What am I missing?

[Ind4now]

The debate of right or wrong aside for one second please.

What am I missing? I just read the the actual law prohibiting partial-birth abortions and it reads in part, "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."

How is this not an exception for the health of the mother?

[Control-Z]

1. Missing?

A heart.

[Ind4now]

5. Well thanks for the thought provoking response.

But I think that this is a valid concern that we all must pay attention to. If your going to argue that this ban is wrong, and during that argument you say it's because "there is no exception to a womans health," anyone that may be on the fence about the subject is going to think you are a fool when someone says, "Actually there is," and quotes it to you!

We have to argue the facts or we look like idiots. If you think that the exceptions are not enough, you must say that. But I see a lot of posts here saying that there are no exceptions and that is wrong!

[iverglas]

7. You're not that dim really, are you?

Maybe "heart" was the wrong organ after all.

[stirlingsliver]

2. It Is Too Restrictive

The definition does not include all of the circumstances where continuing a pregnancy might damage a woman's health.

For instance, it does not include a situation where continuing the pregancy would damage the woman's ability to become pregnant again.

Doctors should make medical determinations -- not politicians.

[joshcryer]

4. Don't all pregnancies "damage a woman's health"?

[iverglas]

6. hey, you get it!

All pregnancies damage a woman's health -- which is why women may not, in a society that recognizes the fundamental human rights of life and liberty, be compelled to be or remain pregnant.

Just like you can't be compelled to eat chocolate bars, or donate blood marrow.

Neat how it works, isn't it?

[joshcryer]

8. So you pretty much reject viablity from Roe v. Wade...?

'cause I seem to recall that being a pretty significant point made by Roe v. Wade.

[iverglas]

10. yuppers

Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with me, since I'm a Canadian living in Canada. Roe v. Wade is the decision of one small group of individuals assigned to interpret the constitution and laws of one particular country in the world, at one particular time in human history. Their decisions do not have universal application, and in fact do not necessarily even interpret their own laws and foundational principles "correctly". They just happen to be authoritative in that time and place.

Arguing from a US Supreme Court decision is fine if one is arguing what US law is/ought to be based on the US Constitution. The decision itself is not the work of immortals engraved in stone.

If you want to browse around the forum you're posting in here, you'll see a thread by me that goes into the issues in greater detail. Feel free to have a read.

[joshcryer]

11. There are lots of things in society that "are unhealthy" yet we have to deal with.

Supporting infanticide isn't really justifiable within civilization.

[iverglas]

12. well, blah blah blah

Oh, sorry, that's not what you said? Sadly, it's what I heard.

Who's talking about things that "are unhealthy", or that "we have to deal with"?

Eating trans fat is unhealthy. Is someone FORCING you to eat trans fats?

Smoking is unhealthy. Is someone FORCING you to smoke?

Eat trans fat if you like. Smoke if you like. Continue a pregnancy if you like.

I won't force you to smoke, you don't force me to continue a pregnancy.

I'm sure you see how simple it is. Unless and until you come up with something to prove it isn't that simple, anyhow. To date, you fail.

Supporting infanticide isn't really justifiable within civilization.

Using lies and insults to defeat argument isn't really tolerable in civil discourse.

[joshcryer]

13. Smog is unhealthy... UV radiation is unhealthy... microwave radiation is unhealthy...

People complain about smokers bothering them, yet car exhaust is significantly more harmful, but they know they can't do anything about car exhaust, because, uh, society demands that they deal with it.

The vast majority of people don't have a choice as to what foods they eat, this is why, for example, obesity is on the rise (and not only in the USA). Poor people especially have no choice in their diet.

I don't suggest forcing you to continue your pregnancy, I merely suggest that I would have nothing to do with supporting doctors who would termininate your pregnancy beyond viablity with no other reason other than "you want an abortion because it is runing your health in the same way pregnancies have 'ruined' mothers' health for millions of years."

I would not consider a normal pregnancy "unhealthy." What I consider unhealthy is thinking that somehow you are on a pedastal and can avoid societal obligations.

Using lies and insults to defeat argument isn't really tolerable in civil discourse.

What lies? You find it insulting that I claim infanticide? That's interesting, because I thought I was clearly talking about viablity and normal birth. You are saying that "all births are unhealthy" thus there is no such thing as a "normal birth."

[iverglas]

14. ooooo

I would not consider a normal pregnancy "unhealthy." What I consider unhealthy is thinking that somehow you are on a pedastal and can avoid societal obligations.

If only you could name one.

You find it insulting that I claim infanticide? That's interesting, because I thought I was clearly talking about viablity and normal birth.

Hmm. "Viability and normal birth". Kind of obscure, but I take it you mean you're talking about "something that is not yet born but might survive if it is".

You do know that infanticide is the crime of killing a BORN infant, right?

Gee. No one could find any of that insulting.

You are saying that "all births are unhealthy" thus there is no such thing as a "normal birth."

I have said no such thing, and I find it insulting to have stupid words put in my mouth that would never have entered my head, so I will simply refer you back to the statement you took exception to and suggest that you ponder it.

Using lies and insults to defeat argument isn't really tolerable in civil discourse.

[joshcryer]

15. Heheh...

If only you could name one.

Stopping at redlights exposes you to higher concentrations of CO2 pollutants. Ooh, poor you.

Hmm. "Viability and normal birth". Kind of obscure, but I take it you mean you're talking about "something that is not yet born but might survive if it is".

I'm talking about something that is alive and can survive out of the mothers womb. Slightly different thing, since 'birth' isn't even necessary. You do realize some quarter of American women don't even have natural birth, don't you? (They get expensive and unncessary c-sections because the medical lobby has created this illusion that natural birth is dangerous and evil.)

You do know that infanticide is the crime of killing a BORN infant, right?

Right, this is the sort of convoluted logic that really bothers me. If an infant, a totally viable 9 month old infant is killed right before it is 'born'; its brain crushed and evacuated and chopped up *before it breaches the birth canal* then it is not "alive" and it is not "an infant" and killing it is not infantcide. That's totally bizarre and messed up. We're talking about two different procedures here, one we can use D&E or we can have the child be born. Actually, D&E does often induce labor. Only instead of putting the fetus on life saving equipment we're evacuating its brain. Fun stuff, huh?

Anyway, I have no problem with the procedures if the womans life is at risk, but if the woman doesn't want to "go through labor" then I sort of have to laugh at the whole idea of late term abortions. I mean I thought they were life saving procedures, not procedures of convenience.

I have said no such thing, and I find it insulting to have stupid words put in my mouth that would never have entered my head, so I will simply refer you back to the statement you took exception to and suggest that you ponder it.

Sure, what I said was not clear. You said:

All pregnancies damage a woman's health -- which is why women may not, in a society that recognizes the fundamental human rights of life and liberty, be compelled to be or remain pregnant.

And what I mean is simply that you think that a natural occurance which has been going on for tens of thousands if not millions of years is unhealthy. I don't think that pregnancy is any more unhealthy, in general, than any other life process humans go through. And certainly at late term pregnancy all of the hormonal changes have taken place, and in the case of D&E you do have cases where labor is induced.

Anyway, again, if the life of the mother is in harms way, clearly there is an issue with trying to preserve the fetus. But otherwise you're just calling for infanticide.

Using lies and insults to defeat argument isn't really tolerable in civil discourse.

I wasn't lying, just came off the wrong way. :)

But you are definitely being disingenous if you think 'birth' is the true metric for 'life.' That's just ridiculous.

[iverglas]

16. my head spins ...

The exchange to date goes:

You:
I would not consider a normal pregnancy "unhealthy." What I consider unhealthy is thinking that somehow you are on a pedastal and can avoid societal obligations.

Me:
If only you could name one.

You:
Stopping at redlights exposes you to higher concentrations of CO2 pollutants. Ooh, poor you.


I guess I should have talked real slow.

If only you could name a societal obligation that I am trying to avoid by rejecting interferences in women's reproductive rights.


Me:
Hmm. "Viability and normal birth". Kind of obscure, but I take it you mean you're talking about "something that is not yet born but might survive if it is".

You:
I'm talking about something that is alive and can survive out of the mothers womb.


And I'm asking whether I can rent your crystal ball.


Me:
You do know that infanticide is the crime of killing a BORN infant, right?

You:
Right, this is the sort of convoluted logic that really bothers me.


There's no logic there at all -- it's a DEFINITION. "Infanticide" is the killing of an infant. Duh.

I don't feel like searching 50 US criminal laws, but I can provide you with the definition in the Cdn Criminal Code if you like. It's quite specifically the crime of a woman still under the effects of delivery or lactation killing her own infant.


You:
... then it is not "alive" and it is not "an infant" and killing it is not infantcide.

Whom are you quoting? Who would be moronic enough to say that a fetus is not alive? Is my big toe not alive? What would it be, then: dead?


You:
... we can use D&E or we can have the child be born.

Who *is* this "we", white man? (google Redd Foxx Tonto, if you're confused)

*I* certainly can't "have the child be born" when the fetus is in another woman's body -- and I certainly don't want to be able to.


You:
Only instead of putting the fetus on life saving equipment we're evacuating its brain. Fun stuff, huh?

Now, I don't hold with "it never happens" as an argument against outlawing it -- but I do expect people who say it does happen to come up with some proof.

Would you tell us about a fetus that could have been delivered and put on life saving equipment AND SURVIVED that was instead aborted? Please. Just one. Preferably where the woman would also not foreseeably have not survived.


You:
if the woman doesn't want to "go through labor" then I sort of have to laugh at the whole idea of late term abortions. I mean I thought they were life saving procedures, not procedures of convenience.

Yeah, and I thought that people at DU were progressive. One of us seems to have been deluded.


You:
And what I mean is simply that you think that a natural occurance which has been going on for tens of thousands if not millions of years is unhealthy.

You mean, like tooth decay? Arteriosclerosis? Ruptured appendices? Death? Natural things to happen, as I understand it.


You:
I don't think that pregnancy is any more unhealthy, in general, than any other life process humans go through.

Hmm. It's certainly more unhealthy than NOT going through pregnancy. Which is pretty much what YOU are going to go through, I gather.

I don't think you know the Thing Fucking One about how "unhealthy" pregnancy is, and I therefore regard anything you say on the subject as immediate compost fodder.

How "unhealthy" pregnancy is, is of the most supreme irrelevance.

Whether you and your ilk can COMPEL someone to accept the negative health consequences and risks is the question.

Try addressing it sometime ...

You:
But otherwise you're just calling for infanticide.

... if you're still here.


You:
I wasn't lying, just came off the wrong way.
But you are definitely being disingenous if you think 'birth' is the true metric for 'life.' That's just ridiculous.


And if you think that claiming that I think that isn't a lie, you're not trying.

[joshcryer]

17. And so it continues...

If only you could name a societal obligation that I am trying to avoid by rejecting interferences in women's reproductive rights.

Life, liberty, the persuit of happiness, stuff like that? We don't kill other human beings. That's just how it goes. Now if we lived in tribal society, maybe we'd kill our babies, but that isn't what civilization is about.

And I'm asking whether I can rent your crystal ball.

Can is the keyword here. :)

Not will, can. We don't even know if normal births will survive for long outside of the womb. But we still take care of them anyway. Again, part of that whole life, liberty stuff. Something you seem to be missing. (BTW, Canada may not have the same sort of 'creed' but all societies have similar ideals.)

There's no logic there at all -- it's a DEFINITION. "Infanticide" is the killing of an infant. Duh.

OK, we can call it murder if you want. :)

Whom are you quoting? Who would be moronic enough to say that a fetus is not alive? Is my big toe not alive? What would it be, then: dead?

Well, perhaps you agree that they're alive, but do you agree that they, the ones capable of surviving outside of the womb, should at least get some societal protections? Or do you think that because they're in the womb, you can kill them?

*I* certainly can't "have the child be born" when the fetus is in another woman's body -- and I certainly don't want to be able to.

Abortions aren't exactly a one person dealie, you know. It takes someone to actually perform the abortion. Childbirth too requires some level of help (though it's certainly possible to give birth without the aid of an assistant).

Would you tell us about a fetus that could have been delivered and put on life saving equipment AND SURVIVED that was instead aborted? Please. Just one. Preferably where the woman would also not foreseeably have not survived.

Fortunately you're protected by the secrecy surrounding abortions. There are other procedures that certainly have a lot of statistics going around about them. I mean just an overwhelming number of statistics about everything from tonsil removal, to acne. Yet it has been incredibly difficult for me to find anything concrete about abortions (the statistics are collected by the CDC on a voluntary basis and in as many as half of the cases most data is simply left out). I wonder why that is. I mean, raw anonymous statistics should be able to respect peoples privacy. They would allow auditing to be done, which is something I would expect in all areas of the medical practice. But I simply cannot find them! Feel free to help me out here.

However, what you are really asking is impossible to know, we know that we can maintain the life of a fetus (ie baby) at 22 weeks, and we have been able to do it consistantly the more weeks the fetus is in the womb. Isn't that alone to make you consider that we're talking about viable fetuses? Or shall you continue dismissing it?

Yeah, and I thought that people at DU were progressive. One of us seems to have been deluded.

Deluded? I don't want to kill human beings. I'm sorry if that bothers you. (BTW, who's the one being insulting now?)

You mean, like tooth decay? Arteriosclerosis? Ruptured appendices? Death? Natural things to happen, as I understand it.

Tooth decay isn't natural (it occurs significantly more in a society with high sugar intake) and the others are related to age. So sure. What's the point of this line of reasoning?

Hmm. It's certainly more unhealthy than NOT going through pregnancy. Which is pretty much what YOU are going to go through, I gather.

Yeah, but I have a less life expentacy than females anyway. :(

But I'm not going to complain! Life is life, after all. 20 weeks is more than enough time to get a convience abortion. Sorry, if this makes me "anti"-choice, then so be it. But I don't think it does. We're talking almost half a year to make the decision. You're practically through all the hormonal changes anyway.

Whether you and your ilk can COMPEL someone to accept the negative health consequences and risks is the question.

"Hey, you have three months to go, want to see if you can make it? You know I always said I'd pay for your abortion, but I'd rather not at this point."

(That actually happened to a friend of mine who had a child about 6 years ago, I offered to pay for it if she wanted it, and she kept saying she was still "thinking about it." After 5-6 months I said I wouldn't pay for it, and she had it.)

... if you're still here.

Hey, you know exactly what I mean. Even if you're being pedantic about it. :)

And if you think that claiming that I think that isn't a lie, you're not trying.

So what do you think? Are you saying 'birth' makes someone "protected life" or some other thing? I'm really confused here.

[Midlodemocrat]

30. And therein lies the myth of 'partial birth abortion'

it is not infanticide. The baby is incompatible with life. The baby's head has swollen to such an extent due to cerebral fluid that the passage of the baby through the mother's birth canal would surely kill the mother.

The health of the baby is not an issue. The baby cannot live outside the womb.

The reason for the procedure that the right has dubbed 'partial birth abortion' is that some women are at a higher risk of death or stroke by undergoing the extremely invasive procedure known as a ceasarean section, so collapsing the baby's skull and evacuating it via the birth canal is in the best interest of the mother.

If you ask the husband of the woman at risk, hypothetically, he would beg you to perform that procedure rather than endanger his wife, knowing that his progeny is already gone.

One more thought. The term 'partial birth abortion' is a political one, not a medical one. The procedure is a D&X, or dilatation and evacuation. There are some doctors who will perform it as second trimester abortion, but most of the stats on its use are for the reasons I mentioned above.

[joshcryer]

32. As far as I understand iverglas is arguing for 'choice' up until 'birth.'

And yesI understand the terminology completely (I think I use "late term abortion" and not "partial birth abortion" because that's silly; though it is fair to note that labor can be incuced with D&E). I have no doubts that a large number of D&E procedures are for legitimate reasons.

But when someone like iverglas starts arguing that the reasons can be as simple as "typical birth related health concerns" you start to enter a moral grey area that my posts have been attempting to address.

Again, life of mother, unhealthy or abnormal pregnancy, there is no issue.

[Midlodemocrat]

33. You are entitled to your opinion. Like everyone else.

I DO think that there are many doctors who perform D&X as a late term abortion, although I don't know the stats. If I had more time, I'd try to find them.

And, I think most pro-choice people, like myself, would prefer no restrictions on abortion at all. Not to speak for iverglas, but I think that is what she is stating.

[joshcryer]

34. I have found that the NCAP makes no claims about health.

And will perform D&E on healthy mothers and fetuses with a completely normal pregnancy.

All forms of the medical sphere are regulated in some form or another. You can't just get a cow intestine because some doctor thinks they can make it work. It requires peer review (there exist no peer reviewed D&E procedures that I know of). I don't think there exist anything in the medical sphere that isn't regulated for the well being of all those involved. You cannot get blood, you can get operated on, you cannot get a lot of things done without there being a lot of licensing and peer review.

Do you think it is anti-choice to agree with Roe v. Wade viablity limitations? I've had someone tell me a baby isn't alive until it takes its first breath and it doesn't have any societal protections until that point. I think that's wrong. Am I wrong for thinking that?

[bliss_eternal]

35. You get back to us after your next abortion, 'k?

Once you've gone through the procedure yourself, I'll take what you have to say about it all with more than a grain of proverbial salt. :spray:

:)

[JetCityLiberal]

40. Wish I could nominate this post

This man will stand with the Women of this world for complete control of their bodies, lives no matter what.

Great, great post. spot on.

[uppityperson]

38. Thank you for the NCAP info. I see nothing about D&E on healthy etc as you claim

http://www.ncap.com/abortion_find.html
I looked through the website and see nothing about D&E ("on healthy mothers and fetuses with a completely normal pregnancy"). I see a description of a D7c and they talk about Mifeprex or RU-486. Where is there info about D&E on NCAP website?

[joshcryer]

41. It's not on the NCAP website, the lobbying group made mention of it...

...causing a lot of controversy 10 years ago. No one really has addressed the statements made by the comissioner other than their using spurious statistics (which are not easy to find for any abortion numbers) on the procedure. Slate's response is inadequate and I haven't found any other adequate response to this on Google.

"In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20NYT%20lied.pdf

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20activists%20lied.pdf

Basically the argument is this, either you reject Roe v. Wade viablity (which seems like a socially irresponsible thing to do), or you reject the NCAPs earlier claims that the procedure is performed on healthy pregnancies.

Seems some people here want it both ways.

[uppityperson]

43. So you base this statement..."will perform D&E on healthy mothers and fetuses with a completely norm

"I have found that the NCAP makes no claims about health. And will perform D&E on healthy mothers and fetuses with a completely normal pregnancy" on Ron Fitzsimmons saying he lied when he said it was used rarely and only on women whose lives were in danger or whose fetuses were damaged? He said it was rare, then said he lied and so therefore, even though NCAPs website talks about early abortions, they are lying?

Wile I believe that there is probably someone somewhere that will do most anything, I need to see better proof, statistics, not just Mr.Fitzsimmons saying he lied, to believe that NCAP will perform D&E on healthy mothers and fetuses with a completely normal pregnancy.

[joshcryer]

46. That was the NCAP position 10 years ago.

I have no idea if that is their position today. Certainly statistics are kept very secretive in the industry. Which is a point that quite anyone can 'win' on. But I think you're slightly misinterpreting what Ron was saying there; he was saying that as a business they did not consider viablity to be a significant matter (despite that Roe v. Wade said that states could set term limits due to viablity; btw, it's a wonderful decision, I just reread it for the heck of it, lots of philosophical points made in it).

I agree that the picture is not clear, and when I have attempted to get a clearer picture, most of the responses are not productive and I'm led down paths of irrelevant argumentation just to continue the discussion. But I'm not going to look at the NCAPs position 10 years ago and reject it without some counter-argument that doesn't bring up statistics which abortion providers rarely give out. Consider this link: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html

[uppityperson]

47. You are basing what NCAP says now on what Fitzsimmons said 10 yrs ago.

And you won't reject it "without some counter-argument that doesn't bring up statistics which abortion providers rarely give out." ? You claim NCAP's policy is 1 thing, now say you have no idea if that is their position today. Okay.

As far as what Fitzsimmons said, I wrote what he said in the first pdf link you gave. He said it was rare, then said he lied. If someone says something, then says they lied, either side could claim whichever view is the "true" one.

Looking at NCAP website, there is nothing on late term abortions, nothing about "I have found that the NCAP makes no claims about health. And will perform D&E on healthy mothers and fetuses with a completely normal pregnancy". I prefer to base what an organization does on what they currently say rather than what someone said, then said they lied about, 10 yrs ago.

Speaking of irrelevant argumentation, do you mean the discussion of whether or not abortions are "infanticide"?

[joshcryer]

51. I've been looking. I cannot find anything.

Do you think I have stopped trying to find out if their position has changed? I don't see any evidence that their position has changed, because a simple search on Google for NCAP affilitated clinics do advertize for abortions as far as 24 weeks along.

And yes, about "infanticide." Sometimes when it comes to people like the poster I was arguing with you have to chose your words very carefully. "Bordering on" or some other prefix might've been more appropriate.

[uppityperson]

52. Have you checked with NCAP themselves? Their website talks about early abortions.

Maybe they don't have a position like what their former head said was truth, no lies, now truth, of course trust me now, 10 yrs ago.


"Bordering on" would be much more appropriate.

[joshcryer]

54. I don't think their organization supports it 'persay.'

And I think finding NCAP affiliates who do advertize it at that late of stage at least suggests it's being done, but that still doesn't answer any questions about the health of the pregnancy at that stage. I could give them a call and ask, but then I doubt anyone would trust my reply.

[uppityperson]

55. What NCAP affiliates "advertize it at that late of stage"?

What does "the health of the pregnancy" mean?

[iverglas]

60. "the health of the pregnancy at that stage"?????

The health of the WHAT???

If I counted the number of times you've used the word "woman" in your posts, would I find ONE?

[iverglas]

44. cheeses, do you pay no attention at all?

Tiresome.

Read this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=734521&mesg_id=752709


Basically the argument is this, either you reject Roe v. Wade viablity (which seems like a socially irresponsible thing to do), or you reject the NCAPs earlier claims that the procedure is performed on healthy pregnancies.

OR YOU DON'T FALL FOR THE SHELL GAME. Somebody here may look stupid enough to do that, but it ain't me.

[joshcryer]

48. You're distorting it! He EXPLICTLY states when the procedure is performed!

EXPLICITLY. He says it is done at the 20 week point or later! Now do people see what I have to deal with? LIES and DISTORTIONS. We're not talking about D&E, we're talking about D&E on healthy fetuses and mothers after 20 weeks or more. (American Journal of Medicine.)

Look at your quote:

Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, told The New York Times that “in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus” (Feb. 26, 1997). Mr. Fitzsimmons elsewhere estimated that 4,000-5,000 abortions annually are performed by the partial birth method.

YOU LEFT OUT THE PART WHERE HE EXPLICITLY SAYS 20 WEEKS.

Holy crap. I'm done with this. Now go edit your post and pretend you didn't lie then by falsely quoting Fitzsimmons.

"In the vast majority of cases the procedure (late term D&E abortion) is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."

[uppityperson]

50. (American Journal of Medicine.) What?

Why stick AJM there? Is it to an article?

What is it with the CAPITAL LETTERS and BOld?

[joshcryer]

53. iverglas dissmissively linked me to a thread...

...whereby they distorted the NCAP's previous position on late term 20 week or later abortions.

The American Journal of Medicine places viablity around the 20 week mark (though no cases have survived earlier than 22 weeks). I'm trying to find the link, but I must go. When I get back I'll be happy to post it.

Here's a Wikipedia article (sources are on scientific journal websites so it's trustable): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Viability

[uppityperson]

56. I've seen viability dates, know those, the insertion of (AJM) was confusing.

Though I need to see AJM link to prove 20 weeks as I won't believe that without a link.

And you do realize that 20 weeks is not late term, not third trimester? Calling 20 wks late term or 3rd trimester is like calling abortions infanticide.

[iverglas]

59. and fuck off a little farther

whereby they distorted the NCAP's previous position on late term 20 week or later abortions.

As you should have known by now, the post in question (written by me) quoted a reliably right-wing anti-choice misogynist source which I had (and have) no reason to believe misrepresented what Fitzsimons said.

IN ANY EVENT, what Fitzsimmons said HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH "the NCAP's previous position on late term 20 week or later abortions".

And abortions at 20 weeks ARE NOT LATE-TERM ABORTIONS in the minds of anyone but the disingenuous, and probably then only in their mouths and not their minds.

[joshcryer]

65. The JAMA calls it late term, Guttmacher calls it late term abortion.

The only person I know of who doesn't is a person on an internet forum who likes to play with words, only in this case the facts are against you.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/747

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/744

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/724

Late term abortion isn't third trimester.

[uppityperson]

68. BS. G link doesn't define "late term" timeline,here's 1 that does(24wks)JAMA links are restricted.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib13.html

Elsewhere, in December 1996, the American Medical Association (AMA) was asked at its interim annual meeting to consider two resolutions regarding late-term abortion. One would have put the AMA on record as supporting a legal ban on the termination of pregnancies after 24 weeks of gestation except when the fetus is nonviable or when the life of the mother is in extreme danger. The second would have called upon the AMA to support the criminalization of D&X.

So, aside from posting links that no one can get into, and another link that doesn't say what you say, yet I found a link at Guttmacher that counters your claims, what do you have?

[joshcryer]

70. The point is that it's hotly disputed in the scientific community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

I can't find a link with Guttmacher actually 'defining' it, but they do use 23-24 weeks on that page I linked and the terminology clearly indicates that third trimester is not their metric for late term. And Guttmacher is quite respectablein the sexual reproduction field.

[uppityperson]

71. Point is there is a big difference between 20 and 24 weeks.

You keep saying 20 wks, "here are links" which don't show any 20 weeks. "The American Journal of Medicine places viablity around the 20 week mark".

I show you links saying 23/24 weeks. There is a big difference. The point is you are "misrepresenting" facts.

[joshcryer]

76. 20 weeks is my personal feeling because of the JAMA article.

Which states it as a late term procedure. If you want I can cut out the appropriate exerpts from the journal. The key is that Guttmacher and others don't irrevocibly place the terminology "late term" into the third trimester, unlike what iverglas was arguing. Is this clear enough for you?

[joshcryer]

77. Did you know you can register for the JAMA archives I linked?

Just so you know, you can register for free and view 12 month or older JAMA articles.

"Many of the medical and ethical issues that pertain to intact D&X also apply to late-term pregnancy terminations, defined for the purposes of this article as termination beyond 20 weeks' gestation."

[bliss_eternal]

79. What's the matter...?

No more internet porn to download? Or is your playstation busted? :P

There's quite a few posts on this thread from you in a quick succession. You seem rather obsessed with women's uterine rights. Studying to be a gynecologist?

:rofl:

[joshcryer]

80. Maybe so...

:P

Or maybe I'm just defending myself because I get upset when people distort my positions. :P

[bliss_eternal]

85. Uh huh....

Or maybe you thrive on stirring shit.

Personally, I could give less than half of a damn what a board of strangers thinks of me. But whatever blows your hair back. FYI, this is the CHOICE forum, not "Unnecessary Uterine Arguments" forum.

[joshcryer]

86. If you follow the discussion I think you will find it is on topic and appropriate.

These off topic rambles about "joshcryer" however, are not.

[bliss_eternal]

88. Someone...

...obviously has WAY too much time on their hands. :crazy:

[iverglas]

92. if only that were the truth

Guttmacher:

01/1997

In the spring of 1995, a new issue arose in the bitter abortion debate that has divided Americans for 25 years. It was the use in some instances of a procedure to terminate late-term pregnancies known as intact dilatation and extraction, or D&X. Abortion opponents dubbed the procedure "partial-birth abortion."

A bill to ban the procedure except when it is necessary to save a woman's life was adopted by the U.S. Congress but vetoed by President Bill Clinton in the spring of 1996. The Senate, but not the House of Representatives, lacked the two-thirds of votes ne cessary to override the veto. Following the veto, President Clinton, surrounded by several women who had undergone D&X to terminate wanted pregnancies that had gone seriously wrong and threatened their health, announced that he would have signed the m easure if it had contained an exception to preserve the woman's health as well as her life.

However, the continuing controversy has ignited claims and counterclaims about the frequency of late abortions, regardless of the procedure used, and the justification for making abortion decisions in the late stages of pregnancy. In the general confusion , little distinction is made between abortions performed before the fetus is able to survive, with or without artificial help, and postviability procedures.

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly over a 20-year period that prior to fetal viability, a woman has a constitutional right to decide to terminate her pregnancy in consultation with her physician. Even after fetal viability, she must be able to do so to preserve her life or health. Although it is very difficult to determine when a particular fetus is viable, 23-24 weeks of gestation is generally considered a minimum for viability.

There are few authoritative data to support claims regarding how many late-term abortions are performed, and little understanding of the complexities involved in securing such data. This Issues in Brief describes how abortion data are obtained, what they consist of and why they have inherent limitations.

Now, if you think that article is using "late-term" to refer to anything other than POST-HYPOTHETICAL VIABILITY, you're very, very ... er, confused.

Your JAMA articles are not accessible.


Late term abortion isn't third trimester.

If only I had not been so extra-special careful to refer to abortions post-hypothetical viability, and not "third trimester" abortions.

The fact, and the point, is that abortions at 21-22 weeks are not late-term abortions.

Of course, the fact, and the point, is that the only reason the expression "late-term abortions" is even used is to confuse the great USAmerican public and its legislators into forgetting that pre-hypothetical viability, they are required to keep their laws off women's bodies.

[joshcryer]

93. I'm tired of arguging 'terms' with you. Register with the JAMA and figure it out for yourself.

I am using the word accurately.

[iverglas]

57. fuck off

Now go edit your post and pretend you didn't lie then by falsely quoting Fitzsimmons.

Feel free to edit your own to pretend you didn't call a DU member a liar.

Here's where I got the quote, you little creep:
http://www.ctfamily.org/blog/2007/04/18/breakingsupreme-court-upholds-ban-on-partial-birth-abortion/

I didn't bother citing it because it is, as I said, ALL OVER THE NET. But if you want to accuse someone of lying, I suggest you go make an appointment with

FIC includes three organizations: Family Institute of Connecticut Action, our 501 (c) 4 lobbying arm, Family Institute of Connecticut Action Committee, our state political action committee, and the Family Institute of Connecticut, our 501 (c) 3 non-profit educational organization.

All of our organizations are committed to encouraging and strengthening the family. We are dedicated to defending faith, family, and common-sense values in a state where all three are under constant barrage.

and all of the other right-wing misogyinst assholes at whose sites you can find the same passage. You might make some new friends.

Well, look what you don't find when you travel some nasty dirty ditches on the internet:
http://www.house.gov/ferguson/press/20031002.shtml

Partial-birth abortions are performed thousands of times annually on healthy babies of healthy mothers. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, told the New York Times in 1997 that partial-birth abortions are performed as many as 5,000 times annually. "The vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along," Fitzsimmons told the New York Times.

I just do wish we had a copy of that New York Times. Maybe now that you've accused me of being a liar, you'll be ready to produce it for us, so there's something where your mouth is besides random rude noise.

Of course, you'd still need to give me some evidence that a Washington lobbyist knew thing one about this subject.

Oh, and then you'd have to deal with the fact that 20 weeks, and 21 weeks, and 22 weeks, IS NOT THE THIRD TRIMESTER, IS NOT "LATE-TERM" BY ANY HONEST CLASSIFICATION, AND IS OUTSIDE THE REACH OF LEGISLATURES IN THE U.S. BECAUSE IT IS ******PRE-HYPOTHETICAL VIABILITY*********, and that after hypothetical viability U.S. states are at present FREE TO LEGISLATE TO PROHIBIT ABORTION AS LONG AS THEY ALLOW EXCEPTIONS FOR WOMEN'S LIVES ********AND HEALTH*********.

Of course I don't really give a shit what you do, but maybe you'd do it naked while whistling Dixie, just for me.

[joshcryer]

64. iverglas, I posted a link to the NYT article in an above post.

I didn't bother citing it because it is, as I said, ALL OVER THE NET. But if you want to accuse someone of lying, I suggest you go make an appointment with.

So you're saying you didn't do the full research? You chose to pick the quote that supported your opinion over the facts? I'd say that's at least being disingenous, but lying wouldn't be far from the truth, since you did see that the other quote existed and chose not to explore whether or not it was factual. I'd definitely call that lying.

I don't get anything I say from "right wing sources." It comes from American science journals, in the medical field. It comes from court decisions. It's not some random hate filled thing as your replies to me feel. It is incredibly difficult, btw, for me to keep a cool head when you're using such harsh language that you're using. And I regret letting your hate get to me as easily as it did initially.

I just do wish we had a copy of that New York Times. Maybe now that you've accused me of being a liar, you'll be ready to produce it for us, so there's something where your mouth is besides random rude noise.

Well, to coin a word from you, "cheeses, do you pay no attention at all?" I posted links to scans of the article in question further up in the thread, and you can find the quote on a NYT search (subscriber only).

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20NYT%20lied.pdf

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20activists%20lied.pdf

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F17FE3C550C758EDDAB0894DF494D81

I have been a leftist my whole life, I know better than to trust 'leftist sources' any more than 'right wing sources.' I do research far more intensively than most people, I look for quite a few points of view and come to my own conclusion from that.

Of course, you'd still need to give me some evidence that a Washington lobbyist knew thing one about this subject.

His position was supported by other activitsts. Clearly there are people in the field who want to reject viability from Roe v. Wade. I don't see the controversey. Lobbyists reflect the overwhelming opinion of who they're lobbying for, that's their job.

Oh, and then you'd have to deal with the fact that 20 weeks, and 21 weeks, and 22 weeks, IS NOT THE THIRD TRIMESTER

I didn't quote you fully because the bold text with caps would look quite unsightly. Anyway, I never said it was third trimester. However, I trust the Guttmacher Institute with regards to the terminology before I'd trust someone on a forum typing in caps to get some point across.

Of course I don't really give a shit what you do, but maybe you'd do it naked while whistling Dixie, just for me.

I wanted to joke here, but I bet it'd cause my legitimate post to be alerted for sexism or something. I'm confident my response won't be deleted at this point though.

[iverglas]

91. so you're accusing me of lying again?

So you're saying you didn't do the full research? You chose to pick the quote that supported your opinion over the facts?

Well quelle surprise. No.

So you're choosing to make false and nasty allegations and hiding behind a question mark to make them? See where the things you've typed there aren't actually question? Kinda like the things I'm typing here? See where you haven't got the courage to come out and say what you mean? Allow me to demonstrate how it's done. You don't have the courage to come out and say what you mean. If you wanted to say that I did something, or didn't do something, you would say it. You wouldn't put mealy-mouthed little question marks at the end of your assertions. On the other hand, if you wanted to ask me a question, you would ask me a question. You concoct a falsehood and pretend it was truth.

What I quoted HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OPINION. My "opinion" about WHAT? How and when abortions are performed is not a matter of opinion, for the love of god.

I'd say that's at least being disingenous, but lying wouldn't be far from the truth, since you did see that the other quote existed and chose not to explore whether or not it was factual. I'd definitely call that lying.

That, of course, is either (a) because you have no regard for the truth, or (b) because you are unspeakably stupid. I am actually tending toward the latter at present. But feel free to offer other options for my consideration; my mind is open.

If you want to claim that I saw something, you need to prove your claim. Show me where I saw the thing. I tell you that I googled some appropriate search terms and clicked on the first obvious link in the results, to which I have now directed you, and had no reason to expect that the nasty right-wing anti-choice outfit whose site I landed at would be doing less than making its own case, and copied what was there. (Nasty right-wing sources are sometimes the best sources for things, by the way -- if you're looking for what nasty right-wing sources say. The expectation is that biased sources do not speak against their own interest.)

You prove otherwise, now. Or shut the fuck up.

It comes from American science journals, in the medical field.

What is this IT? The topic of discussion here is what an individual named Ron Fitzsimmons said.


So let's look at your quotations.

In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is used on a healthy <woman> who is five months pregnant with a healthy fetus.

Well lookee there. Five months -- 20-22 weeks. NOT LATE TERM. NOT THIRD TRIMESTER. PRE-HYPOTHETICAL VIABILITY.

... he said the procedure was rare and was done only when the <woman> or fetus was gravely ill.

That isn't a quotation. It's a reference to what he said in an interview with Nightline -- this part of which, as I understand it, WAS NOT EVEN BROADCAST.

WHAT PROCEDURE did he say, in that interview, was rare? ID&E -- or ID&E in LATE-TERM / THIRD TRIMESTER / PRE-HYPOTHETICAL VIABILITY ABORTIONS? And did he himself have a clue which?

I gotta say that the whole NYT article in question is about the farthest thing I've seen from unbiased reporting in quite some time. The entire article is one big shell game.

The article refers to a clinic that "uses intact D&E in about half its post-20-week cases". SO? So what? Whose business is this? Your legislative bodies'? NO. Not unless the procedure is performed POST-HYPOTHETICAL VIABILITY, and there is a lot of room between 20 weeks and that point.

The article itself accuses NOW of "failing to distinguish between second and third trimester". Hahahahahaha.

Clearly there are people in the field who want to reject viability from Roe v. Wade.

Isn't it fun to make shit up?

The anti-choice brigade pulled out all the stops to make sure the great USAmerican public and its legislators REJECTED "VIABILITY" -- in favour of interfering in women's choices AT A POINT WHEN THEIR SUPREME COURT HAD TOLD THEM THEY COULD NOT DO THAT -- because they had all been so confused by the anti-choice screeching about "partial-birth abortion" ... and then they and the complicit media and YOU accuse abortion providers of deception??

Anyway, I never said it was third trimester.

SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT?


I have been a leftist my whole life

Now, that is destined to be the howler of the day, and the day hasn't even begun yet. Much like your adult life.

[joshcryer]

94. These rambles make almost no sense at all...

...I mean, I already addressed the "late term" usage, and I consider it a dead subject, you're simply wrong, your rejecting of the evidence I have provided isn't my fault. Some people place late term as early as 13 weeks. I chose the JAMA article simply because it makes the most sense as it is contextual in a medical sense. BTW, there is no "medical late term" definition, it is a definition that people pick arbitrarily. Only unlike you I chose medical journals to get my terms.

Please, by all means, register with the JAMA, it should make your blood pressure go up very high to hear doctors condemning late term abortion on ethical grounds.

[iverglas]

37. plainly, you don't

I understand the terminology completely (I think I use "late term abortion" and not "partial birth abortion" because that's silly; though it is fair to note that labor can be incuced with D&E)

You have apparently completely failed to notice that the legislation under discussion HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STAGE OF PREGNANCY AT WHICH ANY PROCEDURE IS PERFORMED. Intact D&X procedures are very commonly performed, if not most commonly performed, IN THE SECOND TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY. And I really don't think this is the first time that this fact has been pointed out to you.

So obviously you have understood nothing ... unless, of course, you want to call a termination at 20-21 weeks a "late-term abortion" ... which wouldn't surprise me, since that's another favourite shell game of the anti-choice ...

[joshcryer]

42. Since when was I for the legislation?

Quote me explicitly stating that I was for the 2003 "partial birth abortion ban."

[iverglas]

45. Quote you?

First I'd have to figure out what the hell you're on about, and what it might have to do with anything I've said ...

[joshcryer]

49. You said:

You have apparently completely failed to notice that the legislation under discussion HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STAGE OF PREGNANCY AT WHICH ANY PROCEDURE IS PERFORMED.

To which I reply that I am not for said legislation. My whole point in my initial response was to see how broadly you placed health. I don't even think Roe v. Wade places such a wide brush stroke on health, letting the States themselves decide. And now you get seemingly upset that I accept viability from Roe v. Wade.

I dunno, I guess I support Roe v. Wade, but that doesn't make me pro-choice.

edit: oops, messed up the bold tag

[bliss_eternal]

81. Clearly, you are playing games.

If you support Roe v. Wade, you are pro-choice. There's no way to "kinda" support it. You do or you don't.

Don't think that most on this forum aren't keeping track of all the ways you contradict yourself here. We know who and what you are.

[joshcryer]

87. But I never said I didn't support it. Doesn't that prove it is you who are playing games?

Where did I once say I didn't support it? I support it wholeheartedly! Such silliness!

[bliss_eternal]

90. Your double talk seems to only confuse you.

It's also really dull. :bored:
I just noticed, you've been posting on this thread since around 3:00 today. Wow...eight hours. Nothing better to do than be a thorn in other's virtual side, 'eh? :spray:

What a life!

[Bunny]

3. Also doesn't allow any provision for the mental health of the woman.

Notice how many times the word "physical" is inserted in the language?

[bliss_eternal]

9. You're missing...

...that most pro-choicers aren't interested in your attempt to bait them into your stilted arguments about women's reproductive health.

Your prior comments are on this board for all to see. No one wants to talk to someone that obviously has an opinion and perspective such as yours on this issue. Sorry, but that's just the reality. Face it and stop posting baiting questions that go no where. Don't face it, and continue to amuse yourself with such comments. :nopity:

Either way, doubt you'll get many takers. :)

[Ind4now]

18. Good God!

There is no baiting here going on. As I said at the start of my post, opinions on the subject are irrelevant. I am trying to keep us from sounding like idiots if we argue the wrong points!

If we say we disagree with this law because it does not allow for womens health, all they have to do is point out the same quote that I did and we look stupid! I hear a lot on this forum saying that they disagree with it for that vary reason and not what else is being pointed out here, ie. mental health, or whatever.

We have to get our "stories straight," and disagree for the right reasons or we look like fools! That is why I posted this.

[bliss_eternal]

19. Is that so...?

You're trying to keep "us" from sounding like idiots? How so...?

I'm sorry, but your op doesn't speak of that. You seem to be asking many of the same questions (that were already answered) on another thread. Then you contradict it, and argue with the person that makes the point.

I really don't see how that is trying to keep anyone from "sounding like an idiot." Rewording and asking identical questions, while you attack people's comments so they argue with you.

From where I sit, it looks like you have too much time on your hands, or some short term memory issues. :eyes:

[joshcryer]

23. When people hear "health" they tend to think something drastic.

Not normal "health concerns" of a normal pregnancy that women have been dealing with since the dawn of humankind.

BTW, after the bill was inacted for years D&E continued on happily, the bill doesn't ban anything, justs puts doctors in the position of having to explain themselves if they are aborting perfectly healthy pregnancies for conveinence.

Also, there is a legitimate argument that "life" also means "productive life," (life, liberty, happiness, stuff) so the argument could even go further to cover women who would be irrevocibly harmed by continuing a pregnancy (because that would impact their life).

[Control-Z]

20. You are not one of us

so please stop the "we" shit .

There is no story to get straight. If you were one of us you would understand that. I suggest you stop speaking if you are worried about sounding like an idiot,.

edit: posting from my cell. lots of typos.

[bliss_eternal]

22. Well said, dancingAlone....

:applause:

Oh, and I believe he knows exactly what he's doing. From the baiting to the idiot projection. :eyes:

No one would play into his hands on the other thread anymore, so he started this one. He merely re-worded things to make it sound different on the surface. Then the second someone tried to respond to things seriously, he pounced with the same stale arguments from that thread. :boring: So transparent.

Yeah, but "we" sound like fools and idiots.
:rofl:

[Control-Z]

26. Yes, "we" do sound like fools and idiots, don't we?

And we really ought to be grateful that he, so kindly, offered to organize our foolish and scattered thoughts for us. Wow! Can you imagine how big his dick brain must be to have figured out how much we really need his wise words over here in this forum. (I'm just giddy with that thought!) And then, to top it off, he re-worded it all for for those of us too dense to get it the first time. To think, he took time out of his important day to come all the way over here just to protect and mentor us.

Wow. Yeah. That is what he's been doing - and just for us! Imagine! Sheesh, Glad I finally understand why he's been posting.

'...or we look like fools! That is why I posted this.

[bliss_eternal]

27. dancingAlone...!

OMG! LMAO!
:rofl:

:spray::rofl::spray:

[joshcryer]

29. Kinda, actually.

With your lack of civil discourse and your jump to throw out insults and flames at the first chance you can get.

[bliss_eternal]

36. Oooooh, poor baby.

People are calling you on your very words and you can't handle it?
Those big, bad, horrible pro-choice women verbally spanked you so hard, you went whining about it on the main forums.

The shame, the horror. Apparently, you sir can dish it out, but can't take it.

Little tip for you, if you push--people tend to push back. :eyes:

[joshcryer]

24. As if anyone cares what someone on a forum thinks you think of them.

It doesn't really matter, but I see no evidence that Ind4now is against abortion.

[bliss_eternal]

25. Given...

...your other responses on this thread, and your apparent need to instigate your opinion carries so much weight.
Oh but wait....you don't care, do you? This IS a forum and you just said oh wait...what was it...?

Oh yes, here:

As if anyone cares what someone on a forum thinks you think of them.
Posted by joshcryer

So I guess that sums it up for you. Hmmm, curious why you bother responding so much given such an opinion. Guess it doesn't really matter. Because I don't care what YOU think either. :)

[Scout]

28. perhaps he finds it "amusing but not productive" ... n/t

[lukasahero]

21. Ok, let me try, but I'm only going to say this once - I'll go slow

"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."

This is not an exception for the health of a woman. It is an exception for the life of a woman.

[Kingshakabobo]

31. If it's any consolation, I learned a few things on this thread. Thanks! n/t

[JetCityLiberal]

39. Oh brother

More right wing bs spew from you again? This is more right wing flame bait.

It is NONE of your fucking right wing business what a woman does with her body EVER. Your despicable need to control women is transparent in all your posts.

There is nothing pro choice about you. Nothing. You ONLY post your right wing spew on these forums.

[cgrindley]

58. "health" doesn't mean "health" it is code for "on demand" nt

[iverglas]

61. how sweet

Actually, "health" doesn't mean "health", it is code for IF WE HAPPEN TO FEEL LIKE LETTING YOU DO WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE IN YOUR BEST INTERESTS; pray that you catch us on a good day, or happen to live in a big city.

Ask any woman who was around in the late 1960s / early 1970s. Maybe an older friend of your parents.

[uppityperson]

62. There is no provision of health? Just for demand?

whew.

[JetCityLiberal]

63. Calling ones self "Pro Choice" while spewing right wing talking points

doesn't make you "pro choice" either, just makes you a control freak.

[cgrindley]

66. Stuff your right wing talking points crap

all you're trying to do is control opinion, and it won't work. Next, you'll be shrieking "thought crime".

[joshcryer]

67. Indeed, that's what the distortions attempt to do.

They attempt to control what other people think because when they read a discussion they're unlikely to read the whole thing and will quickly 'side' with whomever does the most bashing/distorting.

[uppityperson]

69. post #68.

[joshcryer]

73. Not a distortion.

Here's a link where Guttmacher places "late term" around 20 weeks: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2903597.html

Do I really have to defend myself over some word usage that *some* posters don't like, yet the scientific community and other notable websites do use in the *same context* that I use it in? It's ridiculous and I can't believe anyone thinks this is a credible line of argument.

[uppityperson]

74. I counter with 24 weeks.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib13.html

Elsewhere, in December 1996, the American Medical Association (AMA) was asked at its interim annual meeting to consider two resolutions regarding late-term abortion. One would have put the AMA on record as supporting a legal ban on the termination of pregnancies after 24 weeks of gestation except when the fetus is nonviable or when the life of the mother is in extreme danger. The second would have called upon the AMA to support the criminalization of D&X.

You have to defend yourself over using inaccurate numbers. No difference between 20 and 24 weeks? Distortion.

[joshcryer]

75. I did, I said that there are varying POVs about the terminology.

I don't know why we're still arguing about it. The main point is that "late term" isn't exclusively considered "third trimester" as the other poster was suggesting.

Anyway, from the same page, "Most recently, in 1995, bills were introduced in the Ohio legislature and in the U. S. Congress to ban a specific surgical method of late abortion called intact dilatation and extraction."

"But, the Court continued, these advances had "no bearing on the validity of Roe's central holding" that viability marks the point when the state's interest in the fetus becomes compelling. And, it added, "the soundness or unsoundness of that constitutional judgment in no sense turns on whether viability occurs at approximately 28 weeks, as was usual at the time of Roe, at 23 or 24 weeks, as it sometimes does today, or at some moment even slightly earlier in pregnancy, as it may if fetal respiratory capacity may be somehow enhanced in the future. Whenever it may occur, the attainment of viability may continue to serve as the critical fact."

BTW, this article was 10 years ago. When 22 weeks was unheard of. Things change. Are we going to continue in the circle? I have no problem using the term "late term abortion" when it is clearly contextually correct, and the JAMA has used it before. It is intellectually dishonest to claim this isn't "late term."

[uppityperson]

78. 20 wks:24 wks. Infanticide:Abortion. "22 wks unheard of" Speaking of intellectually dishonest.

22 wks was not unheard of 10 yrs ago. I've been in the health care business much longer and no, 22 wks was not unheard of 10 yrs ago. There you go again, intellectually dishonest. Now you can reply saying these as just semantics but everything you say has proof somewhere and is contextually correct.

I am done with you. Your mind is made up and I have no energy to continue to find quotes and links to counter your linkless or "restricted" quotes.

[joshcryer]

83. *shakes his head*

I like how you bow out of the conversation after making what is clearly an unsubstantiated claim. Anyway, "unheard of" doesn't mean what you think it means.

[bliss_eternal]

82. You're so funny...

It's so cute the way you think anyone here gives a damn what you think about abortion.
Why don't you go cue up some video games, and leave such issues to adult WOMEN? And men with enough respect to understand the difference you are apparently too immature to.

When I want "young men" to advise me of my reproductive rights, I'll visit a comic book convention. :hi:

[joshcryer]

84. If you didn't care what I thought you wouldn't make such an effort.

Really, you wouldn't. I care what you think, though, I fully admit it. I care when people don't understand the moral and ethical rammifications of Roe v. Wade, because I think it dillutes their position. If you want to live in your own little world (which it seems some do by calling for a place where they receieve no criticism or debate).

[bliss_eternal]

89. Clearly...

...you assume everyone just like you. As such, you mistake my responses for caring. How very sad for you.
FYI, someone like you isn't qualified to tell anyone, anything about "moral ramifications." You're too
deluded to even consider anyone gives a damn what you think.

:rofl:

[colinmom71]

72. Because it only allows for an imminent life endangering situation...

And not for the procedure to be legal in order to avoid a life threatening condition from occuring.

For example, say you have a pregnant woman who needs blood thinning medicines for a known pre-existing heart disorder. Her pregnancy has been healthy until an ultrasound at 19 weeks reveals that the fetus has a neural tube defect that has resulted in severe hydrocephaly ("water on the brain") and brain anomalies that are incompatible with life outside the womb. The fetal head is unfortunately progressively increasing in size to the point that delivery will be very dangerous should the pregnancy continue, so a termination is recommended.

Because the pregnant woman is on blood thinners, she is at high risk of hemmorhage if a C-section were done. Not to mention often C-sections aren't advised for severely hydrocephalic babies because the necessary atypical uterine incision would impede future fertility by leaving her at later risk for uterine rupture during a subsequent pregnancy. The other second trimester procedure, called a D&E (Dilation and Evacuation), would also be inadviseable for a patient at known risk for hemmorhaging because the nature of the procedure itself requires repeated intrusion with medical instruments into the cervix and uterus, which carries an increased risk of uterine perforation and thus bleeding. The safest option for this particular patient would be an ID&X (Intact Dilation and Extraction), which is the actual abortion procedure the "PBA" is based upon. This would reduce the risk of complications for the patient, thus avoiding those complications from becoming an imminent threat to her life.

The "PBA" ban however demands that the woman's life actually be at immediate risk in order to be legally allowable. It doesn't allow for a physician to recommend and perform an ID&X to avoid health problems to begin with. It predicates that any physical condition must present a life endangering problem rather than legally allowing the procedure to avoid life endangerment altogether...

[Kerrytravelers]

95. What are you missing?

Your ability to post here any longer.

Toodles.

[bliss_eternal]

96. Thanks for the great news, KT...!

:party::bounce::toast:

Finally! One down, one to go! ;)

[Kerrytravelers]

97. Yes, it was great news.

Just keep alerting and finally they go away!

:bounce: