind of kick out of wasting coutless dollars and time and energy on stomping on womens rights.

I think the abortion industry has a much higher incentive to be militeristic about pushing their views.

Its called $$$$.

Think of the billions of dollars that have been made on the blood of the innocent.


----------



## MotherNatrsSon

Quote:

_Originally posted by Paxetbonum_
*Steppin in late in the game here. . . but I just want to say. . .

most of the militeristic hyper-fist pounding dictators in the last century were nuts about abortion. Hitler loved it.

Please don't act like Christians go around pushing pro-life issues because they get some kind of kick out of wasting coutless dollars and time and energy on stomping on womens rights.

I think the abortion industry has a much higher incentive to be militeristic about pushing their views.

Its called $$$$.

Think of the billions of dollars that have been made on the blood of the innocent.*
Who is "acting"?

Got any proof Hitler "loved" it? He just liked killing people period as far as I know and have read. Anyone that did not fit into the perfect race, anyone.

I am not saying they get a "kick" out of it. I am saying that women's rights and tax dollars are the parts they seem to want to ignore and don't mind trashing in the process of getting their way.

MNS


----------



## joesmom

Quote:

_Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon_
*

I am not saying they get a "kick" out of it. I am saying that women's rights and tax dollars are the parts they seem to want to ignore and don't mind trashing in the process of getting their way.

MNS*
maybe they are not "ignoring" women's rights & tax dollars. maybe they are just placing a higher priority on the lives of the unborn, who cannot speak for themselves.


----------



## Potty Diva

Quote:

_Originally posted by joesmom_
*maybe they are not "ignoring" women's rights & tax dollars. maybe they are just placing a higher priority on the lives of the unborn, who cannot speak for themselves.*
But, how do you judge whose lives are more valuable??

I infact believe they are not more valueable.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

I think the abortion industry has a much higher incentive to be militeristic about pushing their views.
Are you serious? Abortion providers are pro-choice because they want the money?







Uhhhhm, as they are medical doctors, if they are in it for the money, it would be much, much more profitable to push those same people into the major costs associated with prenatal care, labor & delivery (plus all the well baby, etc...). Why would they possibly, unless they believed in a womans right to chooose very strongly, would they choose a very inexpensive disgusting proceedure over such a money maker like OB


----------



## joesmom

Quote:

_Originally posted by Potty Diva_
*But, how do you judge whose lives are more valuable??

I infact believe they are not more valueable.*
I don't believe they are necessarily MORE valuable either. But it is egocentric to say that they are LESS valuable. Is a three year old less valuable than a six year old? I don't think so. So why is an unborn baby... YES, baby, considered less than human. It is a fact that embryos & fetuses TURN INTO babies. There is no disputing this. So if you have an abortion, whatever trimester, for whatever reason, PBA or otherwise, you are ending the life of your child. Period. Whether you call it a baby, a fetus, or if you just don't think of it at all.

I cannot understand why everyone can't see this. It is so obvious to me.







But I must say, to this point we all been very civil & respectful, at least IMO. Good for us!


----------



## Potty Diva

Ok, so I was looking for some info to support mym beliefs... and the strangest thing happened!!!

Although I still believe it is a woman's right to have an abortion if needed or wanted...this photo changed my mind(I think because we have been trying to have our second child for 2 yrs now with no luck)

http://www.mccl.org/images/18weeks.jpg

Nothing though, on this thread posted by emotionalists, has encouraged me to change my belief.


----------



## joesmom

teresa, that's beautiful, isn't it? i remember watching the nova special on "how babies are made," some of the footage is breathtaking. that is one reason i am pro~life. it is not just a label i gave myself without thinking it through. i have seen enough pictures to recognize a human being when i see one.

where did you find that picture?


----------



## Potty Diva

Well, the picture is originally from a book that I own! It's called "A Child is Born" and talks about the developement of the fetus, etc....

This particular picture I found on a site after searching google for "When does life begin?"

Don't get all sappy on me..I'm still very much pro-choice.

Though I have gone done the adoption road and know it is not a fun one to travel.


----------



## joesmom

i have been called many thing in my day... sappy is not one of them!









this is one topic where it is pretty certain that no one from either side will change her views. trying to debate it is like









but, it is late, & i must







& get to bed. i am babysitting my two nephews tomorrow so my mom & sister can decorate for my other sister's fetus shower.







& i will need to be VERY well rested, i can tell you that!


----------



## Potty Diva

Quote:

_Originally posted by joesmom_
*

but, it is late, & i must







& get to bed. i am babysitting my two nephews tomorrow so my mom & sister can decorate for my other sister's fetus shower.







& i will need to be VERY well rested, i can tell you that!*
I'm sorry it IS late, but I just have to :LOL :LOL over this..fetus shower :LOL


----------



## lotusdebi

*


----------



## Greaseball

Quote:

I just cannot see any woman having a partial birth abortion unless she absolutely felt that was the best thing.
It's true, she probably feels it's the best thing, but she may have been misinformed. Just like women who have a c/s "for the sake of the baby" because they think they can't give birth to a 9-lb baby. They are misinformed. For each reason given for PBA, there are ways around it that save the mother's life and have a chance at saving the baby too.

Lotusdebi - You probably know more about hospitals than I do. I used to work in one, but that's nothing like being put in one. The kind of experiences you had there are not the kind that help suicidal people find reasons to live, that's for sure. People often kill themselves in those kinds of places. I found that pregnancy improved my mental health, but perhaps that's not so for all people.


----------



## barbara

Quote:

_Originally posted by TiredX2_
*Are you serious? Abortion providers are pro-choice because they want the money?







Uhhhhm, as they are medical doctors, if they are in it for the money, it would be much, much more profitable to push those same people into the major costs associated with prenatal care, labor & delivery (plus all the well baby, etc...). Why would they possibly, unless they believed in a womans right to chooose very strongly, would they choose a very inexpensive disgusting proceedure over such a money maker like OB*
I beg to differ. I think it is very much about money. Abortions are done quickly and the doctors spend no time with the patient outside of performing the abortion. He con go in and do a dozen or more and then off to his regular OB/GYN or other pratice.

With the amount of abortions that are performed in this country each day, don't tell me they are doing it all out of the compassion in their hearts. Somebody is making a lot of money.


----------



## barbara

Quote:

I point to my belly and say "baby," not "embryo."
I think that says it all!


----------



## momto l&a

How many babies have survived late term abortions? Anybody know?
I found a site that has a few stories from those who have survived. http://www.gravityteen.com/pregnancy/kickin.cfm
Read the stories of those who survived, heart breaking and to me most amazing that a human could could survive anything like an abortion.


----------



## MotherNatrsSon

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*It's true, she probably feels it's the best thing, but she may have been misinformed. Just like women who have a c/s "for the sake of the baby" because they think they can't give birth to a 9-lb baby. They are misinformed. For each reason given for PBA, there are ways around it that save the mother's life and have a chance at saving the baby too.*
Well from the information that I have gathered, most of the women that have partil birth abortions performed are women that want the pegnancy to end with a baby in their arms. If I were a woman and wanted a child and my OB told me my child was dead inside me, I think I would seek a seond, maybe even a third opinion about the pregnancy before I went ahead with a partial birth abortion.

I am willing to bet that there are some women that are misinformed as to the likelihood of their baby beig able to be born and live in certain circumstances as well.

Quote:

_Originally posted by joesmom_

*but, it is late, & i must & get to bed. i am babysitting my two nephews tomorrow so my mom & sister can decorate for my other sister's fetus shower. & i will need to be VERY well rested, i can tell you that!*
I am part Lakota and have family on Pine ridge and it is considered very rude and disrespectful to give a pregnant woman a gift for a child while she is pregnant. Maybe that is why "fetus" showers are given to women at such a late point in the pregnancy. Although anything can happen, the liklihood of anything going wrong is greatly diminished after a certain point.

Quote:

_Originally posted by barbera_

*I beg to differ. I think it is very much about money. Abortions are done quickly and the doctors spend no time with the patient outside of performing the abortion. He con go in and do a dozen or more and then off to his regular OB/GYN or other pratice.

With the amount of abortions that are performed in this country each day, don't tell me they are doing it all out of the compassion in their hearts. Somebody is making a lot of money.*
With the insurance that an OB now has to carry being as expensive as it is and the fact that the need forthe abortions is as great as it is, do you blame an OB for making a "few" extra dollars providing a needed service? Here where I live in OhiO, the women's clinic charges for an abortion on a sliding fee scale because the majority of women that have abortions are POOR and cannot afford the cost of having one performed to begin with. I'd say they are not really making much money at all. I have a friend that volunteers there and they are the "oly" place around to get one done and they only do them in the mornings 2 days a week and each is an average of one and a half hours. That isn't very many. Mostend up costing the woman less than $100 because of the fact they are POOR.

MNS


----------



## RidentMama

Well, I've managed to make it to the end of this discussion. It took me a long time, with numerous breaks because I just couldn't take it all in one dose.

I believe in pro-choice: It is your choice to have sex. Should those moments of pleasure result in a pregnancy, you have lost your choice and are now responsible for the innocent life that you carry within your blessed womb. Choosing to abort a *child* at any stage is choosing to commit murder (IMO). So to answer the original question of whether or not PBA should be considered illegal, yes--I firmly believe it should be illegal for all of the reasons that I have read up to my post: c-section the woman at the latest possible time (preferably when she goes into labor) and allow the dead or dying child (because no matter what problems it may have genetically or physically, it is still a child) to pass away wrapped in his/her loving parents' embrace; place the "viable" CHILD up for adoption and screen prospective parents beforehand--from what I understand, babies have a much greater chance at being adopted; and we can all do our part to provide mental and physical support for scared women who believe that their only option is murdering the precious life within them in order to continue living their life to some degree of normalicy.

Children are no longer looked upon as gifts; instead, they are now considered a luxury item ("I'll use it in my spare time" like a car). Look around at the world and tell me that this is not so. How many children do you see in a daycare from the time it opens to the time it closes, just because the parents do not want to take the child home earlier? How many children are abused, molested and neglected? For every story you hear on the news at night about a child who has died from a beating or has been sexually molested by his mother's boyfriend--how many more children is this happening to that we don't hear about?

People no longer want to take the time to raise their child. Sure, we talk about breastfeeding advocacy, about not injecting our children with vaccines with who-knows-what side effects, about gentle discipline and co-sleeping. But how many people actually do this--look around your town and ask yourself that question. Instead, society values STUFF--the cars, the television sets, the game consoles and plastic toys. We're closer to the friends on the television shows than we our to our next door neighbor.

Children take time. They take energy. They steal us from our sleep and demand our constant attention. But they also smile at us to let us know of their love, they turn to us for solice from a nightmare, and my daughter now pats my cheek as I breastfeed her. Every child is a one-time priceless gift. When you're given a priceless gift from a true friend, do you destroy it with an "I can't cope with the responsibility of taking care of this" or are you thankful that your friend trusted you with such a possession?


----------



## 3boys4us

Needless to say that I could not read this whole thread - but being very pro-choice I am thoroughly disgusted with the PBA ban. We have a family member who went through it - not because the fetus was a "luxury item" but because the fetus was suffering such deformaties it probably would not have lived anyway, it was a huge emotional/financial drain on the couple plus they had two other children to take care of.

This is not a walk in procedure. This is a rarely performed procedure that usually occurs when the fetus or the woman is at risk. It is stupid to make anything more out of it.

Quote:

most of the women that have partial birth abortions performed are women that want the pegnancy to end with a baby in their arms.
This is correct.

This is a nation being hijacked by our own religious fundamentalists - our own Taliban.


----------



## liz-hippymom

"Knocked up college students wanting a way out don't have late term abortions. It's very hard to get one."

i stopped reading the thread at this post just to make a point-
how many of you know someone who has had a partialbirth abortion?
i know a girl who was 16 ,got pregnant, and waited and waited and waited...and ended up having an abortion at 6 months. i am not sure, but i believe at that point it is usually a partial birth abortion?
anyway- no matter what this situation sickens me because at that stage that baby is almost viable, why couldnt she have given birth and given the baby to someone who would love it???
now i am pro-choice, but also extreamly pro-child. abortions for birth control reasons are wrong IMHO, but i would never vote to make abortions illegal because sometimes it is nessasary.
i think it is a matter of opinion not for the courts to decide, its for each woman to deal with on her own, because it is her who is effected most.
that being said i still think its wrong, and BTW i am not christian.


----------



## MotherNatrsSon

Quote:

_Originally posted by momto l&a_
*How many babies have survived late term abortions? Anybody know?
I found a site that has a few stories from those who have survived. http://www.gravityteen.com/pregnancy/kickin.cfm
Read the stories of those who survived, heart breaking and to me most amazing that a human could could survive anything like an abortion.*
That is a "nice" sensationalistic type story you linked to. It doen not give any details as to why the woman in question was having an abortion in the first place. Sounds to me like she was having a "late" abortion for birth control purposes to me.

Being sure to put the doctor's name in that article is also kinda weird. Do the people that run that site want some pro-life freak blowing up his office or shooting at him?

Just because there are those that abuse the procedure does not mean that it should be banned for all.

There was also no abortion performed on the child. The only thing I can see the "seaweed like" substance would have done is softened the cervix or possibly allowed dialation to begin. The child died, not because of the abortion, but because it could not survive out of the womb at that early stage of development. It wasn't a "survivor".

Why did she want an abortion done in the first palce?

MNS


----------



## tara

dupe!


----------



## tara

I haven't been around these parts for months and months, but I happened to stop by and see this thread! I've read the whole thing, and here is my .02...

Take a look at this site: http://www.house.gov/judiciary/216.htm It is the testimony before the House of Representatives of Coreen Costello, a Christian, Republican, Pro-life woman who has had a late term abortion. Powerful, moving testimony.

Quote:

My doctor arrived at two in the morning. He held my hand, and informed me that they did not expect our baby to live. She was unable to absorb the amniotic fluid and it was puddling into my uterus. This poor precious child had a lethal neurological disorder and had been unable to move for almost two months. The movements I had been feeling over the last few months had been nothing more than bubbles and fluid. Her chest cavity was unable to rise and fall to stretch her lungs to prepare them for air. It was as if she had no lungs at all. Her vital organs were atrophying. Our darling little girl was going to die.

Quote:

We asked if there was any way that Katherine could be born alive. He looked carefully at the ultrasound, measured her head and explained sadly how large it was, and said that there was no way it could fit through my cervix without draining some of the fluid. He also explained that due to the difficulty of the position she was in, they would have to go inside my womb and for that, I would be put under heavy anesthesia. With her heartbeat as irregular and slow as it was already, he did not think she would survive the anesthesia.

Quote:

This was the safest way for me to deliver. This left open the possibility of more children. It greatly lowered the health risk to me. Most important, it offered a peaceful, painless passing for Katherine Grace.
Please read the entire page, there is a lot more there that anyone who thinks this procedure is never necessary or is always horribly cruel should read. Another page with stories from women who have had late term abortions: http://www.korrnet.org/choicetn/late.term.html There is a story here of a fetus without brain tissue (whose diabetic mother would have difficulty healing from a C-section), a fetus without a stomach... Sad, tragic stories that represent the reality of late term abortion.

These are not viable babies. All this talk about babies who would live if only allowed a c-sec delivery is so much sensationalism. These are babies who will die, some of whom are not truly alive in utero. And c-section will not save these babies, it will provide greater risk to the mother.

I'm not going to claim that late term abortion never happens without clear medical cause, but I believe it is rare. Many states already have laws restricting it. You could probably find a pro-life site that claims the opposite. Guess what? That means that the truth is somewhere in the middle. And for me that just doesn't justify taking the choice away from women like those mentioned.


----------



## candiland

To me, the issue is black and white.
If the mother is going to die, and/or if the baby is severely deformed and will not live, anyway, it is a personal decision that the gov't has no place in.
If the woman is having a PBA simply because she does not want a baby, she needs a mental hospital that can take care of her and give the baby up for adoption after it is born.
There is no difference, in that case, between giving birth to a baby and then killing it or a PBA "medical procedure".
It seems pretty logical to me.


----------



## Tigerchild

Quote:

_Originally posted by liz-hippymom_
*"Knocked up college students wanting a way out don't have late term abortions. It's very hard to get one."

i stopped reading the thread at this post just to make a point-
how many of you know someone who has had a partialbirth abortion?
i know a girl who was 16 ,got pregnant, and waited and waited and waited...and ended up having an abortion at 6 months. i am not sure, but i believe at that point it is usually a partial birth abortion?
*
That's incorrect. It's not 'usually' a PBA at that point. There are a few different options at that point. PBA is a very, very specific TYPE of late-term abortion, used in very specific circumstances.

I believe people are confusing late-term (anything after 16 weeks) abortions with the D&X procedure. There are several kinds of late-term abortion, D&X is one of them. It is not the only one.

As I said in my post, I was pressured to get ready for selective reduction from 16 weeks on. From support groups, I know quite a few people who have had late-term abortions, but only one who had the D&X and that was because she found out her baby had no brain tissue and a HUGE head. That procedure allowed her to hold her baby boy in her arms, instead of never seeing him (in pieces). The nurses were able to put a cap on him (they do that frequently with babies with incomplete skulls, even when their head is not swollen, so that the parents are not shocked by the appearance).

How many times have you been put in the position to consider a late term abortion? How many people do YOU know that have had them, and specifically the D&X?

If it's none, then I suggest you not dismiss my experience and other's pain just because they're inconvenient to your opinion on this matter.


----------



## Potty Diva

I am kind of offended at the flippant nature in which the word adoption is being used. Adoption is not as easy or as pleasant for anyone, INCLUDING the adoptees, as people seem to believe.


----------



## shelley4

Quote:

_Originally posted by Potty Diva_
*Using emotionally charged words doesn't change the scientific fact that embryos are NOT children.*
i think embryos are children.. right from conception, everything was there that made my child who she is... every hair on her head, every laugh, every milky smile... it was all there. so what if she couldn't breathe on her own.. she was still herself.. just smaller.


----------



## liz-hippymom

kitty-
let me just say "EASY KILLA!" back off...sheesh
i wasnt incorrect because i ASKED if it was a PB abortion or not. it wasnt presented as a fact.

"How many times have you been put in the position to consider a late term abortion? How many people do YOU know that have had them, and specifically the D&X?"

ummm well i havent - BUT if i had i wouldnt chose it-,
and i dont know anyone who has had one unless the girl did have one and she might well have, i dont know...i didnt ask "how many people know someone who has had one" to make you get all








i was seriously ASKING not giving a condisending question which is what you are giving back...
there is no reason for you to flame me...go back and read my post again - im not saying ithe bill SHOULD be passed at all. so take a chill pill.


----------



## Greaseball

Quote:

whose diabetic mother would have difficulty healing from a C-section
Lots of mothers have difficulty healing. Major surgery is not supposed to be easy. I'd still choose it if there were any chance at all the baby would live. Lots of diabetics do not have difficulty with childbirth.

If the baby is already dead, it's not really an abortion, is it? If it would live for only a few seconds after birth, I'd grab those few seconds and make the most of them.


----------



## Tigerchild

Liz, you stated that you believed that at 6 months it *would* be a PBA. That's an incorrect assumption.

You asked for people who'd experienced one, or people who knew someone who'd had one. I'm the latter.

My question wasn't meant to be condescending, but it was meant to be sharp. Were you asking the same question condescendingly? Or were you not looking for a response? Now I'm confused.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

Major surgery is not supposed to be easy. I'd still choose it if there were any chance at all the baby would live.
As would most of the parents confronted with this choice. BUT, when your child is missing a brain, there is NO possibility they will live. The mother should not have to go through a "regular" abortion (and have her much longer for child torn limb from limb) or risk death and the inability to have *future* children for an unviable life esp if she does not want to.

Once again, I have to restate: this ban does NOTHING to outlaw late term abortions, it just makes people faced with this delima have *less* choice in an already horrible situation.


----------



## barbara

Quote:

Once again, I have to restate: this ban does NOTHING to outlaw late term abortions,
Maybe not, but it does stop this painful and inhumane way of delivering a baby.

Doesn't anyone care that these babies are being tortured during thier birth, when they could be more gently born and allowed to die with dignity after their birth? Doesn't anyone care that they feel pain? Don't you think the parents have a right to know that this method of birthing thier child will be very painful to their child?

I'm finding the indifference to the pain these children are put through, to be very disturbing. Especially among mothers who normally are so caring and gentle in thier treatment of birth and babies.







:


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

Maybe not, but it does stop this painful and inhumane way of delivering a baby.
I think what a lot of people are missing is that the choices that many of the women are looking at are not:

1) PBA
2) Delivery of child

but

1) PBA
2) Traditional abortion

In what way is a traditional abortion so much *better* that women should be allowed to have them, but not a PBA. In addition, you need a brain to feel pain, correct? So, either way, for many of these children it is a painless proceedure, unfortunately so.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

Don't you think the parents have a right to know that this method of birthing thier child will be very painful to their child?
I have never advocated parental ignorance.

Once again, though, what makes anyone think that it is *more* painful for the child to undergo a PBA than a traditional abortion?


----------



## barbara

a traditional abortion can not be done after about 18 weeks because the skull is formed. Either the skull has to be crushed and sucked out, or the child has to be born. I'm saying that killing the child as it is being born, is not the best way to birth these babies regaurdless of weather they are viable or not. If the skull is big enough to be partial born so that the fluid can be drained, then why can't the child be born and allowed to die with dignity? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I think there are other options, this is just the one of choice because it produces a dead baby and no one has to deal with an imperfect baby that just might live.

As I said before, I know a family who had doctors tell them that their unborn son had no brain and should be aborted, he was born early by cesarian section and is now 2 years old! He isn't "perfect" but he certianly does feel pain and joy and is living a full life.

I also know a family with a similar story and their little girl is just over a year. She is slow, but making progress, and bringing joy to her family.

I'm not sure that a child with an incomplete brain does not feel pain. If there are nerve endings then the ability to feel pain is very possible. In the case of my friend's chidren, the doctors were wrong about how much brain was there, and had the parents listened to the doctors, those babies would have felt pain as they were killed during birth!


----------



## isleta

Thanks Tigerchild and 3boys4us! This thread was getting so judgemental and OT I was going nuts! Thanks for bringing in your experiences to give the parents better representation than that of murderers! It seems that people just don't want to see the parents as people.

Did anyone go to the link about parents who had to make this heartbreaking choice? A hearbreaking choice is the site. I could not believe it(well maybe) when I read the disclaimer about how they recieve negative emails directed at these parents! The site reminds them that these people have already had to make this choice, and that condesending emails would only add pain. Sometimes the length people go to is very scary!


----------



## liz-hippymom

kitty-
i was asking for a response, it was NOT condisending at all. and i got a response, thank you.


----------



## Delilah

If you give the govt. the right to tell you that you can't (have an abortion), you are also giving them the right to tell you when you must, especially if the govt. has a "financial stake" in caring for the baby, whether due to medical disability or poverty. It hasn't happened yet, but it could easily turn into that as people who are tired of "paying for the poverty of others" start deciding fertility issues. It's a slippery slope.


----------



## 3boys4us

Delilah - IMO when you give the govt. the right to make decisions for you and yours, you give away rights - period.

What worries me is the sanctamonious, condescending, tone that many of the posters take in regards to abortion - if you don't like D&X then don't have one - it is a choice that hopefully two persons will make together without the interference of others. It is someone else's decision - not yours.


----------



## barbara

Quote:

_Originally posted by 3boys4us_
*What worries me is the sanctamonious, condescending, tone that many of the posters take in regards to abortion - if you don't like D&X then don't have one - it is a choice that hopefully two persons will make together without the interference of others. It is someone else's decision - not yours.*
I guess with this attitued you would have to say that it was fine for a mother and doctor to stab a 6 month old baby in the back of the head because she has cancer (or other fatal disease) and won't live long anyway. It would be a hardship on the parents to have to endure the mental anguish, physical endurance and financial responsibility required to care for her in the next few months before she dies anyway. I guess we should not have laws prohibiting this type of thing because it is not the government or society's decision if this child should be treated humanely.

This logic alludes me.







:

Protecting children from child abuse is not taking away women's rights!


----------



## seren

I just found this thread and don't really have the time to read all 8 pages, but I do have a question I would like to ask. I will probably be blasted for this, but here goes. As I was reading the first page I saw a lot of people saying that it's the mother's right to chose what to do with her body. Someone then replied something to the affect that they had never seen a child asked to be aborted. That comment kinda made a lightbulb go off for me. Isn't that the same arguement some have used to circumcision? That it's harming the baby and none of them have ever asked for it. Before I thought of this my intent was to comment on how I, personally can not see how people with children they love and adore can be for abortion at any stage, but most especially late term abortion. But that's just me. Now, my question is, how can people who are so against cicumcision be for abortion. Isn't it both harming a child? Of course, I did have my son circ and had never heard otherwise. I have been looking into it for future children and think my own thoughts here have pretty much decided it for me. I did not mean to be arguementative, just honestly wondering. Thanks.


----------



## Potty Diva

Again, a 6 month old fetus is not a 6 month old child. If it were your child would be 9 months old or so, at birth.


----------



## barbara

Quote:

_Originally posted by Potty Diva_
*Again, a 6 month old fetus is not a 6 month old child. If it were your child would be 9 months old or so, at birth.*
Yes and that is my point both would be killing a human child. If a country does not permit killing a child after it is born, than how can it condone killing one as it is being born?


----------



## TiredX2

It is really frustrating to read the replys that make it *clear* they have not read any/all of the links! I really don't think we are considering people getting their chuckles off causing their unborn child pain--- these are people faced with HORRIBLE choices, who generally very much want a child, etc... Until you are ready to care for every child born basically brain dead, I don't think it is fair to blast these parents who decide that they *need* this proceedure.


----------



## Greaseball

Yet another thing I don't understand - if a baby has no brain, wouldn't it have no heartbeat and no movement as well? If there were no heartbeat late in the 1st trimester, a mother probably would have an ultrasound and would then be told there was no brain. She could then decide whether to continue with the pregnancy or have a 1st tri abortion. Why on earth would she have to carry the baby to the 3rd tri and then abort it?

It probably doesn't make sense that I can support one form of abortion and not another, but I just don't make good sense.

When people ask me how old my dd is, for practical purposes I will tell them she is 22 mos but I will always think of her as 31 mos.


----------



## tara

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_ *Yet another thing I don't understand - if a baby has no brain, wouldn't it have no heartbeat and no movement as well? If there were no heartbeat late in the 1st trimester, a mother probably would have an ultrasound and would then be told there was no brain. She could then decide whether to continue with the pregnancy or have a 1st tri abortion. Why on earth would she have to carry the baby to the 3rd tri and then abort it?
*
Did you read my post and the full story at the link provided? Here is the quote again:

Quote:

She was unable to absorb the amniotic fluid and it was puddling into my uterus. This poor precious child had a lethal neurological disorder and had been unable to move for almost two months. The movements I had been feeling over the last few months had been nothing more than bubbles and fluid. Her chest cavity was unable to rise and fall to stretch her lungs to prepare them for air. It was as if she had no lungs at all. Her vital organs were atrophying. Our darling little girl was going to die.
These women aren't lying and they aren't stupid, they have had to make excrutiating decisions under circumstances you can't fathom.

Quote:

Lots of mothers have difficulty healing. Major surgery is not supposed to be easy. I'd still choose it if there were any chance at all the baby would live. Lots of diabetics do not have difficulty with childbirth.
But, dear Greaseball, you don't get to make that choice for anyone else. Not yet, and hopefully never. This particular diabetic stated that her doctor feared her ability to heal from a cesarean. Don't you think her doctor is a better judge than you?


----------



## tara

and barbara... Your posts are so heartfelt... I know you feel strongly about this. But, I feel like you aren't really listening to the other side. What about the baby with severe hydrocephalus whose head has swollen to 20 cm in diameter? That baby will die and cannot be delivered vaginally without killing its mother, too. A c-section would result in a much larger incision than average, multiplying the risks of surgery and quite possibly injuring that mother's future fertility. None of us is saying that intact D&X is a really great procedure and should be everyone's first choice. None of us is saying that the babies don't matter. We are saying that there are circumstances that might warrant it. You seem unwilling to see this...

And, like I mentioned earlier, many states already have bans on late term abortion for all but serious medical reasons.

I'm not going to say that these babies don't feel pain. I have no idea. I would wholeheartedly support the use of some kind of anaesthetic that would make certain the baby can't feel pain. But... since we're on the topic, perhaps a swift death from a needle in the head (and, most sites I have read state aspiration of the fluids in the cranium is done with a syringe, not plunging scissors...) is more humane than minutes gasping for breath?


----------



## Greaseball

Quote:

This particular diabetic stated that her doctor feared her ability to heal from a cesarean. Don't you think her doctor is a better judge than you?
Time has shown that I am smarter than nearly every doctor I have had the pleasure of dealing with. The doctor who predicted my sister's death (and then brain damage) was wrong. Smart mother decided not to have an abortion just because of what stupid doctor said.

No, it's not my choice. All I can do is choose not to have one myself. I don't think I'd want it to be my choice - too much responsibility! But I still don't understand, and still will question.


----------



## 3boys4us

Quote:

I guess with this attitued you would have to say that it was fine for a mother and doctor to stab a 6 month old baby in the back of the head because she has cancer (or other fatal disease) and won't live long anyway. It would be a hardship on the parents to have to endure the mental anguish, physical endurance and financial responsibility required to care for her in the next few months before she dies anyway. I guess we should not have laws prohibiting this type of thing because it is not the government or society's decision if this child should be treated humanely.
What is it that eludes you? It is not a baby (nor is YOURS) it is a fetus. It is dependent on the body that it inhabits.

Like it or not what people do with their bodies can be truly hideous or can it be life saving and that is their choice. It is also the choice of a woman (and hopefully a man) that decides to have a D&X.

We have no way of knowing what her life situation is, what anguish or emotion she went through to come to this deicsion. So who are you to judge? Are you (not you personally but the objective) better then a person (or a couple) that came to this decision?

Like I said before - we are related to a couple that had one. It wasn't easy. I only knew about it afterward and they were afraid to tell anyone since they didn't want to be judged. Am I better person since I have never had a D&X? Can I relate? All I can do is offer my condolences and hope that they can make peace with their decision. (Actually it happened quite a while ago).

Who are we to judge anyone for their decisions? This is not a baby laying on the ground but a fetus confined within someone else's body. IMO I know I have no right to tell anyone on this thread what to do with their body and I sincerely beleive that no one on this thread has the right to tell me what to do with mine.

So yes I beleive that when we criticize someone else for their choice with what to do with THEIR body - it is sanctamonious and condenscending.


----------



## Greaseball

Here's another thing I don't understand - sometimes, when women are offered the choice of having the fetus anesthetized for a 2nd tri abortion, they refuse! I just don't get it. Are they just trying to convinve themselves the fetus will feel nothing? Or would painkillers for the fetus somehow hurt the woman?


----------



## barbara

I guess it just comes down to the fact that some people don't want to think of an aborted baby as a human. I guess this makes it easier to make that choice, and I do understand that, I've been there. I just wish we lived in a more humane society.


----------



## Tigerchild

Quote:

_Originally posted by barbara_
*I guess it just comes down to the fact that some people don't want to think of an aborted baby as a human. I guess this makes it easier to make that choice, and I do understand that, I've been there. I just wish we lived in a more humane society.







*
You mean one where people wouldn't assume the worst of parents who have had to make such a horrible choice?

What makes you so sure that the women who have late-term abortions don't think their babies were human? Did you even look at the website that was posted earlier, the support site? Do those people strike you as folks who considered their babies subhuman?

If you've really been there, you know DAMN well that NOTHING makes it an easier choice one way or the other! How can you possibly say that?!?! That iis absolutely heartless.

In my situation, I chose "winner takes all" (in that if Dylan died like they thought he was going to, I'd lose Tom too, rather than do selective reduction). But I'm telling you, I am in NO WAY a better or more strong person than someone who made a different choice. Perhaps I was a coward in a way, because I didn't rush in to save the sure thing. It very easily could have not turned out as well as it did, and for a long time I was in the very real position of choosing the inevitable death of one or both of my sons. If Dylan had died and caused Tom's death, it would have been my fault. If I chose to selectively reduce, Dylan's death would have been my fault. I know very well what it is like to feel like you're f*cked either way.

So...I guess I have more empathy and compassion than most for folks who are facing total personal devastation on one side and the wrath of Pro-Life zealots on the other.


----------



## barbara

Kitty, I'm sorry for your pain and those of the women that have made this choice. I do not blame the parents that are given such limited choices to make, I blame the medical community that is not making humane choices available. Just as I do in the cases of vaxs, circs, and unnecessary c-secs.

There are many people that do not believe that and unborn fetus is human, and therefore do not think that aborting a baby is killing a human. I do not understand this logic, and this is what I was refering to.

I do grieve for your pain and that of all mothers who lose a baby either by miscarrage, stillbirth, or abortion. I'm sorry for my insensitivity.


----------



## tara

I believe fetuses are human. I believe they have the potential to be children. I just believe that women deserve the sovreignty to make decisions regarding their bodies, and don't believe that potential children have more value than women.

But, that really isn't the issue on this thread. Barbara, did you read the link I posted? Did you read this woman's story? I don't think you did, because you would know that she very much felt that she was losing a child. A much wanted child. That would have died either way, and she made an agonizing decision to abort. A procedure that she feels was more gentle and peaceful than a birth would have been. She is still pro-life, Christian, Republican... Would you please read her whole story? Read about how the medical professionals treated her and her child and tell me that it wasn't humane.


----------



## TiredX2

I honestly don't know how anyone could read that heartbreaking story & still feel that this proceedure should be illegal. To say that that woman *has* to risk not only her ability to have future children, but her very life as to not have an abortion...


----------



## Greaseball

Has there ever been a case of a baby shooting out so fast that the doctor could not perform the D&X? If so, what happened?


----------



## oatmeal

Quote:

_Originally posted by tara_
*I just believe that women deserve the sovreignty to make decisions regarding their bodies, and don't believe that potential children have more value than women.
*
It's interesting to see people whose beliefs make them feel totally invincible in changing another person's beliefs just as dearly held.

To this statement I have quoted I respond becasue it the core of my belief that every fetus has right to life and is a human being.

You say a woman has the sovreignty to make decisions regarding her body. Well killing a baby is not making a decision over her body - it is making a decision over someone else's who has no voice to speak for him or herself.

I see it as paramount to murdering a child who is alive outside of the womb. A little tissue and a little fluid spearating him or her from the air we breathe does not make them some disposable "Object".

Partial birth abortion is barbaric and very evil in my opinion. Yes I have read all your links.


----------



## MotherNatrsSon

Quote:

_Originally posted by oatmeal_
*

To this statement I have quoted I respond becasue it the core of my belief that every fetus has right to life and is a human being.

You say a woman has the sovreignty to make decisions regarding her body. Well killing a baby is not making a decision over her body - it is making a decision over someone else's who has no voice to speak for him or herself.

I see it as paramount to murdering a child who is alive outside of the womb. A little tissue and a little fluid spearating him or her from the air we breathe does not make them some disposable "Object".

Partial birth abortion is barbaric and very evil in my opinion. Yes I have read all your links.*
I guess this is another vote for "no rights for women as soon as the become pregnant".

The difference between a fetus and a child is that the child can survive outside of the mother. Up to a certain point in the process that is not even a possibility and for awhile longer only by playing god and a few million dollars in machinery and resources iis it possible.

With that attitude, women become nothing more than breeding stock....

MNS


----------



## oatmeal

Quote:

_Originally posted by MotherNatrsSon_
*I guess this is another vote for "no rights for women as soon as the become pregnant".

The difference between a fetus and a child is that the child can survive outside of the mother. Up to a certain point in the process that is not even a possibility and for awhile longer only by playing god and a few million dollars in machinery and resources iis it possible.

With that attitude, women become nothing more than breeding stock....

MNS*
Once gain a statement I find as a gross over simplification of an issue with many facets.

In about 95% of the cases no - it means a woman becoming responsible for her actions and her own reproductive responsibility.

In about 2% of the cases it 's about a woman dealing with the falability of her contraception device - and also her reproductive responsibility

In 1% of the cases it is a woman being vicitimzed by a violent man who has fallen through the cracks of society - and it is a criminal problem for which the fetus is not responsible - nor should he or she have to pay the price if his or her life with.

In the remainder of the cases it is a stew of the different aspects various people have cited on here as a right to kill a baby.

We right to lifers get chastised for having righteous indignation... well I find that pro-choice people - with this "breeding stock" and women's rights first and always" shpiel are no less guilty of self-righteousness... it's just another side of the coin.


----------



## cynthia mosher

A very difficult subject. Not one that can be discussed with ease and at some point we must step back and agree to disagree.

Overall respectful discussion has dominated the thread but some posts have stepped toward tension that could result in us closing it to posting. This is one of those topics that we will move very quickly to close if we see things starting to get out of hand. Abortion discussion is very emotional and painful for so many in our community and debate often creates even more pain and hurt. Let's keep this thread as calm and compassionate as possible. If you can't do that then please step back and let others try to do so.


----------



## spero

Quote:

_Originally posted by oatmeal_
*We right to lifers get chastised for having righteous indignation... well I find that pro-choice people - with this "breeding stock" and women's rights first and always" shpiel are no less guilty of self-righteousness... it's just another side of the coin.*
I was going to end my participation in this debate, but I just have to jump back in and applaud this statement.

Very well said, oatmeal.

I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind...but nobody is going to change mine, either. I'll agree to disagree on the subject.


----------



## 3boys4us

Quote:

We right to lifers get chastised for having righteous indignation... well I find that pro-choice people - with this "breeding stock" and women's rights first and always" shpiel are no less guilty of self-righteousness... it's just another side of the coin.
I wouldn't call it "righteous". In fact no one that I could see said anything about women's rights - (I am not sure why you brought it up). We did talk about a person's right to oversee their own body.

What I see is a choice vs. a personal notion about life. If one feels that life begins whenever -great. If one decides to have an abortion for whatever - great. It doesn't affect you - it affects the people who are involved.

IMO pro-lifers involve themselves in someone's decision due to their (pro-life) beliefs. But what about afterwards? What about prior?

If this is how you feel great - but don't expect your beliefs to be universal. That this tends to be a white, Christian movement is something. It is a Taliban-like - what's next deciding that women shouldn't work because their place is home with the kids? Shall we enforce a rule on that as well?

There probably is a whole subcontext about race, class and social responsibility.


----------



## Greaseball

Quote:

I guess this is another vote for "no rights for women as soon as the become pregnant".
Well, this may sound terribly backward, but I believe certain pregnant women should give up some "rights." Since when is it a right to drink and smoke when you are pregnant? Why is it ok to go on a starvation diet? (Yes, some women - and doctors - still think it's the way to go.)

Some right-to-lifers see nothing wrong with these behaviors, because after all, "can't have a woman getting too fat, and she can drink if she wants to, she's an adult!"

I did lose some rights when I became pg. In some matters, the unborn really is more important.


----------

