Too much war talk

Gonz

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
let's lighten things up a bit with a good old fashioned fight over abortion. What are your thoughts on THIS particular action by the government? Are teh conservatives attacking RvWade?

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to ban a procedure that critics call partial birth abortion, and conservatives confidently predicted the bill would soon be signed into law after an eight-year struggle.

"This is a heinous act. It is immoral. It is wrong and it is simply something a civilized society should not tolerate," Sen. Michael DeWine, R-Ohio, said after the bipartisan 64-33 vote to limit the range of procedures available to women under the 1973 landmark Supreme Court abortion rights ruling.


The Senate's action cleared the way for expected House passage this spring. President Bush (news - web sites) has said he will sign the measure, a revised version of bills that former President Clinton (news - web sites) twice vetoed as unconstitutional.


"Partial birth abortion is an abhorrent procedure that offends human dignity, and I commend the Senate for passing legislation to ban it," the president said in a written statement. "Today's action is an important step toward building a culture of life in America."
Click to expand...

Full story
 
I don't see anything wrong with the passage of that. If a woman needs to have an abortion, she should have made that decision sometime in the first three to four months at the latest.
 
I see nothing wrong with making partial birth abortions illegal. Those decisions should be made early in the pregnancy.
 
PuterTutor said:
That didn't work, too much agreement.
Click to expand...

The enlightened ones haven't read it yet :D

Kerry is a Prez wannabe...can't make committments
 
My wife has been a nurse for twenty years, and she says they don't do partial birth abortions unless:
A. The mother is in grave danger of death or
B. If the fetus is already dead or has no chance of survival.
This is not to say that there are no quacks and morally bankrupt monsters out there, but in general, this is the case. So, I guess the question is, what did they really just legislate against. I guarantee this is a preamble to an attack on Roe v. Wade.
 
1 vote against along the lines that chcr mentioned.

HomeLAN and I had a coworker who was racked with a fatal fetal virus at about 7 1/2 months. She was distraught over the death.. but also quite panicked about carrying a dead baby to full term. To continue carrying the baby to term would only have served to entrench the physical and psychological harm that she was suffering. The baby was baptised, named, and had a full funeral. It all happend so quickly ... and thankfully so. Such news went through the family rather quickly causing an immense amount of grief. The healing process couldn't possibly start until the baby was laid to rest. Such a restrictive law trying to corral a legitimate medical proceedure is just being shortsighted.

On the other hand, if it is used strictly as an abortion well past the normal early term dates, then it would seem to me to already be an illegal act covered under existing laws and should be dealt with accordingly.
 
unc, abortion, by definition, is removal of a live fetus before complete gestation, killing said fetus in the process. I don't think your example qualifies as an abortion, since the fetus was already dead. I'd imagine it would just be considered a surgical procedure to remove it. I can't see how that would be illegal.
 
If the fetus is already dead or has no chance of survival.
Click to expand...

Then tell me what would be the point of sticking a rod into the base of the infants skull and sucking its brain out through a tube? Why would you bother doing that if the baby was already dead or had no chance of survival, i mean what's the point?

And doesn't this go against the rule of law that says during abortion procedures a physician must do eveything in his/her power to save the baby once it's delivered?

PS. Jerrick, please don't take my side on this.
 
The baby was still alive by the very nature of the conncetion via the umbilicus ... but the brain was dead and the heart was dead. The mothers system can sustain the fetus all the way until birth. Think of it under terms of someone being on external life support in the hospital. Its not as if the fetus will start to decay after death. Moms system will compensate... but only until the cord is cut. Sometimes there is a risk of the mother spreading the virus to others so long as she is carrying the baby. Granted, there is much abuse in destroying perfectly normal babies in late term. I disagree with such actions. I am only thinking of the roadblocks against legitimate medical need as they are all lumped into the same category of abortion. The definition of abortion covers both living and dead embryos as well as miscarriages.
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
Then tell me what would be the point of sticking a rod into the base of the infants skull and sucking its brain out through a tube? Why would you bother doing that if the baby was already dead or had no chance of survival, i mean what's the point?
Click to expand...
Because without the use of powerful chemicals to induce the birth canal to accomodate the circumference of the head, it can't be done. A fetus that is disassembled in the womb won't hurt the woman nearly as much as a normal style birth. Its a matter of a one night hospital stay and a quick recovery versus 3 days of hospital and weeks of recovery. I agree that it is a rather greusome practice ... but its also a practical one in that it reduces risks to the mother.

My friend at work optioned for the normal induced method so that they could do the baptism and normal grief elements that parents go through. It hurt her like a normal birth. She was on leave for weeks while she recovered in body ... of course the mind took much longer.
 
unclehobart said:
She was distraught over the death.. but also quite panicked about carrying a dead baby to full term.
Click to expand...
Jeez, unc...a 200 word essay on a dead baby and the first words of your next post are:
unc said:
The baby was still alive
Click to expand...
?(
 
Hmm
That may be true Unc but i still don't buy the idea that this procedure would only be used in circumstances where the baby is dead or has little chance of survival. That's bullshit. This wouldn't be so contraversial if this was the case.
 
Argumentatively alive at the time only because of the umbilical connection. All vital signs of the baby were just echoes of moms system. All blood and nutrition came from mom. All waste and respiration came from mom. The baby would still grow because of the very nature of the gestational cycle. It was both alive and dead at the same time. I don't think I can make it any clearer than I stated above. All I can do is substitute 'still' alive with 'only alive'.
 
I should add that history has shown us that people will choose abortion late term under perfect circumstances simply because they don't want the baby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top