What was/is your opinion of Partial B...
Sue

Falling Waters, WV

#37 Dec 3, 2006
Lynne wrote:
Rather, how the partial birth murder is committed.
Who's been tried and convicted, Lynne? And again, where is your answer to the question posed? What would you do if it were your daughter? Yourself? Did you even think about the question? Why do I bother to ask? Of course not.
Dee

Phenix City, AL

#38 Dec 3, 2006
Sue wrote:
<quoted text>
Geez, lady, get a grip. I didn't make up those reasons, nor did I invent the information BAA posted. I simply copied and pasted for you, and BAA simply cited if for you. It's factual, based on statistics and research. You don't have to agree with it, but if you can't produce any evidence to the contrary, then you aren't holding up your end of the discussion. Whether you agree with the reasons women have these procedures or not, they do have them and those are the reasons. Blow your stack all you want, it doesn't change a thing, including minds. I realize you think you're well-educated, but your posts prove otherwise. You don't agree with abortion up to 23 weeks, fine. Don't have one. But these are the reasons some women, and underage girls, have them.
So, Sue, are you for it or against it? What is a "good reason" you would say partial birth abortion should be performed?
Denise

San Francisco, CA

#39 Dec 3, 2006
Sue wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's been tried and convicted, Lynne? And again, where is your answer to the question posed? What would you do if it were your daughter? Yourself? Did you even think about the question? Why do I bother to ask? Of course not.
My original question was how Lynne would know that a C-section would be safer or optimal in any given woman's circumstance.

No one asked how they were performed.
Dee

Phenix City, AL

#40 Dec 3, 2006
Sorry Sue. I should've read on. Still, what is a "good reason" you would say partial birth abortion should be performed?
Dee

Phenix City, AL

#41 Dec 3, 2006
I believe I saw one of ya'll post that placenta previa was one of the reasons for PBA. I happened to have placenta previa with my son. I was on total bedrest from 6 mts of pregnancy til delivery, which was supposed to be a planned C-section, but turned into an emergency C-section. I don't see that I had to kill my child to get hiim out of me. I was hemorrhaging and he was delivered immediately. So, in my opinion, it's just another excuse.

I can't come up with any threads right now to add to the discussion, but I will add that 2-3 years ago I watched the whole court thing on C-span with the doctors giving testimony to how the procedure is done. Horrible! The baby literally jerks from pain when they do it.
BrnAgnAtheist

United States

#42 Dec 3, 2006
Isn't it interesting that these women are not the ones risking uterine perforation, or weakening of the uterine wall, or tearing due to cancer or infection or hysterectomy.

When it is their reproductive ability at risk, then they get to judge when a woman has what procedure.

Kristie spouts that these situations are rare. Well if you are the RARE person IN that situtation the situation becomes pretty f'n important doesn't it?

Go ahead Lynne, answer the question: Your daughters fetus has been diagnosed as having no brain in the 8th month, fetus must be removed as the situation has become life threatening to your daughter. Your daughter and her husband says she does not want a c-section because she believes in natural vaginal birth and a c-section would eliminate that possibility for future deliveries. Her doctor says intact removal, and a collapse of the head is the safest way to protect your daughter from the possibility of uterine puncture and a subsequent hysterectomy. Your daughter decides that is what she wants to do.

What are YOU going to do about THAT???
Sue

Falling Waters, WV

#43 Dec 3, 2006
Dee wrote:
Sorry Sue. I should've read on. Still, what is a "good reason" you would say partial birth abortion should be performed?
I posted them already, either here or on another thread. Look it up if you want. The "good reasons" are myriad. They are determined by a woman and her physician, and include preservation of the woman's health and deformities of the fetus. They don't have to be "good" as far as you're concerned--since no one else should be or is making the decision except for the woman concerned and her doctor.
BrnAgnAtheist

United States

#44 Dec 3, 2006
Partial birth abortion is a anti-choice term. The correct term is "late term abortion".

The decision is to be left up to the Doctor and the Woman and no one else.

Suppose Dee, congress had outlawed c-section for your particular situation because a religious group had presented to congress compelling evidence that it wasn't the safest procedure and a few doctors agrees, and they found it to be against the natural birthing process. The law passed. You and your doctor had no choice but to do a vaginal delivery. Where would you and your son be now??? Would you feel it was proper for the congress to be in charge of that decision? What if the doctor said, as you were bleeding to death, that the cord was around you son's neck and he would die if he couldn't do a c-section and the law said he couldn't. THEN what???

Please justify to me how it would be appropriate for a religious group that is opposed to c-sections, some doctors who had never met you and were not in the delivery room, and the congress, to decide which is the best medical procedure for you and your son.
Sue

Falling Waters, WV

#45 Dec 3, 2006
Dee wrote:
I believe I saw one of ya'll post that placenta previa was one of the reasons for PBA. I happened to have placenta previa with my son. I was on total bedrest from 6 mts of pregnancy til delivery, which was supposed to be a planned C-section, but turned into an emergency C-section. I don't see that I had to kill my child to get hiim out of me. I was hemorrhaging and he was delivered immediately. So, in my opinion, it's just another excuse.
I can't come up with any threads right now to add to the discussion, but I will add that 2-3 years ago I watched the whole court thing on C-span with the doctors giving testimony to how the procedure is done. Horrible! The baby literally jerks from pain when they do it.
Placenta previa was used in the case now before the SCOTUS by the attorney arguing that the court should uphold a ban on the procedure, not in defense of it the procedure. Your opinion, that it's just another excuse, is exactly that, your opinion. You're welcome to it, as this thread is one concerning people's opinions on abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. But don't confuse that with the facts of the issue---that these abortions are done for a variety of reasons, which are the business of the woman and her doctor.
Sue

Falling Waters, WV

#46 Dec 3, 2006
Here are some of the reasons women have abortions in the 2nd or 3rd trimester. They are simply reasons given by women and their doctors for having the procedure:

Her financial situation has suddenly deteriorated
She has experienced a drastic change in her relationship with the father
She did not become aware of the pregnancy until it was in its later stages
(In the case of a minor) She concealed her situation from her caretakers and they have only now become aware that she is pregnant
She faced a social, legal, or financial obstacle that prevented her from obtaining an abortion earlier in the pregnancy
A fetal abnormality has been discovered that was undetectable earlier in the pregnancy
The pregnancy has become a risk to her life or health
I wrote:
In fact it is safer for the woman, as you'd know if you had actually read some research. I posted the reasons why on another thread, but suffice it to say that vaginal removal is indeed less risky for a woman's health. In addition, removing the fetus intact involves less chance of damage to the woman than dismemberment, because fewer instruments are inserted into the vagina and uterus. The skull is collapsed because the cervix is not dilated as much as in birth and removing it intact would possibly cause hemorrhage and more damage to the woman's organs. I don't expect this to make a dent in your thick head, but maybe someone else reading here will be more interested in factual information than hysteria.
__________

The paragraph just above is my own; i don't at all dispute how the procedure is performed as you can clearly see. What I do dispute is the contention that it's murder or a capricious decision on the part of a woman.
Sue

Falling Waters, WV

#47 Dec 3, 2006
What I think is interesting in this discussion is the implication that women have abortions in the 2nd or 3rd trimester on a whim, or just because it's convenient, somehow. I can't imagine that this kind of abortion is an easy experience for a woman. I doubt that many women make a decision to have any abortion lightly, and certainly an abortion in the 2nd or 3rd trimester would not be a pleasant or painless procedure for any woman. My opinion is that these abortions are performed when other options have been ruled out, for reasons of the woman's mental and/or physical health, or when the fetus is so deformed it cannot survive with any quality of life, or is already dead. In any of these cases, I truly think it's a decision that can and should be made solely by the woman and her doctor. You're welcome to disagree, and I'm sure you will, but do any of you honestly think a woman would have such a procedure on a whim? Why then, would she do so? For convenience? I doubt it.
BrnAgnAtheist

United States

#48 Dec 3, 2006
As I stated previously, the idea that women have any abortion for simple convenience is an anti-woman, pro-fetus forcer myth designed to demean the woman and make her apprear to be subhuman. They do this to be able to justify forcing her to carry a pregnancy she does not want. They have to make the woman appear to be defective to justify why they should be allowed to infringe on her private, personal, business based on their own personal, OPINION.
Denise

San Francisco, CA

#51 Dec 3, 2006
Lynne wrote:
<quoted text>
How they are performed has EVERYTHING to do with why a C-section is safer. Before I would answer why that is, I'll wait until you can admit the procedure is in fact done that way. Otherwise, you wouldn't understand my answer, and i'd be answering it for nothing.
I know how they are done. Have I ever stated they were not done that way?

Now tell me why you know what is best for a woman in any given situation as opposed to what her doctor might opine?

You say C-Sections are safer, but can you say that for all circumstances? If so, how do you back that up?
Denise

San Francisco, CA

#52 Dec 3, 2006
Lynne wrote:
<quoted text>
BAA, my daughter would not choose a parital birth abortion. I've asked her before. She said she would not be able to live with herself to do that. She would rather have a c-section and risk not being able to have children again, than to kill her own child. She said adoption would be what they would do. So, my asking my daughter has given you her answer, through my posting it.
It IS a partial birth abortion because, the baby is partially birthed before it's killed.
How much of a chance of adoption do you think a hydroencephaletic baby would have?
Denise

San Francisco, CA

#53 Dec 3, 2006
The following statement of Lynne's would not apply in a case where the baby would not survive outside of the womb:

The baby is brought out of the birth canal BREECH, ya that's a whole lot SAFER experience for a woman than a C-section, which would preserve the life of the child as well as the mother.

It would NOT preserve the life of the child, no matter how much Lynne thinks it would.
BrnAgnAtheist

United States

#54 Dec 3, 2006
THAT is not what I asked you. What IF she was actually faced with the decision and changed her mind. What would YOU do?
Lynne wrote:
<quoted text>
BAA, my daughter would not choose a parital birth abortion. I've asked her before. She said she would not be able to live with herself to do that. She would rather have a c-section and risk not being able to have children again, than to kill her own child. She said adoption would be what they would do. So, my asking my daughter has given you her answer, through my posting it.
It IS a partial birth abortion because, the baby is partially birthed before it's killed.
Denise

San Francisco, CA

#56 Dec 3, 2006
Dr. Stephen Chasen is an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Cornell University's Medical School. He also heads the high-risk obstetrics unit at New York-Presbyterian Hospital on Manhattan's Upper East Side. Chasen says his patients come to him to have babies, not abortions, but that's not always possible.

"The reality is that the population we take care of, there are many high-risk patients. And unfortunately, not every pregnancy goes so well," Chasen says.

Like most of the medical community, Chasen says there's no such thing medically as a "partial-birth" abortion. Sponsors say the law bans a variation of the most common second-trimester abortion procedure, called dilation and evacuation, or D&E. In that variation, called intact D&E, or D&X, the fetus is removed whole except for the head, which is then compressed to allow it to pass through the birth canal.

The problem with the federal ban, Chasen says, is that he often doesn't know until he's in the operating room which procedure is most appropriate for the patient.

"If I have to consider what the government thinks every step of the way when I'm taking care of my patients, then it absolutely would threaten the health of my patients," he says.

Chasen is a plaintiff in one of the three lawsuits challenging the ban. He's also the lead author of a study published in 2004 in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which compared several hundred second-trimester abortions using both the traditional D&E method and the intact version. And he says that, contrary to the congressional declaration, the study showed the intact version of the procedure was not more dangerous.

"We basically found that the complication rates were similar between the two groups. The only severe complications we experienced in fact, were in what people would call the traditional D&E group, not the intact variation," Chasen said.

That study, however, did raise the question of whether women having the variation in which the fetus is basically removed intact would be more likely to deliver prematurely in a subsequent pregnancy. So Chasen and his colleagues did another study, published in the same journal in 2005. And they found it did not.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...

All Things Considered, Nov. 2, 2006
Denise

San Francisco, CA

#57 Dec 3, 2006
Lynne said:

As for what the rest of you say who are trying to defend this barbaric "procedure", it looks to me like if the choice had been left to people like you, there'd be no one alive today who has dwarfism, progeria, born with missing limbs, born mongoloid etc.
It's as though you all defend a woman's choice to have a perfect baby only. Killing imperfect ones is totally acceptable to you people.

This is not my view at all. I leave it up to a woman and her team of healthcare professionals to decide.

I work with all kinds of doctors and healthcare professionals but when I write my posts, they are based on MY knowledge and opinions as I have the intelligence to state and defend them. I don't depend on others and hearsay to do so.

So Lynne, thanks for finally admitting that you, personally, know nothing about why a C section is always safer than a D&X in any woman's given situation, which was my original question - which you blew off because you just can't form the words "I don't know; how could I know that?"
Denise

San Francisco, CA

#58 Dec 3, 2006
In other words, Lynne - I never asked you WHY women had them. And you admonish others to take "courses" in certain subjects. You might need some remedial reading courses yourself!
Sue

Falling Waters, WV

#59 Dec 3, 2006
Denise wrote:
In other words, Lynne - I never asked you WHY women had them. And you admonish others to take "courses" in certain subjects. You might need some remedial reading courses yourself!
***applause, applause**** Brava, Denise! Well done!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 15 min UidiotRaceUMAKEWO... 314,304
News Feminist icon Gloria Steinem adored, reviled in... 7 hr They cannot kill ... 8
News Oklahoma House Declares Abortion 'Murder' 9 hr godless by choice 6
News Abortion clinic case summons a separate issue :... (Apr '07) 13 hr silly rabbit 161
News Planned Parenthood to close 4 Iowa clinics afte... Sun Lawrence Wolf 29
News U.S. warns states against defunding Planned Par... (Aug '15) May 20 Choicerocks 178
Abortition Pros & Cons - What do you think May 19 finnadamchek 1
More from around the web