Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vampyroteuthis · 04-18-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

I never understood why Christians think it's better to save the fetus than the woman. It's an easy choice for me if had to choose between my wife and a fetus.

Because christianity (and other religions) is fundamentally misogynistic.

sentinel00 · 04-18-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worldtraveller

Yeah, I predict that the real test of this comes when a doctor performs the procedure anyway, to save a woman's life, or a doctor/hospital tries everything else and the woman dies.

She'll be fine so long as Bill Frist and a VCR are nearby...

What I don't understand about this whole thing is: I thought Republicans are for States Rights and smaller Federal Gov't. Wha happened?

Vampyroteuthis · 04-18-2007, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sentinel00

What I don't understand about this whole thing is: I thought Republicans are for States Rights and smaller Federal Gov't. Wha happened?

Bush developed a hemorrhoid called Ted Haggart.

Dave Roberts · 04-18-2007, 01:17 PM

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html

Quote:

In 1993, the American Medical News-- the official newspaper of the AMA-- conducted a tape-recorded interview with Dr. Haskell concerning this specific abortion method, in which he said:

And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.

Quote:

In a lawsuit in 1995, Dr. Haskell testified that women come to him for partial-birth abortions with "a variety of conditions. Some medical, some not so medical." Among the "medical" examples he cited was "agoraphobia" (fear of open places).

Quote:

In June, 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to Congress a detailed breakdown of a "series" of over 2,000 of these abortions that he had performed. He classified only 9% (175 cases) as involving "maternal [health] indications," of which the most common was "depression."

Quote:

Of Dr. McMahon's series, another 1,183 cases (about 56%) were for "fetal flaws," but these included a great many non-lethal disorders, such as cleft palate and Down Syndrome.

Damian · 04-18-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Roberts

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html

Even if all those statements are true (which I haven't checked) and relevant to the issue (which they're not), they don't address the fact that this ban prevents all abortions of this type, including those that actually do have a material effect on the mother's health. It throws the baby out with the bathwater :rofl:

Dave Roberts · 04-18-2007, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underseer

The problem is that late term abortions are almost always done for health reasons, and now those health reasons are illegal. How many women will be harmed just to reinforce conservative Christians' odd definition of life?

Completely relevant

Damian · 04-18-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Roberts

Completely relevant

Nah, it completely fails to address the issue of preventing all of them. Should we ban seatbelts because in a very small number of accidents, they may cause harm?

Gwen · 04-18-2007, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Unsurprisingly, merely saying that a fetus is not a person does not convince me that it is not a person

Unsurprisingly, merely quoting back part of what I said as if I didn't say anything about whether or not personhood confers the right to take over someone's body to exist doesn't make me terribly convinced that you've really paid attention to this discussion with an open mind.
Truly open-minded people rarely quote-mine, let alone change the words of someone they're quoting to suit their arguments.
So...I'm not interested in getting in a "discussion" about this with someone who's not interested in having an honest discussion. Maybe someone else will be so inclined.

Loren Pechtel · 04-18-2007, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Roberts

Completely relevant

"Late term" normally means third trimester. Your quote refers to second trimester abortions.

blastula · 04-18-2007, 03:49 PM

I'm confused about some things here.

The stories I read today said the bill does not include an exception for the health of the mother. Wiki says

Quote:

The Act includes an exception for the life of the woman, but explicitly not for non-life-threatening health issues; opponents believe that this exception is too narrow and have mounted numerous legal challenges. Congress asserted that the procedure is never necessary for maternal health.

But the bill text says:

Quote:

Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

Is that the "explicitly not for non-life-threatening health issues" exception exception, because it doesn't sound all that explicit to me.

The bill also says:

Quote:

(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.

(F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

Does this bill mean only partial-birth abortions (IDX) are banned but other late term abortion techniques are still ok (D&E)? Is IDX more medically preferable than D&E?

Another issue I have is the bill only criminalizes the doctor:

Quote:

(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section, for a conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.

Isn't the woman the ultimate decider?

Confusion.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.