Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hezekiah jones · 06-04-2003, 08:21 PM

Is this the page?

Key Facts on Partial-Birth Abortion

Fitzsimmons' remarks are unrelated to the description of a D&X given above them in a separate, bulleted paragraph. Why would doctors "suck the brains out of the skull" of a 20-week old fetus?

Wow - the way they put this particular page together is very misleading.

fromtheright · 06-04-2003, 08:24 PM

Again, from nrlc website:

Quote:

In a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a living baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal (vagina), except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix (the opening to the womb). The abortionist punctures the base of the baby�s skull with a surgical instrument, such as a long surgical scissors or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trochar. He then inserts a catheter (tube) into the wound, and removes the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now-dead baby.

Quote:

The term �partial-birth� is perfectly accurate. Under both federal law and most state laws, a �live birth� occurs when a baby is entirely expelled from the mother and shows any signs of life, however briefly -- regardless of whether the baby is �viable,� i.e., developed enough to be sustained outside the womb with neo-natal medical assistance. Even at 4� months (20 weeks), perinatologists say that if a baby is expelled or removed completely from the uterus, she will usually gasp for breath and sometimes survive for hours, even though lung development is usually insufficient to permit successful sustained respiration until 23 weeks.

hezekiah jones · 06-04-2003, 08:26 PM

Yeah I read it. It appears to me that whatever Fitzsimmons is referring to is quite far removed from what the NRLC is describing above. Correct me if I'm wrong. 20 weeks - that's way short of the third trimester even. I wouldn't call that a late term abortion, let along "partial birth."

gilly54 · 06-04-2003, 11:00 PM

And the NRLC website presents an unbiased description of the procedure...

Google news just posted this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Jun4.html

So now Congress is telling doctors what is best for the patient. I didn't know our representatives in Congress are also experienced ob/gyns...

Time for another $ contribution to NARAL, NOW or Planned Parenthood.

Dominus Paradoxum · 06-05-2003, 12:18 AM

Well whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing will depend upon which side has the most accurate information. If it's true that this is primarily done on healthy babies with no risk to the mother, I'd say that's pretty bad.

NYCparalegal · 06-05-2003, 10:03 AM

Something smells fishy here. Why would a healthy mother decide late in her pregnancy to abort her child? C'mon... it makes no sense. I daresay that a healthy woman all of the sudden considering to abort her healthy child in the late stages of pregnancy should receive psychological counseling. An ob/gyn friend of mine has performed Dilation & Extraction only twice in his 10-yr. long career and in both cases it was a necessary surgery to prevent death to the mother (one of which eventually died anyway).

The thing that bothers me most in this whole abortion debate is that the emphasis is so much on the fetus' rights that the rights of the woman carrying that fetus have been conveniently discarded. I am a woman and I would find it very difficult to abort a fetus, zygote, baby etc. unless I had a very good reason, but would not hesitate to do so if I were about to die or if the fetus were in a bad state of health. However, I find it despicable that there are some women out there for whom abortion is just another "birth control" method (I met a few in college). And I also resent those fundies who shun any mention of birth control in schools at the same time they are vehemently opposing abortion. Sadly, this abortion debate is mostly shades of grey, rather than black or white, which is why it is imperative that Roe v. Wade be allowed to stand.

hezekiah jones · 06-05-2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by NYCparalegal
An ob/gyn friend of mine has performed Dilation & Extraction only twice in his 10-yr. long career and in both cases it was a necessary surgery to prevent death to the mother (one of which eventually died anyway).

That would seem to be closer to the actual incidence of these admittedly distasteful procedures.

Originally posted by NYCparalegal
Sadly, this abortion debate is mostly shades of grey, rather than black or white, which is why it is imperative that Roe v. Wade be allowed to stand.

If I'm not mistaken, the Senate version of this bill includes an amendment affirming the fundamental holding in Roe. Whether it survives the conference committee remains to be seen.

VTboy · 06-09-2003, 07:28 PM

"That would seem to be closer to the actual incidence of these admittedly distasteful procedures. " Actually this is not true.

It was testified in congress that over 90% of these are done on healthy babies and healthy mothers. Infact the main reason is for mental issues. The mother claims that she is insane and insantity is enough of a reason to the goverement for an abortion.

Toto · 06-09-2003, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by VTboy
"That would seem to be closer to the actual incidence of these admittedly distasteful procedures. " Actually this is not true.

It was testified in congress that over 90% of these are done on healthy babies and healthy mothers. Infact the main reason is for mental issues. The mother claims that she is insane and insantity is enough of a reason to the goverement for an abortion.

Actually I think you must be mistaken. Since a woman does not need to give a reason for an abortion to the government, why would anyone bother making such a claim, and who would have those statistics?

It is hard to find real statistics, because the term "partial birth aborion" is not standard medical terminology. But I found this :

Quote:

Abortion rights groups say the procedure is rare, occurring mostly in the latter stages of pregnancy when the fetus is discovered to be lethally malformed. They cite one study estimating that this type accounted for less than one-tenth of one percent of the 1.3 million abortions performed in 2000.

But Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, chief sponsor of the bill, put the number at up to 5,000 a year, with some performed in the second trimester when both the fetus and the mother are healthy. "It's horrific, it's barbaric, it's infanticide," he said.

{emphasis added}

"Some" is not the same as 90%, and if the chief sponsor does not even back you up, I have to assume that you have no basis for that claim.

VTboy · 06-10-2003, 07:52 AM

Toto because when he said some he did not include the mother with "mental issues" A mother could have an abortion for health reason and the only thing wrong with her would be she has Mental Problems. I dont consider a mother who might be crazy to un healthy to have a child. If you count the mothers who might be crazy and have an abortion on the healthy side than most abotions are done on heathy mothers and children.

06-04-2003, 11:00 PM	#14
gilly54 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New Almaden, California Posts: 917	Congress voted regarding D&X procedure And the NRLC website presents an unbiased description of the procedure... Google news just posted this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Jun4.html So now Congress is telling doctors what is best for the patient. I didn't know our representatives in Congress are also experienced ob/gyns... Time for another $ contribution to NARAL, NOW or Planned Parenthood.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-04-2003, 08:21 PM	#11
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Is this the page? Key Facts on Partial-Birth Abortion Fitzsimmons' remarks are unrelated to the description of a D&X given above them in a separate, bulleted paragraph. Why would doctors "suck the brains out of the skull" of a 20-week old fetus? Wow - the way they put this particular page together is very misleading.

06-04-2003, 08:26 PM	#13
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Yeah I read it. It appears to me that whatever Fitzsimmons is referring to is quite far removed from what the NRLC is describing above. Correct me if I'm wrong. 20 weeks - that's way short of the third trimester even. I wouldn't call that a late term abortion, let along "partial birth."

06-05-2003, 12:18 AM	#15
Dominus Paradoxum Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: California Posts: 1,000	Well whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing will depend upon which side has the most accurate information. If it's true that this is primarily done on healthy babies with no risk to the mother, I'd say that's pretty bad.

06-05-2003, 10:03 AM	#16
NYCparalegal Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Manhattan, NYC Posts: 183	Something smells fishy here. Why would a healthy mother decide late in her pregnancy to abort her child? C'mon... it makes no sense. I daresay that a healthy woman all of the sudden considering to abort her healthy child in the late stages of pregnancy should receive psychological counseling. An ob/gyn friend of mine has performed Dilation & Extraction only twice in his 10-yr. long career and in both cases it was a necessary surgery to prevent death to the mother (one of which eventually died anyway). The thing that bothers me most in this whole abortion debate is that the emphasis is so much on the fetus' rights that the rights of the woman carrying that fetus have been conveniently discarded. I am a woman and I would find it very difficult to abort a fetus, zygote, baby etc. unless I had a very good reason, but would not hesitate to do so if I were about to die or if the fetus were in a bad state of health. However, I find it despicable that there are some women out there for whom abortion is just another "birth control" method (I met a few in college). And I also resent those fundies who shun any mention of birth control in schools at the same time they are vehemently opposing abortion. Sadly, this abortion debate is mostly shades of grey, rather than black or white, which is why it is imperative that Roe v. Wade be allowed to stand.

06-05-2003, 11:54 AM	#17
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Originally posted by NYCparalegal An ob/gyn friend of mine has performed Dilation & Extraction only twice in his 10-yr. long career and in both cases it was a necessary surgery to prevent death to the mother (one of which eventually died anyway). That would seem to be closer to the actual incidence of these admittedly distasteful procedures. Originally posted by NYCparalegal Sadly, this abortion debate is mostly shades of grey, rather than black or white, which is why it is imperative that Roe v. Wade be allowed to stand. If I'm not mistaken, the Senate version of this bill includes an amendment affirming the fundamental holding in Roe. Whether it survives the conference committee remains to be seen.

06-09-2003, 07:28 PM	#18
VTboy Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Fairfield, Ca Posts: 177	"That would seem to be closer to the actual incidence of these admittedly distasteful procedures. " Actually this is not true. It was testified in congress that over 90% of these are done on healthy babies and healthy mothers. Infact the main reason is for mental issues. The mother claims that she is insane and insantity is enough of a reason to the goverement for an abortion.

06-10-2003, 07:52 AM	#20
VTboy Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Fairfield, Ca Posts: 177	Toto because when he said some he did not include the mother with "mental issues" A mother could have an abortion for health reason and the only thing wrong with her would be she has Mental Problems. I dont consider a mother who might be crazy to un healthy to have a child. If you count the mothers who might be crazy and have an abortion on the healthy side than most abotions are done on heathy mothers and children.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.