Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Blocked
 

Judge Blocks Ban

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act


I don't agree with abortion, except in very limited instances; however, I also don't feel it should be illegal (I figure if you can live with murdering your child...); but IMO, if you're going to get an abortion, you should do it before it gets to this point.

I have to agree that a partial-birth abortion "is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited," and that it DOES step over the line of abortion and infantcide.

Interesting that if someone causes a woman to involuntarily lose her child, it's a crime, but if she chooses to kill her baby, it's ok. It's either murder or it isn't. The fetus either has rights under the law or it doesn't.


Sidhe

Some significant info:


(13) (14) Pursuant to the testimony received during extensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that:

(A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: an increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, "there are very few, if any, indications for . . . other than for delivery of a second twin"; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.

(B) 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.

(C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion is "not an accepted medical practice," that it has "never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development," that "the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown," and that "there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use". The association has further noted that partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is "ethically wrong," and "is never the only appropriate procedure".

(D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v. Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

(E) The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.


I find it interesting that the doctor who developed the procedure doesn't even back it up.

Sidhe

I remember reading a poll somewhere, that an overwhelming majority of Americans thought that partial birth abortions should be illegal. In the very same poll, a similar sized majority thought that a woman's right to choose should always be guaranteed.

Reminds me of ads I saw for some Dudley Moore movie about crazy people. Someone asks a bunch of crazy people if they want to do something and they all agree. Then, to prove a point, Dudley Moore asks "Who wants to be a fire truck?" and everyone raises their hands.

There are only a handful of these types of abortions done each year. I understand it has some relevance as a precedent, but it's really a non-issue.

Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Blocked
 

Well, in the first case--involuntarily losing a child--is it the fetus that's being violated? I don't know anything about the law in question, but it seems entirely possible to argue against 'causing a woman to involuntarily lose her child' purely on the grounds of violating the woman's rights. It's hard to imagine a situation where the woman involuntarily loses her child due to someone else's actions without her being wronged in some fashion.

Re: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Blocked
 

Well, in some societies, as the husband and father, both the baby and its mother belong to me, so I would be the injured party.

In the 20th century in the US, it was illegal to give advice on contraception since by doing so you would deny a child the chance to be born.

In the 21st century in the US, a woman was charge with murder for refusing to volunteer to have her body sliced open to make it safer for her babies to be born.

At some point you have to decide who's calling the shots and whether people have control over their own bodies.

Well, for those women who feel the need to stay off birth control while they're having sex, and thus get pregnant when they don't want a child, there is something called Menstrual Extraction. It's basically going in there and sucking out the uterine lining, and any egg that may be there. It can be done if you think you've screwed up, and don't want to get pregnant. It was originally developed by a female gynecologist who didn't want to go through her period every month.

Anyway, one can go to any free clinic to get a year's worth of birth control for free, plus the morning after pill (at least in La.), so there's no excuse for waiting until the child is almost ready to be born, then sucking its brains out.

We treat our criminals better than that.

And as the doctor who developed the procedure said, he has never seen a situation where it was necessary.

There's no sense waiting that long. I completely agree with the following:


(H) Based upon Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833 (1992)), a governmental interest in protecting the life of a child during the delivery process arises by virtue of the fact that during a partial-birth abortion, labor is induced and the birth process has begun. This distinction was recognized in Roe when the Court noted, without comment, that the Texas parturition statute, which prohibited one from killing a child "in a state of being born and before actual birth," was not under attack. This interest becomes compelling as the child emerges from the maternal body. A child that is completely born is a full, legal person entitled to constitutional protections afforded a "person" under the United States Constitution. Partial-birth abortions involve the killing of a child that is in the process, in fact mere inches away from, becoming a "person". Thus, the government has a heightened interest in protecting the life of the partially-born child.

(I) This, too, has not gone unnoticed in the medical community, where a prominent medical association has recognized that partial-birth abortions are "ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is killed outside of the womb". According to this medical association, the " 'partial birth' gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of the woman to choose treatments for her own body".

(J) Partial-birth abortion also confuses the medical, legal, and ethical duties of physicians to preserve and promote life, as the physician acts directly against the physical life of a child, whom he or she had just delivered, all but the head, out of the womb, in order to end that life. Partial-birth abortion thus appropriates the terminology and techniques used by obstetricians in the delivery of living children -- obstetricians who preserve and protect the life of the mother and the child and instead uses those techniques to end the life of the partially-born child.

(K) Thus, by aborting a child in the manner that purposefully seeks to kill the child after he or she has begun the process of birth, , partial-birth abortion undermines the public's perception of the appropriate role of a physician during the delivery process, and perverts a process during which life is brought into the world, in order to destroy a partially-born child.

(L) The gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for infant human life that can only be countered by a prohibition of the procedure.

(M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.

(N) 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.

(O) For these reasons, Congress finds that partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to preserve the health of the mother; is in fact unrecognized as a valid abortion procedure by the mainstream medical community; poses additional health risks to the mother; blurs the line between abortion and infanticide in the killing of a partially-born child just inches from birth; and confuses the role of the physician in childbirth and should, therefore, be banned.


So basically, what partial-birth abortion is, is infantcide, which IS a crime.


edited to add bold...forgive me, I know this is a lot, but I think it's important.

(rant) I mean, think about it...there are people who bitch and moan about how "cruel and inhumane" executions are, and we got rid of methods like hanging because they were unduly painful for the person being executed....but a lot of (not ALL, so don't get your panties in a bunch) people who are against the death penalty are FOR abortion (sorry, "a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body")....they're fighting for the right to have partial-birth abortions, which ARE extremely painful to the infant.

Why is it that it's ok to kill a baby, and in an inhumane way, but not a murderer? If a woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body, and if she chooses to destroy the "parasite," then why shouldn't society be able to choose to destroy the parasites that are in its "body?" (/rant)

(notice how I smoothly slid the whole DP/Abortion comparison in...:D )


Ok...I feel so much better now, after getting that off my chest...:)

Sidhe

I personally find it interesting how some folks who are for the death penalty are against abortion.

Unless your pharmcist has a moral objection to the morning after pill, in which case s/he can refuse to sell it to you.

To me any late term abortion is extreme and I don't like the idea of them. However, looking at the other extreme of the people who would deny all birth control, deny all real sex education, etc., I still feel more comfortable on the pro-choice side.

If real birth control and the morning after pill were encouraged, there would not be a need for any late term abortions. You have to consider that some women who wait do so because they have to get up the nerve to find one of an ever decreasing number of abortion providers and run the gauntlet of screaming pro-lifers, any of whom might have a gun and who might, in some twisted way, consider using it on the mother to 'save' the fetus.

Also consider that states vary on safe havens , allowing a single mother to legally abandon her baby.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but expecting a single teenager who has been abandoned by her baby's father to somehow make it work seems ridiculous. I'm sure that a significant minority, with some help, can make it work.

Until someone can come up with a rational, consistent system for all of this, then abortion is something we will have to deal with. If the pro-lifers could get off their asses, embrace contraception and sex education as a way to prevent abortion, and come up with reasonable alternatives instead of trying to box people into situations they cannot handle, them we will continue to have this debate.

Babies are innocent. They've done nothing to deserve death. They're being killed because they're "inconvenient;" convicted murderers did something to get where they are, which is destroy life. They deserve to die for what they've done.

That's why many of the pro-dp people are anti-abortion. At least that's why I am.

Sidhe


PS, I'm not COMPLETELY against abortion. If there is something so wrong with the child that it would be born dead, die soon after birth, or be a vegetable (or anything else which would make it impossible for the child to have a "life," ie, awareness of and ability to enjoy existence), then I don't see why one would have the child. If the woman's life is in danger, I would say it's up to the parents to decide. But when it comes to someone who accidentally gets pregnant, they should have to live with the consequences of their irresponsibility--or rather, I think they should give the child up at birth, because if they're willing to kill it for their convenience, what kind of parents would they make? There are thousands of people out there who want children who aren't able to have them, after all.


Sidhe

In Louisiana, one can go to a free clinic, get a free exam, and then get a year's worth of pills AND the morning-after pill for free. You don't have to go to a pharmacy. They give you the bag o' contraception right in the clinic.



I think there SHOULD be sex ed, and I have no idea why anyone would want to deny any form of birth control. I'm sure some of the religious nuts out there think that way, but they can't keep you out of the health clinics.

As far as the rabid right-to-lifers...please don't lump me with them (I know you're not, I'm just making it clear to everyone else). While I don't agree with abortion for convenience, I don't think it should be illegal. Those right-to-lifers tend to be the aforementioned religious nuts, and the way I see it, if they're not willing to pay for the woman to have the child, and then take that child into their own home, they need to STFU.


I've heard of those. Usually they're at hospitals, right?


The parents should either put their teenager on birth control, or keep her off the streets. If she gets pregnant, it's the family's responsibility to help her, IMO. Besides, that teenager can slap a child-support deal on the guy. He'll have to pay for the paternity test, and if it's his, they'll garnish his check. At least in La. I have firsthand knowledge of this.


Menstrual Extraction, Birth Control, teaching your kids common sense--those sound like rational, consistent systems to me. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that people don't know what causes babies. You'd have to live under a rock. With the free health clinics around the country, there's no excuse not to be on birth control. If they can't handle a kid, they should take responsibility to minimize the chance of getting into that situation. It's not rocket science. Abortion shouldn't be something that one can get because a baby is inconvenient. They should've thought about that before they spread their legs.

Perhaps if they made it so that one couldn't get an abortion unless they agreed to have NORPLANT....that way, if they don't want kids, we'll make sure they don't HAVE them. (And before people start jumping me about enforced birth control, we're talking about people who don't want these children---people who are willing to kill them because they're inconvenient).


Sidhe

I hate to say it Lady Sid, but aren't you getting into a bit of a circular argument here? You are in favor of the government sterilizing people who are severely mentally retarded because its not convenient for society to take care of the child. OK, I know sterilization is not the same as abortion, but they are equally loaded questions in the examples you've been citing lately. So what's your stance on a severely mentally handicapped individual having an abortion, just out of curiosity?

If the test proves it's not his kid, does he still have to pay for the test?:confused:

The problem with garnishments is that some employees will quit as soon as one is levied against them. And it can take the states forever to finally figure out that a person has quit. Meanwhile, the custodial parent isn't getting jack shit.

Why, Onyx? Accidents do happen. No method of birth control works 100%. I've even heard of women who had their tubes tied still getting pregnant. If the woman is morally opposed to abortion, why should the guy be able to skate? For that matter, if a man does not want to be responsible for a possible pregnancy, then shouldn't HE take steps himself to ensure one doesn't happen? Men can use rubbers or get vasectomies, you know.

Sometimes employers fire employees that have garnishments just because they have them.:(

If the test proves it's not his kid, does he still have to pay for the test?

Yes, because it's already paid for. But he could in theory sue her for harassment and slander or something and try to get his money back that way. Probably wouldn't work.

Technically it's actually the dissenting party who has to pay--if a guy is insisting that a pregnant woman's baby is his in order to get visitation rights, and she is denying it, SHE'D have to pay for the test. But 99.9% of the time it's the woman pointing the finger at the guy.

I don't know about her response but here is what I find the central weakness of this statement.

In the instance of the State sterilizing profoundly retarded people, it isn't being done for the convenience of the state. It protects the retarded person from pregnancy, and from losing a child. Also it protects the retarded person's family from that burden as well.

Additionally it protects the State (in this context, it's citizens) from the burden of paying for all of this as well as the long term concern of caring for an additional unwanted, but preventable, birth.

Her pro-choice stance is predicated upon preventing late-term, convenience abortions. All she says is that if you're going to get an abortion is to get it early.

Now, all of that being said, we'll see what she says about my interpretation of her stance when she wakes up...

Originally posted by OnyxCougar She said 12 weeks not 12 minutes.

I did that once.

Now, before y'all get all up in arms, it was a screwed up circumstance. *leaving out a lot of details*My employer had been contacted and my pay had been garnished, which was fine with me, it saved me the resposibility of getting the money to them on time, it just came out of my check. It was fine until about two months into it when I got a $25 dollar check. I showed my boss the check and I told him, "See this?" He said, "Yeah, come back when you get it straightened out." They had also mandated that I be forcibly enrolled in the company's insurance program. Now, the rub of it is, is that she at the time (and maybe still is) she was married and living in England.

The question a non-custodial parent has to ask is,"I can work and not pay my bills or I can not and still not pay my bills. Which one is it?"

In the end I got it straightened out by, believe it or not, getting the state to intercede on my behalf with the state that had garnished my wages. They were limited to a total deduction of no more than half, or $250 a month, either of which I could afford and was still more than she was drawing in state assistance in Virgina.

As far as I know, he has to pay for the test beforehand.

Actually, that's a very good question. I don't think I've ever really considered it. Let me think about it and I'll get back to you.


Sidhe

Yup, that's what I mean. Like Onyx, I'm morally against abortion, and I wouldn't do it myself, even if I got raped (IMO, it's not the child's fault that his father is lower than pond scum, and the baby should not have to pay for the sins of the father. If I felt I couldn't live with the reminder, I'd give the child up for adoption)--however, if something was so wrong with my child, I may consider it---I don't think so, though, because I don't think I could live with myself. The way I see it, there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people out there who can't have kids, and often they're willing to pay for both taking care of the woman during pregnancy AND the birth, so I don't see the point of abortion, unless the mother's life is at stake and both parents decide that that's what they want to do.

There are so many early-term methods of abortion that don't involve such cruelty and pain to the fetus. It's not like people wake up one morning to find themselves six months pregnant. They know they're pregnant early on, if not from a missed period (s), then from a pregnancy test. There's no excuse for waiting so long to get an abortion.

Everything TS said is right on, btw.

Just as an aside, I personally know of three abortion instances that I will relate here:

One, I personally SAW a woman dragging her daughter into a clinic. The girl did not want to get an abortion. The boyfriend was there, too, wearing all kinds of gold jewelry and nice clothes. The mother and the guy said to the protesters outside that they couldn't AFFORD the baby....(this was on the news about ten years ago)...maybe if he'd sell some of that gold, he could take care of his responsibility.

Two, I know two girls who've had abortions. They didn't know each other, but they both told me the same thing, almost verbatim, when I asked them why they didn't give the babies up for adoption: "I would rather kill my baby than know someone else had it." One of them even celebrated her baby's "birthday" every year. That's fucking SICK. Both the celebration and the callous reasons for having the abortion.


Sidhe

No, read the rest of my post. What I was questioning is noy having the man share responsibility in the case of a pregnancy which is not terminated due to moral beliefs. Accidents do happen and you really should find out a person's stance on these things before you hop into bed with them and have sex.

This is the statement I'm questioning:
Anything after 12 weeks, and the female should be stuck with delivery and adoption."

I think that under most circumstances 12 weeks is enough time. What I was asking about is the woman who opposes having an abortion on moral ground who gets pregnant due to a failure of whatever birth control method the couple is using (and NOT a woman who becomes "accidently" pregnant). Your statement sounded as if you absolved the guy of all responsibility for the medical costs and legal paperwork involved in the process of relinquishing the child for adoption.

I hate to get involved in this because I really haven't figured out exactly where I stand on the issue myself ..

But what difference does 12 weeks make in the morality of the situation? Isn't the baby just as much human at 11 weeks as 12 .. or even the morning after for that matter? Why is the morning after pill considered contaception and not abortion?

I used to be very pro-choice when I was a teenager (I was a women's liblet) but I'm finding as I get older, I just can't come to terms with the idea. People tell me that you have to put yourself in the shoes of the person making the decision. Maybe I need to hear more scenarios to do that.

My sister-in-law got pregnant with a third child after a botched vascectomy and considered an abortion. She eventually decided against it and this baby is now the apple of her eye. A calm little smiling boy in a hurricane household (the other two are uncontrollable). I'm tempted to ask her how she feels about abortion now that she knows what she would have lost. But I'm chicken.

You're right Pete, fetuses start off with continuous growth from the moment of conception, and the only other exact dividing line one can draw in their early life is at birth. Any dividing line placed anywhere else is arbitrary. Those that want to create that dividing line have a good reason. I agree, yes there is a big difference physiologically between a one week old and a 15 week old unborn child, but how do you come to terms with the fact that the decision of 12 weeks is arbitrary?

When exactly does a tadpole become a frog?

My cutoff date for "personhood" is when brain waves are detected. It's then that the fetus is becoming aware and can feel stimuli and such.


Sidhe

Mine is when neo-cortical activity begins. At that point sentience is initially possible, marking the difference between man and animal, the point at which conscious thought is possible.

I figure 10 years old is the absolute latest you can abort a child.

"Clean you room or we're going to the doctor!"

(source: pregnancyguideonline.com)


After 12 weeks (the first trimester) it is medically a "fetus" and a little person in there. Before that time, it's classified as an embryo, basically, a clump of cells.

Most states (check yours) specify that 12 weeks is the latest abortion is allowed except for medical reasons. It's also much more expensive and difficult on the mother's body, because instead of vaccuuming the baby out (D&C), they have to hack it up first due to the bones getting more dense.


edit: changed zygote to embryo.

Hee hee - Thanks for a little levity Carb.

I agree. And maybe they shouldn't need to be - the problem is that many people assume if something is legal, then it's moral. They're letting the state be their conscience. uh oh - I'm starting to sound like Griff.

And it goes the other way, too...that if something is what they consider moral, that it should be law....

Sidhe

Not really.

Actually, I was thinking of the whole "life is sacred argument" that many in your camp use. Interesting point you make, though we see that "baby" differently.

The "life is sacred" argument has nothing to do with either my DP or abortion opinions.

My DP opinion is strictly based on

1. the protection of society from predators
2. the money wasted in taking care of predators for life

and my abortion stance is based on

1. the fact that I don't think babies should be killed for convenience

The only things they have in common are:

1. taking responsibility for one's actions

and

2. both types of killers know the consequences of the actions that got them where they are, ie, sex can lead to pregnancy, committing murder can lead to conviction and execution


Therefore, IMO, they have no excuse when the consequences happen. I don't agree with letting them off the hook because of environment or upbringing. The bottom line is CHOICE. One makes the choice to commit cold-blooded murder, and the other makes the choice to have sex.

I feel the same way about people who smoke. I smoke myself, and apparantly, unlike the smokers who sue the tobacco companies, I'm literate. I know the dangers, and I choose to do it anyway. If I get lung cancer, I have no right to whine and blame the tobacco companies. They didn't force me to smoke. I chose to, therefore, I should have to take responsibility for my actions and the possible consequences.


I'm no harder on anyone else than I am on myself. TS can attest to that. Matter of fact, I often hold others to a lower standard.

As far as abortion is concerned, if it is not medically necessary, then there are other options: birth control is the most obvious, and adoption. In the case of the DP, one knows ahead of time the consequences of the act. They took the chance and they got caught. I have no sympathy.


Sidhe

So I guess that means we can't take Radar to the doctor....

Ok, just kidding...I had to say it, though. I held it in for as long as I could, but it was driving me crazy.

(Jaques)I am ashamed. (/Jaques)


Sidhe



PS
Jaques= Finding Nemo

Psssssst! Sid! I don't believe any brain waves have ever been detected coming from Radar. Maybe we can take him to the doctor after all! :D

Obligatory Cliche for Any Abortion Debate:

"Why is it that the same person who will go ballistic at the thought of crushing the egg of a bald eagle will fight to the death for a "woman's right to choose"?

Maybe they want the eagle to have the right to choose as well?:confused:

People aren't endangered, bald eagles are.

nicely put syc.

Not to mention I haven't seen anyone argue that the bald eagle shouldn't have the right to step on it's own egg.

throw 'em back. get 'em when they're bigger?

Oh shit...that was funny.

No, they aren't.

Eagles were downgraded from endangered to threatened a couple of years ago.

This year they were removed from "threatened" status.

They're back to being run-of-the-mill birds of prey, in a legal sense.

Must be a fisherman thing...

Not yet.

I suppose I should read more than the first statement in a thread before replying...but you're right, it is murder, been twisted into a "right". Why you would want this right is beyond me, why you would practice this right sickens me.

Mine is when life begins. You have to draw a line right? I'm pretty much a live and let live kind of guy 'til we get to this issue. Every life is precious, even Sycamore who most people wish was aborted (I'm just yanking your chain Syc...you're a great example) is a wonderful, unigue human. We can't, we shouldn't play god.

I don't recall the exact numbers, but aren't MILLIONS aborted every year here in the US? That's awful damn close to being you or me, your wife or husband, your best friend being a puddle in a trash bag. Besides millions of young girls having to live with that simple procedure, that awful fact for life.

We play God in various ways every single day. Abortion is just another of those ways. As I see it, until it's born, it's fair game.

Well, don't just limit it to fertilized eggs. With scientific advances, every single cell can be a potential human life.

That's pretty cold Syc. Do you mean it?

So lets try not to kill it then eh? I hate gnats, they make me crazy, big ass wasps scare the crap outta me, but I go out of my way not to kill just because it's inconvenient to me.

I "release" woodticks for christs sake, I come from a long line of hunters, and I'm good with that, but a deer on the side of the road rotting for no purpose bugs me.

Aw shit, I just scratched my arm and killed 400.