Full Version: Partial Birth Abortions
The president has asked the Supreme Court to review a case dealing with partial birth abortions, so in light of that bit of news I thought this debate was warranted.
Questions for Debate:
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
4.) Are partial birth abortion bans unconstitutional*?
Useful links:
Fox News Story
Current Abortion Laws
General Information
* Text from here:
Questions for Debate:
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
4.) Are partial birth abortion bans unconstitutional*?
Useful links:
Fox News Story
Current Abortion Laws
General Information
* Text from here:
QUOTE
The "Partial Birth" Abortion Ban is Unconstitutional on Two Grounds: Lack of Health Exception and Too Broad:
When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's so-called "partial-birth abortion" ban it did so in part because the ban failed to include a health exception. The Court has long held that laws restricting abortion access must contain an exception to protect women's health.
In addition, the Court found that far from targeting one procedure, the law banned the most common and safest methods of abortion.
The new ban suffers from the same fatal flaws and is therefore unconstitutional.
When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's so-called "partial-birth abortion" ban it did so in part because the ban failed to include a health exception. The Court has long held that laws restricting abortion access must contain an exception to protect women's health.
In addition, the Court found that far from targeting one procedure, the law banned the most common and safest methods of abortion.
The new ban suffers from the same fatal flaws and is therefore unconstitutional.
QUOTE
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
I have absolutely no idea...I would assume so, considering the fact that at the time of their demise, they are a living breathing mini-human...But that's just assuming. So, I don't know.QUOTE
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
They should be outlawed on the grounds that ending the life of a living, breathing human being is no better than murder...Sorry if that seems overly dramatic, but again, it's a living, BREATHING, person.QUOTE
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
No, the choice ends when the child is born, by definition, partial-birth means the right to choose argument is null and void.QUOTE
4.) Are partial birth abortions unconstitutional*?
I assume you mean "are partial birth abortion bans unconstitutional. If that's the case then absolutely not. The text that you quoted from the website made absolutely no sense. It said that they were unConstitutional because they're "too broad" and don't consider the mother's health...Neither of those reasons have ANYTHING to do with the Constitution...Which Amendment said, "You can't be, you know, too broad...and stuff"? Of course it's not unConstitutional.
CP
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Sep 27 2005, 02:32 PM)
Questions for Debate:
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
4.) Are partial birth abortions unconstitutional*?
Warning: The website posted has extremely explicit pictures.
QUOTE
A pliers-like instrument is used because the baby’s bones are calcified, as is the skull. There is no anesthetic for the baby. The abortionist inserts the instrument up into the uterus, seizes a leg or other part of the body, and, with a twisting motion, tears it from the baby’s body. This is repeated again and again. The spine must be snapped, and the skull crushed to remove them. The nurse’s job is to reassemble the body parts to be sure that all are removed.
SourceDandy.
1. How can one know? This is the same question of how long does a severed head live. I assume yes.
2. I think all abortions should be outlawed, unless an unusual situation, like a pregnancy from a rape. Abortions disrespect humans. If you had sex with someone, and you didn't use birth control, then it is your fault, and you shouldn't have inconvenienced yourself. And killing a fetus like that ^ certainly doesn't help a pro-abortion standpoint.
3. Sure, I suppose someone can choose to kill someone. That doesn't mean that is legal or moral. Abortions aren't between the baby and the mother, like is often said, it is only about the baby. Who's life did you change by making a bad decision? Yours. Now how many people's lives are you changing when you abort? The baby's. Why does anyone have a right to kill someone?
4. Most debate is based on the definitions. We have to define "killing" and "life". Killing is basically stopping something's life. Is a fetus living? Yes. It is an organism that has organs, that grows, that dies. If it wasn't living, then why did you need an abortion? That's my question to those who say you aren't killing something that's living by abortion. So if this ban is unconstitutional, then laws against murder are unconstitutional as well.
EDIT: Not much activity today... This post has ridden the front page for 8 hours.
I have only one thing to say about this, but I believe it is the most common reason for what is called the partial birth abortion. I desire to educate. If anyone blows past this education in order to make flagrant politics, that is their own matter.
When a woman becomes pregnant there are many considerations. Complicated when a woman is older. There is the possibility of several defects, Spina bifida or Down's Syndrome. The tests for these defects cannot be determined within the 3 month known abortion limit, they often go beyond the trimester. Many tests are completely non-conclusive until the fetus reaches viability, which means it 'could' survive but with difficulty outside the womb. Its the most stress a woman will ever go through.
A woman may find that her child has birth defects in the 4th, 5th or 6th month. This is the ONLY reason to abort after the first trimester. NOONE is doing this for lack of wanting to be a mother or for birth control. The ONLY REASON anyone aborts after the first trimester is that the woman has found out that she is carrying a child with birth defects. The ONLY REASON a doctor will abort after the first trimester is that the child has known birth defects, all tests have shown positive or very likely.
A late term abortion is not desired by any person.
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
This is not known at this time.
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
The partial birth abortion, as it is called, is a gruesome thing in my mind , even as a liberal and open minded woman. However I am unwilling to make judgement on it at this time.
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
Here is truth. Women will always decide. If we have to take our unwanted babies to a river and drown them, if we tear them out of our womb with coat hangers, throw them in dumpsters, take herbs to kill them, or do it safely by a doctor, women have the internal capability and nature to know what is and to kill that which is not wanted. It may seem barbaric to the male, however the male has the 'other' nature; to send or expose his children to war, to be killed or sacrifice by a belief which is largely political and useless to women as history has taught. A thing most women cant understand. Really, the problem that men have with abortion is not the loss of a fetus but the loss of a possible male child, ego, one which may later go to war and be killed in some fake honorable cause. Then there is of course the edgy uncomfortable feeling that women really dont have to do what you say, do they?
4.) Are partial birth abortions unconstitutional*?
You must first put forth an arguement by which it would be so.
When a woman becomes pregnant there are many considerations. Complicated when a woman is older. There is the possibility of several defects, Spina bifida or Down's Syndrome. The tests for these defects cannot be determined within the 3 month known abortion limit, they often go beyond the trimester. Many tests are completely non-conclusive until the fetus reaches viability, which means it 'could' survive but with difficulty outside the womb. Its the most stress a woman will ever go through.
A woman may find that her child has birth defects in the 4th, 5th or 6th month. This is the ONLY reason to abort after the first trimester. NOONE is doing this for lack of wanting to be a mother or for birth control. The ONLY REASON anyone aborts after the first trimester is that the woman has found out that she is carrying a child with birth defects. The ONLY REASON a doctor will abort after the first trimester is that the child has known birth defects, all tests have shown positive or very likely.
A late term abortion is not desired by any person.
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
This is not known at this time.
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
The partial birth abortion, as it is called, is a gruesome thing in my mind , even as a liberal and open minded woman. However I am unwilling to make judgement on it at this time.
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
Here is truth. Women will always decide. If we have to take our unwanted babies to a river and drown them, if we tear them out of our womb with coat hangers, throw them in dumpsters, take herbs to kill them, or do it safely by a doctor, women have the internal capability and nature to know what is and to kill that which is not wanted. It may seem barbaric to the male, however the male has the 'other' nature; to send or expose his children to war, to be killed or sacrifice by a belief which is largely political and useless to women as history has taught. A thing most women cant understand. Really, the problem that men have with abortion is not the loss of a fetus but the loss of a possible male child, ego, one which may later go to war and be killed in some fake honorable cause. Then there is of course the edgy uncomfortable feeling that women really dont have to do what you say, do they?
4.) Are partial birth abortions unconstitutional*?
You must first put forth an arguement by which it would be so.
I must agree with Artemis here. Late term abortions aren't done for convenience; they are done to spare everyone the heartbreak of giving birth to a severely retarded or deformed child that will most likely not live that long even if carried to term. I am nowhere close to calling myself pro-choice, but in cases like these, I believe the decision should be between a woman, her doctor, and her husband or partner.
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
This topic is so political that both sides claim to have "proof" with conflicting scientific studies about pain during abortions. It would seem that even science is not immune to politics. Either that or science just doesn't know the answer. I'm inclined to think that there is pain, especially since newborn boys often cry during routine circumcisions.
Let me just state my opinion that the woman has the right to choose to have sex. But the ability to have an abortion should be extremely limited to circumstances of either rape or health. Even in these circumstances the decision should be made with great care and great information. Remember that adoption is a viable alternative.
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
Outlawed. And a majority of Americans support me on this one.
Do you realize how heartless this sounds? People with conditions such as Down Syndrome aren't worth giving birth to? Do you know anybody more loving than someone with Down's? Believe it or not, there are parents out there who are so eager to adopt that they are even willing to adopt children who are physically challenged. I once heard a woman say that she contemplated abortion when she found out her child had Downs and had a change of heart once she realized that there were people out there willing to adopt and love children with this condition.
This topic is so political that both sides claim to have "proof" with conflicting scientific studies about pain during abortions. It would seem that even science is not immune to politics. Either that or science just doesn't know the answer. I'm inclined to think that there is pain, especially since newborn boys often cry during routine circumcisions.
Let me just state my opinion that the woman has the right to choose to have sex. But the ability to have an abortion should be extremely limited to circumstances of either rape or health. Even in these circumstances the decision should be made with great care and great information. Remember that adoption is a viable alternative.
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
Outlawed. And a majority of Americans support me on this one.
QUOTE(Artemise)
When a woman becomes pregnant there are many considerations. Complicated when a woman is older. There is the possibility of several defects, Spina bifida or Down's Syndrome.
Do you realize how heartless this sounds? People with conditions such as Down Syndrome aren't worth giving birth to? Do you know anybody more loving than someone with Down's? Believe it or not, there are parents out there who are so eager to adopt that they are even willing to adopt children who are physically challenged. I once heard a woman say that she contemplated abortion when she found out her child had Downs and had a change of heart once she realized that there were people out there willing to adopt and love children with this condition.
QUOTE(Artemise @ Sep 28 2005, 08:45 AM)
When a woman becomes pregnant there are many considerations. Complicated when a woman is older. There is the possibility of several defects, Spina bifida or Down's Syndrome. The tests for these defects cannot be determined within the 3 month known abortion limit, they often go beyond the trimester. Many tests are completely non-conclusive until the fetus reaches viability, which means it 'could' survive but with difficulty outside the womb. Its the most stress a woman will ever go through.
A woman may find that her child has birth defects in the 4th, 5th or 6th month. This is the ONLY reason to abort after the first trimester. NOONE is doing this for lack of wanting to be a mother or for birth control. The ONLY REASON anyone aborts after the first trimester is that the woman has found out that she is carrying a child with birth defects. The ONLY REASON a doctor will abort after the first trimester is that the child has known birth defects, all tests have shown positive or very likely.
A late term abortion is not desired by any person.
A woman may find that her child has birth defects in the 4th, 5th or 6th month. This is the ONLY reason to abort after the first trimester. NOONE is doing this for lack of wanting to be a mother or for birth control. The ONLY REASON anyone aborts after the first trimester is that the woman has found out that she is carrying a child with birth defects. The ONLY REASON a doctor will abort after the first trimester is that the child has known birth defects, all tests have shown positive or very likely.
A late term abortion is not desired by any person.
Its Easy to say all of this with no source for the information.
Without proof of these "FACTS", its just political Spin as far as I'm concerned.
Any one can make something up to sway opinions in their direction. I'm not calling you a liar, only a victim. some one willing to believe this Kind of RUBISH. Before you decide on issues as complex as this you'd better make very sure those statements are correct and not some Politicians Spin.
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
Does it matter? Death of this sort is very quick anyway
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
In my opinion, they should be outlawed. Why? Because I feel like believing that a partially born child is alive, and because this is abstract (a.k.a not clearly defined) morality, and thus, personal inclinations are the main driving factor behind an opinion.
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
Pro-choice arguments generally run upon the simplistic slogan, that "a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her own body". That argument can only work however, if you do indeed consider an unborn/partially born child to be part of a womans body. If its actually a separate human being, then that argument crumbles. Personally, I believe it becomes a separate human being, when labor initiates.
4.) Are partial birth abortion bans unconstitutional*?
If I murder someone in my house, that doesn't mean privacy laws allow me to get legal immunity. Similarly, if I murder someone inside my body (or as the constitution calls it "persons"), that shouldn't mean that I should get legal immunity.
How exactly did we get into all of this...
Seeing as Bush has passed a law baning abortions during the second 2 trimesters, shouldn't partial birth abortions be illegal right off the bat anyway?
Does it matter? Death of this sort is very quick anyway
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
In my opinion, they should be outlawed. Why? Because I feel like believing that a partially born child is alive, and because this is abstract (a.k.a not clearly defined) morality, and thus, personal inclinations are the main driving factor behind an opinion.
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
Pro-choice arguments generally run upon the simplistic slogan, that "a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her own body". That argument can only work however, if you do indeed consider an unborn/partially born child to be part of a womans body. If its actually a separate human being, then that argument crumbles. Personally, I believe it becomes a separate human being, when labor initiates.
4.) Are partial birth abortion bans unconstitutional*?
If I murder someone in my house, that doesn't mean privacy laws allow me to get legal immunity. Similarly, if I murder someone inside my body (or as the constitution calls it "persons"), that shouldn't mean that I should get legal immunity.
How exactly did we get into all of this...
Seeing as Bush has passed a law baning abortions during the second 2 trimesters, shouldn't partial birth abortions be illegal right off the bat anyway?
I'm just going to paste some stuff from a post I made a long time ago on partial birth abortions.
Partial birth abortion is NOT used as a means of birth control. Some teenager isn't going to get pregnant and then wait until she's seven months along to say, "I changed my mind, I want an abortion." That's not how it works. Partial birth abortion is usually only used in extreme cases where the mother is in danger of dying or having severe health complications from the baby.
The so-called 'partial birth abortion' is depicted as a huge inhumane action, but basically anti-choice people want to give the impression that abortion doctors do this in a gruesome way for fun. Guess what, folks. No woman really wants to have an abortion. She's not going to say, "How 'bout I get pregnant on purpose, wait until I'm about to pop it out, and kill it." Yes, the procedure is sad. But this is the safest way they know how. When a fetus is that far along, the skull has to be collapsed to fit through the woman. If they had a better way, they would do it. But they don't. It's the safest way they know how. Other procedures, like cutting the fetus into pieces and removing the pieces one by one IMO is much more gruesome. That would be much more painful (if they could even feel it) plus the limbs could scratch the inside of the woman on the way out.
Back when I made this post, late-term abortions were banned in forty states and D.C. anyway. The topic of the post was around the time when Bush was signing a bill to ban ALL late-term abortions EXCEPT in case of a woman's life. Not health, life.
Partial birth abortion is NOT used as a means of birth control. Some teenager isn't going to get pregnant and then wait until she's seven months along to say, "I changed my mind, I want an abortion." That's not how it works. Partial birth abortion is usually only used in extreme cases where the mother is in danger of dying or having severe health complications from the baby.
The so-called 'partial birth abortion' is depicted as a huge inhumane action, but basically anti-choice people want to give the impression that abortion doctors do this in a gruesome way for fun. Guess what, folks. No woman really wants to have an abortion. She's not going to say, "How 'bout I get pregnant on purpose, wait until I'm about to pop it out, and kill it." Yes, the procedure is sad. But this is the safest way they know how. When a fetus is that far along, the skull has to be collapsed to fit through the woman. If they had a better way, they would do it. But they don't. It's the safest way they know how. Other procedures, like cutting the fetus into pieces and removing the pieces one by one IMO is much more gruesome. That would be much more painful (if they could even feel it) plus the limbs could scratch the inside of the woman on the way out.
Back when I made this post, late-term abortions were banned in forty states and D.C. anyway. The topic of the post was around the time when Bush was signing a bill to ban ALL late-term abortions EXCEPT in case of a woman's life. Not health, life.
QUOTE(Amendment69 @ Sep 30 2005, 05:29 PM)
Its Easy to say all of this with no source for the information.
Without proof of these "FACTS", its just political Spin as far as I'm concerned.
Any one can make something up to sway opinions in their direction. I'm not calling you a liar, only a victim. some one willing to believe this Kind of RUBISH. Before you decide on issues as complex as this you'd better make very sure those statements are correct and not some Politicians Spin.
Without proof of these "FACTS", its just political Spin as far as I'm concerned.
Any one can make something up to sway opinions in their direction. I'm not calling you a liar, only a victim. some one willing to believe this Kind of RUBISH. Before you decide on issues as complex as this you'd better make very sure those statements are correct and not some Politicians Spin.
I don't know what to think about this comment. Of course it is always good to have sources backing up a claim or opinion, but I do not think you can call Artemise's opinion rubbish (I happen to agree with her). As a matter of fact I think her arguments are way better than what you have stated so far. What is your opinion anyway?
Here we go again.
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
Probably not any more that the pain of birth. A baby gets born through an itty bitty channel that squeezes the head terribly, dislocates joints, and generally acts as a hello-world bear hug. Yet nobody remembers their birth pains. I suspect there's a mechanism that keeps the sensation of pain down for the baby, but it's a guess based on how the human brain acts during adult trauma.
What does it do? The brain blacks out. It makes the decision that you really don't want to see this or feel it. I've had this from two experiences with motorcycle crashes.
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
Old argument. It's a rare procedure done by ethical doctors for the benefit of the mother and the family. The government should keep its nose out of this sensitive, private matter. A mother has agreed to kill her child. Bud out, there's nothing to see here, move on. Adjust your own feelings of guilt or whatever, but stay out of other people's lives. Tain't your dirty dang bidness, nor is it entertainment to gratify your own desires.
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
Yep, read history. Whole societies killed living children if too many were born. In our more civilized society, we let the kids kill each other in various settings: urban gang war, school shootings, highway mayhem, and of course the ever-present thinning of the young adults through wars overseas.
4.) Are partial birth abortion bans unconstitutional*?
How about this: Are partial birth abortion procedures unconstitutional? Apparently not, so any law banning a constitutional medical procedure is, by nature, unconstitutional. It's a law that takes away a constitutional right.
I am sorry that some people find abortion to be so horrible that they want to take away the rights of adult citizens. Listen: Lots in this life is horrible. Grow up. Get over it. You aren't going to legislate away abortions. Not until every pregnancy is wanted, and not until every pregnancy is healthy. We've got a long ways to go before that becomes a reality.
Meanwhile, mind your own bidness. Nobody's having fun getting, giving, or being around abortions. They suck. So does war. We have more work to do to make this life civil, a whole lot more.
I'll make a prediction: Abortions will become obsolete about the same time war becomes obsolete, poverty becomes obsolete, and surgery becomes obsolete.
Beam me up Scotty! Scotty? Oh darn. Hey Bones! Get over here.
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
Probably not any more that the pain of birth. A baby gets born through an itty bitty channel that squeezes the head terribly, dislocates joints, and generally acts as a hello-world bear hug. Yet nobody remembers their birth pains. I suspect there's a mechanism that keeps the sensation of pain down for the baby, but it's a guess based on how the human brain acts during adult trauma.
What does it do? The brain blacks out. It makes the decision that you really don't want to see this or feel it. I've had this from two experiences with motorcycle crashes.
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
Old argument. It's a rare procedure done by ethical doctors for the benefit of the mother and the family. The government should keep its nose out of this sensitive, private matter. A mother has agreed to kill her child. Bud out, there's nothing to see here, move on. Adjust your own feelings of guilt or whatever, but stay out of other people's lives. Tain't your dirty dang bidness, nor is it entertainment to gratify your own desires.
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
Yep, read history. Whole societies killed living children if too many were born. In our more civilized society, we let the kids kill each other in various settings: urban gang war, school shootings, highway mayhem, and of course the ever-present thinning of the young adults through wars overseas.
4.) Are partial birth abortion bans unconstitutional*?
How about this: Are partial birth abortion procedures unconstitutional? Apparently not, so any law banning a constitutional medical procedure is, by nature, unconstitutional. It's a law that takes away a constitutional right.
I am sorry that some people find abortion to be so horrible that they want to take away the rights of adult citizens. Listen: Lots in this life is horrible. Grow up. Get over it. You aren't going to legislate away abortions. Not until every pregnancy is wanted, and not until every pregnancy is healthy. We've got a long ways to go before that becomes a reality.
Meanwhile, mind your own bidness. Nobody's having fun getting, giving, or being around abortions. They suck. So does war. We have more work to do to make this life civil, a whole lot more.
I'll make a prediction: Abortions will become obsolete about the same time war becomes obsolete, poverty becomes obsolete, and surgery becomes obsolete.
Beam me up Scotty! Scotty? Oh darn. Hey Bones! Get over here.
QUOTE
Questions for Debate:
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
4.) Are partial birth abortion bans unconstitutional*?
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
4.) Are partial birth abortion bans unconstitutional*?
1) No clue.
2) Outlawed (except where life of mother is at risk)
3) No.
4) No.
Okay, I'll briefly expand. I am pro-choice. I do not buy into the idea that human life (as we know it) begins at conception. A clump of cells is not a person. However, I equally don't buy into the idea that a baby is not a baby one minute before delivery. (I have actually heard this argument before.)
While there is no fine line, at some point between conception and delivery, a fetus becomes a human. And for me, that point is neither the moment of conception nor the moment of delivery. I prefer to believe the moment is sometime around the initiation of brain activity, which I believe is somewhere in the 2nd trimester. So, yes, I do believe abortions in the third trimester should be illegal, except where there is a very real risk to the life of the mother.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Sep 27 2005, 03:32 PM)
The president has asked the Supreme Court to review a case dealing with partial birth abortions, so in light of that bit of news I thought this debate was warranted.
Questions for Debate:
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
4.) Are partial birth abortion bans unconstitutional*?
Useful links:
Fox News Story
Current Abortion Laws
General Information
* Text from here:
Questions for Debate:
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
4.) Are partial birth abortion bans unconstitutional*?
Useful links:
Fox News Story
Current Abortion Laws
General Information
* Text from here:
QUOTE
The "Partial Birth" Abortion Ban is Unconstitutional on Two Grounds: Lack of Health Exception and Too Broad:
When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's so-called "partial-birth abortion" ban it did so in part because the ban failed to include a health exception. The Court has long held that laws restricting abortion access must contain an exception to protect women's health.
In addition, the Court found that far from targeting one procedure, the law banned the most common and safest methods of abortion.
The new ban suffers from the same fatal flaws and is therefore unconstitutional.
When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's so-called "partial-birth abortion" ban it did so in part because the ban failed to include a health exception. The Court has long held that laws restricting abortion access must contain an exception to protect women's health.
In addition, the Court found that far from targeting one procedure, the law banned the most common and safest methods of abortion.
The new ban suffers from the same fatal flaws and is therefore unconstitutional.
Unsure if the baby can feel the partial abortions but i do feel that every circumstance is different and partial abortions should be based on a case by case basis. Abortion is such a controversial subject but i ultimately think that there should be a choice. Then both sides win. Its a hard topic, and it seems it will never go away.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Sep 27 2005, 04:32 PM)
The president has asked the Supreme Court to review a case dealing with partial birth abortions, so in light of that bit of news I thought this debate was warranted.
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
A better question might be, "Does it matter?". or perhaps we can just start doing a little "weed and feed" on the populace. Maybe the morbidly obese, or those scoring less that 100 on an I.Q. test, maybe anyone who posts on D.U.
We have numerous ways to oft someone without them feeling it.
QUOTE
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
Outlawed, just like any other murder. If the mother-to-be waited a couple weeks and the child was born, it would be like any other matricide. People get convicted of it all the time.
QUOTE
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
So if the woman "chooses" not to be in love with her husband, she ofts him too? Where do we draw the line. Also, the "health of the mother" is bunk. They throw that in to water down a bill, knowing they can use it to get an exception to virtually anything. Any reasoning the it may cause her some emotional duress, or to not get a prom date, would be an excuse. The "life" of the mother would be another matter, which I would support.
I'm always amused (or maybe it's confused) that the same folks who support murdering babies are more concerned about baby seals and whales, it seems a non-sequitur.
QUOTE
4.) Are partial birth abortion bans unconstitutional*?
I think if properly written and they were reviewed somewhere besides the 9th Circuit...
Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death?
I'm sorry, but there's no "waiting until the appointed hour of birth" about dilation and extraction (DXE). We’re capable enough of making a distinction when a woman gives birth and when she has a cesarean section. The latter is a medical procedure and can take place before the fetus is fully developed. The same goes for DXE.
I wonder if politicians did their math. The congressional “partial birth” abortion ban doesn’t distinguish between trimesters and circumstances. Meaning, for example, that DXE is as illegal in the first trimester as in the third trimester, illegal if a woman’s fetus died in the womb and she doesn’t want to go through the prolonged emotional process of induced labor to expel the necrotizing remains, and illegal if the woman’s life is in danger.
Nobody has noticed that while DXE is banned throughout pregnancy based on faulty logic—how is being dismembered in the 3rd trimester supposed to be less painful?—the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act claims “20 weeks after fertilization, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain.” In response the Journal of the American Medical Association issued a challenge to the reasoning behind the UCPA. I Feel Your Fetus’ Pain:
Whether a fetus can feel pain during any form of induced abortion depends on the stage of its development. I’d put that range around JAMA’s 7 month period, although their reasoning is more nuanced and harder to defend in front of the public, over that of “in touch” blowhard politicians and their “fact”-finding PACs, which incidentally, pin the miracle of pain around viability.
Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
DXE restrictions should be no different than regular abortive restrictions. For grounds reread first question.
Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
Is the fetus less 'alive' while being dismembered inside the womb?
Are partial birth abortion bans unconstitutional*?
Yes, if for nothing else than the convenience of expelling a dead fetus quickly and grounds of the life of the mother, a case-by-case decision politicians shouldn't arrive at with legislation that overrides all medical considerations to feel better about themselves.
I'm sorry, but there's no "waiting until the appointed hour of birth" about dilation and extraction (DXE). We’re capable enough of making a distinction when a woman gives birth and when she has a cesarean section. The latter is a medical procedure and can take place before the fetus is fully developed. The same goes for DXE.
I wonder if politicians did their math. The congressional “partial birth” abortion ban doesn’t distinguish between trimesters and circumstances. Meaning, for example, that DXE is as illegal in the first trimester as in the third trimester, illegal if a woman’s fetus died in the womb and she doesn’t want to go through the prolonged emotional process of induced labor to expel the necrotizing remains, and illegal if the woman’s life is in danger.
QUOTE(Slate.com)
If you haven't been following the debate closely, it's easy to walk away with the impression that the "delivery" is a nearly full-term birth, as the bill's name implies. It's easy to say yes when a pollster asks you whether you favor a "law to make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as 'partial-birth abortion,' except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother." That's the question the Gallup organization asked in January. Based on responses to that question, USA Today reports this morning that the poll "showed that 70% of Americans back the ban."
I'd like to know how many of the people who answered that question understood exactly what they were being asked about.
- The "Partial-Birth" Myth
I'd like to know how many of the people who answered that question understood exactly what they were being asked about.
- The "Partial-Birth" Myth
Nobody has noticed that while DXE is banned throughout pregnancy based on faulty logic—how is being dismembered in the 3rd trimester supposed to be less painful?—the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act claims “20 weeks after fertilization, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain.” In response the Journal of the American Medical Association issued a challenge to the reasoning behind the UCPA. I Feel Your Fetus’ Pain:
QUOTE(Slate.com)
If you don't trust an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association because two of its five medically trained authors are openly pro-choice, imagine the trustworthiness of "findings of fact" issued by scores of pro-life politicians, only a handful of whom are doctors. If you don't like the JAMA article's generalization that fetal pain doesn't really begin until 29 weeks, consider the pro-life bill's insistence that every doctor, on pain of losing her license and $250,000, "shall make the following oral statement" to any woman who seeks an abortion two months earlier in pregnancy:
Yes, those are the exact words dictated by a bunch of politicians for your doctor to tell you. All of the words are false or misleading. They aren't even sincere in their emphasis on fetal pain. The bill asserts the barbaric painfulness not only of tearing off fetal limbs while the brain still functions, but also of partial-birth abortion, which kills the brain first. You can argue that partial-birth abortion is particularly awful, but anyone who makes that argument based on pain—as every cosponsor of this bill does—either doesn't understand partial-birth abortion, doesn't understand pain, or is just using pain as a rhetorical weapon.
QUOTE(Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act)
The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain. There is substantial evidence that by this point, unborn children draw away from surgical instruments in a manner which in an infant or an adult would be interpreted as a response to pain. Congress finds that there is substantial evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will cause the unborn child pain ...
Yes, those are the exact words dictated by a bunch of politicians for your doctor to tell you. All of the words are false or misleading. They aren't even sincere in their emphasis on fetal pain. The bill asserts the barbaric painfulness not only of tearing off fetal limbs while the brain still functions, but also of partial-birth abortion, which kills the brain first. You can argue that partial-birth abortion is particularly awful, but anyone who makes that argument based on pain—as every cosponsor of this bill does—either doesn't understand partial-birth abortion, doesn't understand pain, or is just using pain as a rhetorical weapon.
Whether a fetus can feel pain during any form of induced abortion depends on the stage of its development. I’d put that range around JAMA’s 7 month period, although their reasoning is more nuanced and harder to defend in front of the public, over that of “in touch” blowhard politicians and their “fact”-finding PACs, which incidentally, pin the miracle of pain around viability.
Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds?
DXE restrictions should be no different than regular abortive restrictions. For grounds reread first question.
Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?'
Is the fetus less 'alive' while being dismembered inside the womb?
Are partial birth abortion bans unconstitutional*?
Yes, if for nothing else than the convenience of expelling a dead fetus quickly and grounds of the life of the mother, a case-by-case decision politicians shouldn't arrive at with legislation that overrides all medical considerations to feel better about themselves.
Lets take this right to the point:
As a baby is being born, literally, as it's head is coming out of the birth canal, you stab it with a syringe in the head and literally kill 'it'.
If you sneeze, and the baby comes out while you were waiting to stab it, it is now, in every sense of the word, murder.
Whether you support abortion or not, to support something this blatantly barbaric is wrong. As a baby is being born is the wrong time to decide whether you want a baby or not. Sematics aside, if you know your baby is going to born severely handicapped, you knew before the baby was in the delivery process.
To anyone who supports this, please head down to your clinic and watch one of these being performed. Then go home and live with yourself. Citing the outside example does not change what this process is.
As a baby is being born, literally, as it's head is coming out of the birth canal, you stab it with a syringe in the head and literally kill 'it'.
If you sneeze, and the baby comes out while you were waiting to stab it, it is now, in every sense of the word, murder.
Whether you support abortion or not, to support something this blatantly barbaric is wrong. As a baby is being born is the wrong time to decide whether you want a baby or not. Sematics aside, if you know your baby is going to born severely handicapped, you knew before the baby was in the delivery process.
To anyone who supports this, please head down to your clinic and watch one of these being performed. Then go home and live with yourself. Citing the outside example does not change what this process is.
QUOTE(greekee @ Nov 6 2005, 06:13 AM)
Lets take this right to the point:
As a baby is being born, literally, as it's head is coming out of the birth canal, you stab it with a syringe in the head and literally kill 'it'.
If you sneeze, and the baby comes out while you were waiting to stab it, it is now, in every sense of the word, murder.
Whether you support abortion or not, to support something this blatantly barbaric is wrong. As a baby is being born is the wrong time to decide whether you want a baby or not. Sematics aside, if you know your baby is going to born severely handicapped, you knew before the baby was in the delivery process.
To anyone who supports this, please head down to your clinic and watch one of these being performed. Then go home and live with yourself. Citing the outside example does not change what this process is.
As a baby is being born, literally, as it's head is coming out of the birth canal, you stab it with a syringe in the head and literally kill 'it'.
If you sneeze, and the baby comes out while you were waiting to stab it, it is now, in every sense of the word, murder.
Whether you support abortion or not, to support something this blatantly barbaric is wrong. As a baby is being born is the wrong time to decide whether you want a baby or not. Sematics aside, if you know your baby is going to born severely handicapped, you knew before the baby was in the delivery process.
To anyone who supports this, please head down to your clinic and watch one of these being performed. Then go home and live with yourself. Citing the outside example does not change what this process is.
I think you have a very inaccurate perception of how often these types of abortions take place, and why. I've tried to find actual current, hard statistics on how often (complete with why) this procedure is used. If I find a better (more recent) example I'll post it, but here is one for Georgia third trimester abortion statistics from 1979 to 1980.
QUOTE
Current Trends Third-Trimester Induced Abortion -- Georgia, 1979 and 1980
During 1979 and 1980, third-trimester induced abortions* reported to Georgia's Department of Human Resources (DHR) accounted for 123.1 per 100,000 legal abortions (86 of 69,876). Because of concern about this reported number and the indications for late abortions, the DHR undertook a medical record review.
The DHR reviewed medical records and verified pregnancy outcome** for 78 (90.7%) of reported third-trimester induced abortions. Of these 78 reports, three were for women who had true third-trimester induced abortions. Two of these were performed to terminate pregnancies involving anencephalic fetuses at 25 and 34 weeks' gestation. The third woman had an abortion at 26 weeks' gestation, but little information was available from which to determine the reason for the procedure. Of the 78 reported to have obtained third-trimester induced abortions, 58 (74.4%) were fetal deaths in utero, while 15 (19.2%) were first- or second-trimester abortions; one was a duplicative report, and one was not an abortion. Thus, the occurrence of true third-trimester-induced abortion was 4.3 per 100,000 legal abortions (3 of 69,876) instead of the reported 123.1. Reported by JW Flynt, MD, M Lavoie, AK Schoenbucher, MD, Georgia State Dept of Human Resources; Program Evaluation Br, Div of Reproductive Health, Center for Health Promotion and Education, CDC.
During 1979 and 1980, third-trimester induced abortions* reported to Georgia's Department of Human Resources (DHR) accounted for 123.1 per 100,000 legal abortions (86 of 69,876). Because of concern about this reported number and the indications for late abortions, the DHR undertook a medical record review.
The DHR reviewed medical records and verified pregnancy outcome** for 78 (90.7%) of reported third-trimester induced abortions. Of these 78 reports, three were for women who had true third-trimester induced abortions. Two of these were performed to terminate pregnancies involving anencephalic fetuses at 25 and 34 weeks' gestation. The third woman had an abortion at 26 weeks' gestation, but little information was available from which to determine the reason for the procedure. Of the 78 reported to have obtained third-trimester induced abortions, 58 (74.4%) were fetal deaths in utero, while 15 (19.2%) were first- or second-trimester abortions; one was a duplicative report, and one was not an abortion. Thus, the occurrence of true third-trimester-induced abortion was 4.3 per 100,000 legal abortions (3 of 69,876) instead of the reported 123.1. Reported by JW Flynt, MD, M Lavoie, AK Schoenbucher, MD, Georgia State Dept of Human Resources; Program Evaluation Br, Div of Reproductive Health, Center for Health Promotion and Education, CDC.
3 third trimester induced abortions out of 69,876 legal abortions in the state for those years. Two for cases of anencephalitis, and one with no information available so we don't know the cause. Now, either 1979 and 1980 were especially great, life-loving fetal years for Georgia, or "partial birth" abortions happen always or nearly always only in the case of fetal death and/or braindeath. I can't imagine how long one would have to wait at a "clinic" until one of these procedures came along. One would have better luck asking every pregnant woman you see if she is carrying a dead or anencephalic baby to satify that morbid curiosity.
Edited to add: Questions to be debated
1.) Do partial birth abortions cause any pain a baby can feel before death? Anencephalic babies cannot feel pain. They are unconscious, blind, deaf and only have a rudimentary brain stem. Usually they are stillborn, but if they "survive" birth at all it is only for a few hours to days (at the most).
2.) Should partial birth abortions be outlawed or left alone? Based on what grounds? Left alone. No one should have to maintain an anencephalic pregnancy, or dead fetus...for health reasons at the very least. The options to this procedure are much more dangerous and bloody.
3.) Does the same argument "a woman's right to choose" still apply even though the baby is 'alive?' Well, yes. Anencephalic babies are often alive, but braindead. From the National Institutes of Health:
"Infants with this disorder are born without both a forebrain (the front part of the brain) and a cerebrum (the thinking and coordinating area of the brain). The remaining brain tissue is often exposed--not covered by bone or skin. The infant is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain.
Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a rudimentary brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness. [R]esponses to sound or touch may occur."
"Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a rudimentary brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness."
What you write is an exception to the rule. Are you arguing that ALL partial birth abortions should stay legal, because sometimes anencephaly makes the process necessary? Even in this case, a few questions are raised, such as:
Exactly how much discomfort is saved by partially birthing a fetus, stabbing it in the brain, and then finishing the delivery?
Does ripping the fetus apart while still in the womb and then birthing the various parts provide some relief?
Grim, but that is the reality of this procedure. Anencephaly in a fetus does not change the realities of what the procedure is. Nor does it justify making this practice a commonly accepted legal procedure. Medical exceptions to the rule can be made in cases of anencephaly, or other medical cases. Contrary to popular belief, legislators are mostly not stupid. When reasonable cases are presented, most will act reasonably.
The problem arises when abortion rights activists attempt to use cases like anencephaly to tear down the entire ban on partial birth abortions. As Sir Isaac Newton famously pointed out, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Those that blindly pursue abortion rights at the cost of all else have missed a few important facts:
The vast majority of Americans think partial birth abortions are barbaric and SHOULD be outlawed.
There is a moral component to abortion, and, except in the most extreme circumstances, there is simply no justification that would allow this practice to become generally accepted among Americans.
Why would any legislator with half a brain attempt to compromise with a group that has its own political agenda when the vast majority of their own constituents find no reason to compromise? Especially if there are other procedures for dealing with anencephaly.
Attempting to through pseudo-science and best guesses about when a fetus can and cannot feel pain do not change the fact that you are tearing a soon too be baby apart. There is a right to choice, and there is a right to life. Killing a fetus as it is in the process of becoming a baby clearly crosses that moral line between choice and life. All the science in the world simply cannot change the fact that the practice is patently immoral.
To selfishly believe that one can choose anything within their purview misses the point of history. We as a society could allow for infanticide in dealing with unwanted children, but we long ago decided such a practice was immoral. America has now said the practice of partial birth abortions is equally unjustified.
Throwing Science into the mix misses the point entirely. This simply is not a scientific question.
QUOTE(greekee @ Nov 6 2005, 04:46 PM)
"Although some individuals with anencephaly may be born with a rudimentary brain stem, the lack of a functioning cerebrum permanently rules out the possibility of ever gaining consciousness."
What you write is an exception to the rule. Are you arguing that ALL partial birth abortions should stay legal, because sometimes anencephaly makes the process necessary?
What you write is an exception to the rule. Are you arguing that ALL partial birth abortions should stay legal, because sometimes anencephaly makes the process necessary?
Actually, I am espousing that anencephaly, and other catastrophic birth defects like severe hydrocephalus, are the rule and not the exception. I have provided a bit of proof to back my argument. Proof on your part is missing, but I'd be interested in seeing some (reputable sources only please).
QUOTE
Even in this case, a few questions are raised, such as:
Exactly how much discomfort is saved by partially birthing a fetus, stabbing it in the brain, and then finishing the delivery?
Does ripping the fetus apart while still in the womb and then birthing the various parts provide some relief?
Grim, but that is the reality of this procedure. Anencephaly in a fetus does not change the realities of what the procedure is. Nor does it justify making this practice a commonly accepted legal procedure. Medical exceptions to the rule can be made in cases of anencephaly, or other medical cases. Contrary to popular belief, legislators are mostly not stupid. When reasonable cases are presented, most will act reasonably.
Actually, such exceptions under the "anti-partial birth abortion" legislation are missing, in spite of the reasonable cases presented. That is a fact.Exactly how much discomfort is saved by partially birthing a fetus, stabbing it in the brain, and then finishing the delivery?
Does ripping the fetus apart while still in the womb and then birthing the various parts provide some relief?
Grim, but that is the reality of this procedure. Anencephaly in a fetus does not change the realities of what the procedure is. Nor does it justify making this practice a commonly accepted legal procedure. Medical exceptions to the rule can be made in cases of anencephaly, or other medical cases. Contrary to popular belief, legislators are mostly not stupid. When reasonable cases are presented, most will act reasonably.
QUOTE
The problem arises when abortion rights activists attempt to use cases like anencephaly to tear down the entire ban on partial birth abortions. As Sir Isaac Newton famously pointed out, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Those that blindly pursue abortion rights at the cost of all else have missed a few important facts:
The vast majority of Americans think partial birth abortions are barbaric and SHOULD be outlawed.
Not if they are performed only for the cases I have given, or to save the mother's life.The vast majority of Americans think partial birth abortions are barbaric and SHOULD be outlawed.
QUOTE
There is a moral component to abortion, and, except in the most extreme circumstances, there is simply no justification that would allow this practice to become generally accepted among Americans.
This procedure is so unaccepted that it has become a myth. The reality is, late term abortion is not accepted except in the most dire of circumstances. Look at the figures I listed for Georgia. In two years, there were three.
QUOTE(greekee @ Nov 6 2005, 07:46 PM)
Contrary to popular belief, legislators are mostly not stupid. When reasonable cases are presented, most will act reasonably... The problem arises when abortion rights activists attempt to use cases like anencephaly to tear down the entire ban on partial birth abortions.
These activists groups are joined by doctors challenging the law who are afraid the language is so broad they risk losing their license or going to jail for performing similar procedures. When the reasonable legislature "found" new evidence to back up their claims that DXE is never needed for the life or health of the mother they did not need consider anencephalic or dead babies.
QUOTE(greekee @ Nov 6 2005, 07:46 PM)
The vast majority of Americans think partial birth abortions are barbaric and SHOULD be outlawed.
The fact that this legislation passed proves the vast majority of Americans also believe that by the third trimester the state has no greater interest in the developing fetus per Roe than the first trimester and can't stop an abortion. The legislature has "educated" the public on what DXE is. Most people hadn't heard of it before 1995. The legislature phrased how it is performed (the most accurate); why it is performed and when (the least accurate) using emotional language to garner popular support. The majority of Americans can’t come to a correct, independent conclusion on DXE until they get or seek most of their information on a medical procedure from doctors instead of politicians.
"The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb."
The point being that most partial birth abortions are not done in the third trimester.
"One often quoted figure was that over 1000 D&Xs had been performed annually in New Jersey. From this number, many inflated national totals were estimated. But the New Jersey figure appears to be an anomaly. A single physician in a single NJ hospital had been ignoring the regulations of the state medical association and performing D&Xs in cases not involving the potential death or serious disability of the woman.
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated (Nightline program, 1997-FEB-26) a total of 3,000 to 4,000 annually in the US -- about ten a day.
Pro-life groups uncovered an internal memo by Planned Parenthood which estimated that up to 60 (0.24%) of the more than 25,000 abortions performed annually in Virginia were D&Xs. 1 If this figure is accurate nationally, then there would be up to 2,880 D&X procedures per year in the U.S."
The number is certainly higher than three.
"2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including:
-She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.
-There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.
-The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.
3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: 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 which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.
-In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htlm
Again, the elective basis of many of these procedures is tough to justify. In the other cases, what is missing is a possible alternative solution. Is partial birth abortion the only option? It is a question addresses in the very text of the partial-birth abortion bill. Selected quotes appear below:
"at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses."
28 legislative bodies have debated the procedure and found it so morally repungnant that they banned the procedure.
"However, substantial evidence presented at the Stenberg trial and overwhelming evidence presented and compiled at extensive congressional hearings, much of which was compiled after the district court hearing in Stenberg, and thus not included in the Stenberg trial record, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed and is outside the standard of medical care."
Not necessary, but that does not seem to jive with the above statistics?
"There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum. "
There would appear to be alternatives to partial birth abortions in most, and apparently all, cases.
" Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting--indeed it must act--to prohibit this inhumane procedure."
http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s3.html
If there are viable alternatives to deal with the majority of the medical issues raised, why would need to legalize partial birth abortions at all? Most Americans agree that it is inhumane. My guess is that there were more than three cases of anencephaly in Georgia over the course of two years, and only two elected to have a late term, not necessarily a partial birth, abortion as a result.
Even for those faced with the decision, the partial birth abortion does not seem to hold a great deal of sway.
The point being that most partial birth abortions are not done in the third trimester.
"One often quoted figure was that over 1000 D&Xs had been performed annually in New Jersey. From this number, many inflated national totals were estimated. But the New Jersey figure appears to be an anomaly. A single physician in a single NJ hospital had been ignoring the regulations of the state medical association and performing D&Xs in cases not involving the potential death or serious disability of the woman.
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated (Nightline program, 1997-FEB-26) a total of 3,000 to 4,000 annually in the US -- about ten a day.
Pro-life groups uncovered an internal memo by Planned Parenthood which estimated that up to 60 (0.24%) of the more than 25,000 abortions performed annually in Virginia were D&Xs. 1 If this figure is accurate nationally, then there would be up to 2,880 D&X procedures per year in the U.S."
The number is certainly higher than three.
"2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including:
-She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.
-There are mental or physical health problems related to the pregnancy.
-The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester.
3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: 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 which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.
-In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htlm
Again, the elective basis of many of these procedures is tough to justify. In the other cases, what is missing is a possible alternative solution. Is partial birth abortion the only option? It is a question addresses in the very text of the partial-birth abortion bill. Selected quotes appear below:
"at least 27 States banned the procedure as did the United States Congress which voted to ban the procedure during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses."
28 legislative bodies have debated the procedure and found it so morally repungnant that they banned the procedure.
"However, substantial evidence presented at the Stenberg trial and overwhelming evidence presented and compiled at extensive congressional hearings, much of which was compiled after the district court hearing in Stenberg, and thus not included in the Stenberg trial record, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed and is outside the standard of medical care."
Not necessary, but that does not seem to jive with the above statistics?
"There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum. "
There would appear to be alternatives to partial birth abortions in most, and apparently all, cases.
" Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life. Thus, Congress has a compelling interest in acting--indeed it must act--to prohibit this inhumane procedure."
http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s3.html
If there are viable alternatives to deal with the majority of the medical issues raised, why would need to legalize partial birth abortions at all? Most Americans agree that it is inhumane. My guess is that there were more than three cases of anencephaly in Georgia over the course of two years, and only two elected to have a late term, not necessarily a partial birth, abortion as a result.
Even for those faced with the decision, the partial birth abortion does not seem to hold a great deal of sway.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.