Article in regards to current religious influence in politics

http://www.dear-me.com/Articles/FreedomVSState.htm

Roe is an arse hole

Excellent article. Short and to the point.

So whats wrong with being against partial-birth abortions? I mean, if this isnt murder, then what is?



http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

if you are against partial birth abortion you are agaisnt women, and want them bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen for all eternity.

"So whats wrong with being against partial-birth abortions? I mean, if this isnt murder, then what is?"

I'm not FOR partial birth abortions and I would never encourage any woman to use abortion as a form of birth control or to wait to decide to have an abortion until the later trimesters of pregnancy. But the point is- regardless of the finer points of the abortion debate, government still has no place interfering in the rights of women because of one party's religious beliefs. I believe women should be couseled before deciding on any option with factual (not emotionally tinged blackmail i.e. "You're a murderer") and be allowed to make the decision for herself. Start taking away the right of free choice and free will and other lost rights will follow. We will become slaves to those who hold the most political power, rather than individuals with a voice.

Just for the sake of argument- Do you believe in the death penalty? Many people that preach about the horrors of abortion as murder do.

how come the slippery slope arguments only apply when a liberal is making a point? to them the thought of gay marriage being a slippery slope is stupid, but banning partial birth abortion is a slippery slope to eliminate a womans right to choose anything at all, To them the thought that banning hand guns is a slippery slope to removal of all firearms from citizens hands is ridiculous, but trying to clean up some of the smut on TV is a slippery slope towards total censorship of everybodys right to free speech. typical liberal hypocrisy.

I do support the death penalty. executing some scumbag who slices an old ladies throat is not the same as pulling a baby out of the birth canal until only its head in still in, then jamming apair of scissors into its skull. the question for you is, why do you want people to have the right to kill babies at will, but murderous scum are to be defended as if they are saints being persecuted? it is totally iilogical

Killing ppl who deserve it is fine, but you cannot kill something that is not yet alive. When it is alive then it is much worse to kill it than it is to kill a criminal.

here we go again with alive. if it were up to you we would kill off anyone in a coma or who is severly retarded, like the third reich did. soon you would kill off anyone that disagrees withyour definitionof alive and opposed you, hows that for a slippery slope?

Originally posted by BCchix0r
"So whats wrong with being against partial-birth abortions? I mean, if this isnt murder, then what is?"

I'm not FOR partial birth abortions and I would never encourage any woman to use abortion as a form of birth control or to wait to decide to have an abortion until the later trimesters of pregnancy. But the point is- regardless of the finer points of the abortion debate, government still has no place interfering in the rights of women because of one party's religious beliefs. I believe women should be couseled before deciding on any option with factual (not emotionally tinged blackmail i.e. "You're a murderer") and be allowed to make the decision for herself. Start taking away the right of free choice and free will and other lost rights will follow. We will become slaves to those who hold the most political power, rather than individuals with a voice.

Just for the sake of argument- Do you believe in the death penalty? Many people that preach about the horrors of abortion as murder do. Im not trying to argue with you. I am just against partial birth abortions unless the mother is in danger. To answer your question about the death penalty. Up until VERY recently i was for the death penalty. But no, i am no longer in favor of the death penalty.

Your argument seems to be caught up in a mudslide itself. You have missed the key point. It’s not the for or against abortion that concerns me, it’s the fact that they are trying to regulate it by passing government law. Medicine and surgical procedures are already regulated through licensure and a code of ethics. If there are to be restrictions on abortion, it should be up to the licensing board and the physicians to determine the rules and regulations they should follow. Not an amendment or a new law passed in Congress through politicians scrambling for votes by supporting a special interest’s “noble cause.” Other practices they consider detrimental to the standard of care, such as physicians accepting “industry gifts” that entice them to push a specific drug or product are already regulated. They could institute standards allowing partial birth abortions only in cases of medical need- such as those cases where the mother cannot survive the pregnancy to term. The ban President Bush signed into effect in November did not make any exception if the woman’s health is at risk or if it was known that the child would be born severely deformed, etc.

Regulations such as “one time only” policies to prevent repeat patients except in cases of medical necessity could be put into effect to limit the number of abortions performed and prevent it from being used casually as a form of birth control. Of course, they would have to edit the recent HIPPA laws the government just put into effect for physicians to share a list of patients and prevent repeat clients from just going to another clinic. HIPPA alone is an excellent example of why government should keep their fingers the hell out of health care. If that’s not enough evidence for you, take a look at the Medicare system and what a big fuck-off mess it is. And yes, people are going to abuse the system, regardless of what controls you use. Prohibition and the illegal drug trade prove that. Take all responsibility, all self-control and all choice away and people resort to acting like sneaking dogs. Abortion will still exist- but it will no longer be handled by responsible physicians concerned with keeping their license. Instead it will be performed by those seeking a quick buck, which will leave it completely unregulated and dangerous.

You mentioned the Third Reich. They too eliminated all choice, took all responsibility away from the people and told them what they would and would not do. That’s not only a slippery slope, it’s a landslide of backlash waiting to happen. If you give people responsibility and hold them accountable for their actions, it allows them choice without force. Why ban all handguns and concealed weapons if you can put them in the hands of those who would use them conscientiously; would this not be a deterrent to crime and empower potential victims? Why do they allow people to sue McDonald’s when they eat there and get fat? Why should all television be regulated because there are lazy parents who won’t set the parental controls on their TV or monitor themselves what their children are watching (adults who are offended are perfectly capable of turning the channel)? Put the responsibility with whom it belongs and the problem is regulated without the politicians throwing their two cents into the mix to garner another vote. We as a society need to stop whining for government controls or running to our lawyers on a daily basis and start exercising a little control over ourselves.

Originally posted by BCchix0r
I'm not FOR partial birth abortions and I would never encourage any woman to use abortion as a form of birth control or to wait to decide to have an abortion until the later trimesters of pregnancy. But the point is- regardless of the finer points of the abortion debate, government still has no place interfering in the rights of women because of one party's religious beliefs.

While I agree that "because God said so" isn't a valid reason to impose a law in this country, it still comes down to the personal beliefs of the majority (subject to the strictures of the Constitution). Many people believe that abortion is equivlent to murder. Many people don't. I don't see how you can say one is a more valid viewpoint than the other just because one viewpoint stems from religious grounds.

There is no such medical procedure named "partial birth abortion".

Dilation and extraction (the process labeled "partial birth abortion" is used in less the 1% of all performed abortions in this country. It delivers the baby intact so that the mother (who wanted to baby) can have some closure. Yeah it's a gory procedure, but very helpful in the healing process for the grieving mother.

Is it also a surprise that states with the most restrictive abortion laws also spend the least on prenatal care. They are only concerned until the baby comes out, then you're on your own.

Originally posted by Pepper
There is no such medical procedure named "partial birth abortion".

Dilation and extraction (the process labeled "partial birth abortion" is used in less the 1% of all performed abortions in this country. It delivers the baby intact so that the mother (who wanted to baby) can have some closure. Yeah it's a gory procedure, but very helpful in the healing process for the grieving mother.

Is it also a surprise that states with the most restrictive abortion laws also spend the least on prenatal care. They are only concerned until the baby comes out, then you're on your own.


pulling a fully formed baby out of the womb feet first until only its head is inside still, then jabbing a pair of scissors into the base of its skull is helpfull in the healing process? I guess actually seeing the baby tossed in a trashbag is the healing part. you are freaking sick. you pro abortion types are fucking jacked in the head. how can you even attempt to convince us that killing a baby who is thrashing around in the doctors hands as he stabs it in the head is theraputic in any way? I have heard some spin, but this tops it all. aborting a few cells clustered together is one thing, but a fully formed baby, who if you pulled it out another 6 inchs would cry and be breathing and handed to his mother is something else,its called murder. my daughter was born early, she was crying and healthy and about to begin her life. there are babys who were older than her being aborted, how can you defend that? how the fuck is clsure more important than the life of the baby? dont give me this medical reason crap either. name one reason why the baby, after spending 8 monthsin the womb, would all of a sudden need to be aborted, other than the woman just decides she chaged her mind?

Ok, lets not get all emotional. The babies are drugged first, so they don't go through any pain, but that should not even be part of the argument for or against. 'Is it gory?' Come on now, that should not effect your decision. A knee operation is gory.

I agree with you Trav, after 8 months they should not have an abortion, but what about after 1 month? Would you be ok with that? Or the morning after pill?
What we are looking for it the happy medium where we can agree that it is ok to stop a potential life, that is not yet deemed 'alive'.

it is an emotional issue, and once you have a baby of your own you will cringe at the thought of abortion. I have a baby girl and the thought of her not being here becasue someone chose not to be bothered at that moment with her is sad. I would be willing to bet taht the vast majority of abortions are had by women with no children, becasue i cant fathom a woman who has had the joy of having a baby, and watching it grow simply choosing to kill off a baby.

as far as abortions early, I of course do not like the idea. as you and I have agreed on warlier, nature has a way of doing it itself if there is something wrong with the baby. but, if you just have to abort something, then I suppose it would be best to do it as early as possible.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Travh20
pulling a fully formed baby out of the womb feet first until only its head is inside still, then jabbing a pair of scissors into the base of its skull is helpfull in the healing process?

intact extraction, It keeps the child intact so the mother can hold onto it and grieve. THese operations are on wanted babies. Women can't just say after 8 months "I don't want a child" first off it's a much more dangerous procedure, and second the law doesn't allow it to happen. It is only with the consultation of a doctor (not a politician) is the decision to have a late term abortion made.

I guess actually seeing the baby tossed in a trashbag is the healing part. you are freaking sick. you pro abortion types are fucking jacked in the head.
Why must you be so mean-spirited and vulger.

Where did I every say I was pro abortion? Your labels are very deceptive.

how can you even attempt to convince us that killing a baby who is thrashing around in the doctors hands as he stabs it in the head is theraputic in any way?

I'm reading some spin right now. Prove to me it happens this way?

I have heard some spin, but this tops it all. aborting a few cells clustered together is one thing, but a fully formed baby, who if you pulled it out another 6 inchs would cry and be breathing and handed to his mother is something else,its called murder.

SO if a woman dies delivering a child is that not murder? When does the child's life become more important than the woman.

my daughter was born early, she was crying and healthy and about to begin her life. there are babys who were older than her being aborted, how can you defend that?

When the health of the mother is at risk. Again it's a very small number (less then 1% of all abortions performed in this country .02 % actually)

how the fuck is clsure more important than the life of the baby? dont give me this medical reason crap either.

The law doesn't work that way. Even in the decision of Roe V wade there were constrains on when a woman can and cannot have an abortion. In the third trimester these decisions must be made with a doctor's recommendation before such surgery can be completed.

name one reason why the baby, after spending 8 monthsin the womb, would all of a sudden need to be aborted, other than the woman just decides she chaged her mind?
You just want one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocephalus

It's also used when the fetus is dead(after the 3rd trimester), or when the health of the mother is threatened.

OK, first, have you ever heard of a procedure called a cesarean section? it is petty popular and wide spread. the link you posted says nothing of harm to the mother, it says it harms the baby, and it says it is treatable, but for aguments sake, I think your link was to try and say the babys head would be to big or hard to give birth to due to fluid build up of some sort. this is where the cesarian section comes in. sometimes women who are very small are forced to have cesarian sections becasue the doctor determines the babys head is to large to deliver naturally. Anyway, I can see no situation where a woman who wanted a baby, had to have a late term abortion agaisnt her will. an emergency cesarian is what would be done.

Cesarian is MAJOR surgery!! IT causes even greater complications to the woman then a regular canal birth. It (was I) can lead to infection and even sterility.

Honestly you wanted one example, what do you do when the baby is dead? Just leave it there? What do you do when the baby will die when it is delivered. Not every disease has a cure. If you can't see any situtation, doesn't mean there isn't one.

I would rather a doctor and the mother make these decisions then a politician. Who knows better then those who are intimate with the details?

Are you a medical professional? How do you know there are NO situations for this procedure? Are you part of the The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) A group of over 44,000 professionals who represent 95% of of all board-certified obstetricians and gynecologists practicing in the United States. They do not support a ban against this procedure.

Even the American Medical Association does not support a ban against this procedure.

But a politician with no medical background can say "No this procedure is illegal" What other medical procedure is banned in this country? (None)

Originally posted by Pepper
Cesarian is MAJOR surgery!! IT causes even greater complications to the woman then a regular canal birth. I can lead to infection and even sterility

I now all the risks, my wife had to have one when my daughter was born. I went to all teh classes and everything. cessarians are not brain surgery, tehy take 20 minutes, cut, pulthe kid out, sew back up. my wife actuall yprefed it to regular birth she did with our son, becasue unlike regular birth, you can schedule a C section, so you know the day and TIME of your childs birth, it is very convienient for grandparents and anyone else who wants to be there.

Originally posted by Pepper
I would rather a doctor and the mother make these decisions then a politician. Who knows better then those who are intimate with the details?

Are you a medical professional? How do you know there are NO situations for this procedure? Are you part of the The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) A group of over 44,000 professionals who represent 95% of of all board-certified obstetricians and gynecologists practicing in the United States. They do not support a ban against this procedure.

Even the American Medical Association does not support a ban against this procedure.[/B]

dont try and impress me with acronyms pepper. and no, I am not a doctor, all I said was that I cant think of any reason why a woman would have to have a late term abortion against her will, when a c section and medical treatment are available.

Originally posted by Pepper But a politician with no medical background can say "No this procedure is illegal" What other medical procedure is banned in this country? (None) [/B]

what other medical procedure is designed to kill one of the patients? i thought the oath said do no harm, I think death is very harmful.

Originally posted by Pepper
I can lead to infection and even sterility.
::gives up pepper for good:: :D

what other medical procedure is designed to kill one of the patients? i thought the oath said do no harm, I think death is very harmful.

Death happens. We all are going to die. There are complications that make having a child a danger to the woman. Why can't you see that there are some medical necessities to having this type of procedure which again only accounts for .02% of all abortions performed in the united states?

People who do this for a living, who encounter women who are trying to prevent pregnancy to women who want a healthy and viable child, do not agree with banning this procedure. I gave you plenty of reasons.

What do you do with a dead baby? Do you just leave it there? Do you cut the body of a healthy woman so you don't harm the dead fetus? Honestly why subject someone to more pain, when it can be done without further harm to the woman.

OK first of all, if the baby is already dead, how is that valid in an abortion debate? of course you cant leave a dead baby inside a woman, no one has said that. you dont perform a late term abortion on an alredy dead baby.

and saying that late term abortions are OK becasue we are all going to die anyway just is stupid. why not just kill yourself now and get it over with? go out, get a gun and blow your brains out. Actually next you will want to just kill all children who have any life shortening disease, since they are going to die anyway.

there is never any need for a late term abortion, please give me one. it is not my job to prove to you that there isnt need for them, since I dont want them performed anyway, I want you to prove to me that there are medical conditions that are only cureable by pulling a child out 90% of the way then killing it, then pulling it out the rest of the way.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Travh20
OK first of all, if the baby is already dead, how is that valid in an abortion debate? of course you cant leave a dead baby inside a woman, no one has said that. you dont perform a late term abortion on an alredy dead baby.

This is a call for a procedural ban of so called "partial birth abortion". It would ban the use of this procedure in extracting a dead child.

and saying that late term abortions are OK becasue we are all going to die anyway just is stupid.
You are right it is stupid, too bad I didn't say that. Death is a part of life. We can't prevent every illness, disease or disorder. Sometimes medicine fails. Sometimes the child has to be removed for the health and safety of the woman.

there is never any need for a late term abortion,
please give me one.

You see this where you are wrong...again. First off .02% of abortions do happen in the late term. These decisions were based on patient and the doctor. So obviously there is a need for them. If not why have the procedure? Do you think sadistic doctors are just finding ways to abort children? Do you think that many of the women are happy with this decision?

it is not my job to prove to you that there isnt need for them, since I dont want them performed anyway, I want you to prove to me that there are medical conditions that are only cureable by pulling a child out 90% of the way then killing it, then pulling it out the rest of the way.

Re-read my post, I think I gave plenty of reasons. You are too set in your own ways to see any of them. If 44,000 professionals, who are work day in and day out on women's health issues support this procedure, why can't you?

no one is trying to stop the procedure used to deliver dead babys, they are trying to stop it from being used on live babies. and saying 44,000 doctors are against banning it it doesnt mean shit to me. I can throw around acronyms and statistics too, so what? tell me, when it is neccesarry to pull a baby out 90% of the way, kill it, then pull it out the rest of the way?

Pepper, I’m not entirely sure where you’re coming from here, but I’m going to take a shot at it. Trav says “no one is trying to stop the procedure used to deliver dead babys, they are trying to stop it from being used on live babies. and saying 44,000 doctors are against banning it it doesnt mean shit to me.” The problem is Trav, that the new law is NOT CLEAR on what is considered a “Late Term Abortion.” This is the complaint of the 44,000 medical professionals mentioned. (I don’t know where these statistics are coming from, but that’s irrelevant to my point, so I’ll skip it) The law as it is currently written could be interpreted as ALL late term abortions. Miscarriage is called “spontaneous abortion” in medical terms, therefore the ban could set doctors up to be sued or lose their license for performing ANY late term abortion, regardless of the reason for the procedure. This is why I said that patients and medical personnel should be the decision makers in regards to issues like this, rather than political figures and their constituents. As I said in the article, I don’t believe there is EVER a reason that a woman should require an ELECTIVE late term abortion. If you can’t decide in the first few weeks of your pregnancy whether you are capable of being a parent or not, then you have no business making the decision at all- someone should make it FOR your stupid, indecisive ass. Also, the 1999 “Baby Moses Law” is another case for why doctor’s no longer need to perform elective late term abortions- A woman who has been pregnant past her 2nd trimester (Many clinics will NOT perform an abortion after the 1st trimester) has carried it long enough that it shouldn’t be that life-altering for her to finish the pregnancy and turn the child over to the hospital/state if she isn’t capable of raising the child. Once again, prevention is the best scenario of all. If you are against abortion, period, then you should readily support ALL sex education classes, not just the abstinence only ones that Bush and the pro-life extremists like to preach. Push for sex-ed reform in schools (show the parents that fight against it your dead-baby pictures if you like- maybe it will get them to think about whether giving a kid a condom is really such a horrible thing), support organizations like Planned Parenthood, don’t preach to kids about living up to that archaic religious standard of waiting till they’re married- educate them about the responsibilities of safe sex instead. We need a realist’s approach to these problems, not an idealistic glorified fantasy.

Also, an update on my mention of stem-cell research. Apparently I was off in my facts- Bush did not ban the research completely, instead he told the scientists working on the project that he would give no more government funding for new stem cell lines, hoping to effective starve their research into cessation. However, Harvard University scientists have given 17 new cell lines to the research, in spite of Bush’s attempts to stop the work. The full story can be found here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040304/ap_on_sc/stem_cells_14

Most so-called "partial birth abortions" are performed because the baby has been diagnosed with acute hydrocephaly, commonly called "water on the brain". this buildup of cerebrospinal fluid leads to massive brain damage. while treatable in some cases, if left untreated the baby would not survive, and the success rate is not promising.

The overall incidence of hydrocephalus is 3 to 4: 1000 births, with aqueductal stenosis responsible for 20% of the cases almost all newborns with myelomeningocele (1:1000 live births) develop hydrocephalus. If untreated, hydrocephalic patients have a high mortality rate and severe mental retardation occurs in many of the survivors. These are most likely effect of the increased intracranial pressure. The current treatment of hydrocephalus consists in the placement of a shunt system that diverts the CSF from the ventricles into another body cavity, usually the peritoneum.

Since the advent of the modern ventricular shunt era in the 1960’s there have been numerous studies, both retrospective and prospective, documenting the efficacy of ventricular shunts in alleviating hydrocephalus. Over the last 40 years research and application has provided a gradual increase in the quality of the shunt apparatus, a general decrease in catastrophic failures and an improved quality of life for hydrocephalic patients. There are, however, salted throughout the literature, even unto the present, two distinct areas of concern. The first is that even those patients with a fully functioning uncomplicated shunt can be neurological and cognitively impaired. Some estimates have approximately 60% of the shunted individuals having moderate to severe deficits. Secondly, given that a constellation of shunt complications occur (infection, catheter problems etc) there is a class of shunt failure not readily matched to known etiologies, that usually lead to multiple shunt revisions.

There are also risks to the mother in delivering a baby with severe hydrocephaly. Some of these fetuses can have a cranial diameter of up to 20". The decision on whether to subject the mother to such risks, and whether the fetus is a viable one are medical decisions and should be made by the family in consultation with their doctor. No amount of rhetoric or talk about scissors being stabbed into the baby's skull is going to convince me that the politicians are more qualified to make this decision than the doctors.

again, does the word cesarian section mean anything to you? how about emergency cesarian section? and since when do we just kill people off becasue the chances of them not surviving are high? that is just wrong. people pull through things they were not supposed to survive all the time. the doctors are playing god when tehy kill a baby becasue they think it is going to die anyway. doctors have no right to kill a patient for any reason. does the term "first do no harm" mean anything to you? or do politics trump ethics?

here is the procedure, o amount of political spin will change it

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/rollovers/animationpbaa.gif

Trav it comes down to who's life is more important, the woman or the fetus? Cecearian births are MAJOR surgery and open's the woman to serious infections.

The woman is already loosing a baby she wanted, why put her through further agony? Especially when a less dangerous method is available.

You offer a procedure produced by a anti-choice organization, hardly a unbiased source.

I'll keep listening to the professionals, like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
www.acog.org


Here is their statement on so called partial birth abortion bans. They are professionals (I didn't say they were doctors) in the field of women's health, not elected politicians.

http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr02-13-02.cfm

OK, I dont know if we are even talking about the same thing. at 8 months it is no longer a fetus, sorry, it is a fully formed baby that if pulled all the way out would live and breath. and if you are talking about removing a dead baby, then we hav no argument. if the law does say that you cant use this method to remove a dead baby the law is wrong. of course if the baby is already dead it can not be aborted! I am sorry if you dont like the image, but that is a animation of it.

I didn't say anything about not liking it, if you need false imagery to get your point across that's fine, just don't expect me to believe it.

false imagery? tell Dr Pepper (lol) how exactly is the procedure performed? it sounds more like you are in denial. go ahead, do your own research about how its done if you dont believe me.

I've taken care of several children at the hospital who were born with hydrocephalus, born with drug addiction, premature with little or no lung function, etc. and they were eventually fine physically. Travh, I agree with you that if that procedure is indeed being done and isn't just part of thier shock value tactics, then they need to take a good look at the ethical standards of a physician who would agree to do such a procedure on a living, viable, healthy baby or one that could potentially recover.

Pepper, I just read the link for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
"... in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician — not legislators — are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment."
This is exactly what I've been saying from the moment I started this thread and the entire point of the thread to begin with. Legislation against medical procedures should NEVER be.

Originally posted by BCchix0r

This is exactly what I've been saying from the moment I started this thread and the entire point of the thread to begin with. Legislation against medical procedures should NEVER be.

There is very little that you have written, that I don't 100% agree with. It's easy for these discussions to get a little side-tracked.

No kidding! Especially with a subject that can be as emotionally charged as this one. Good links Pepper, I appreciated the info.