How do you feel about Partial Birth Abortion?

[Kid_A]

A Judge struck down the Act that would make it illegal, but how do people here feel about it?

I myself am strongly pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. I think there's a clear distinction between those two stances: You can be pro-choice and still oppose the practice of abortion, as long as it remains a legal alternative.

Most of what I know about partial-birth abortion comes from propaganda produced by radical anti-choice groups, and if any DUers might have some more objective information on it I would love to hear it.

[eyesroll]

1. "Partial Birth Abortion" does not exist.

It is a procedure not found in any reputable medical textbook.

There is a procedure called intact dialation and extraction (D&X), which does involve partially delivering the fetus and then collapsing the skull. It's an unpleasant procedure, but in some cases, may be the least harmful option for the woman, if she has life-threatening complications or the fetus is too severly deformed for life to be possible.

There are about 5,000 intact D&X procedures a year, from what I remember; most are not due to change of heart.

[rene moon]

5. Who is pro-abortion?

Not me or anyone else I know. Although I dont think abortion is a horrible thing, I still don't think I am pro-abortion. I am pro-choice.

[Kid_A]

17. That's exactly my point. Nobody is "pro-abortion".

Even though the right likes to label us that way.

[Heddi]

22. If you don't like the right labeling us that way, then why use their terms

As the poster above stated, and as has been stated numerous times on this board, there is absolutely NO medical procedure that is known as Partial Birth Abortion. No reputable doctor would ever call it that, and no reputable medical book would use that term---so why do you?

And since the "right" likes to label us as "pro-abortion", and you state that "Nobody is pro-abortion", then why use those terms?

YOU are allowing the republicans to define the terms that we must converse by. Why?

If you acknowledge that there's no such thing as Pro-Abortion, then why do you need to defend yourself and say "I'm not pro-abortion"---you've just stated that Nobody is ProAbortion, so logically, since Nobody is ProAbortion, then of course you aren't Pro-Abortion.

Stop letting them define the terms. STOP using their terms.

There is no such thing as Partial Birth Abortion. None. No such. If you ever hear those three words uttered from the lips of a physician, I highly suggest you find another doctor, as they obviously don't know real procedures from immaginary ones.

It's called an Intact Dilation and Extraction. THAT is the clinical and legal name for the procedure and THAT is the name that you, and every other American should refer to it as.

[Kid_A]

40. I used their term because I didn't know the actual medical term.

That was the whole reason I started this thread. I was sure "Partial-Birth Abortion" wasn't actually that, but I didn't know the specifics. I explained to someone else on this thread, but I'll do it again here. I knew that DUers would have the facts, but to ask for them I had to refer to the term that I knew was a lie.

My question was answered several times, but some people also felt the need to attack me for not knowing the truth about this particular right-wing lie, and that kind of pisses me off. I really do appreciate the responses, though.

[Heddi]

56. I hope you don't think I was attacking you

because I honestly wasn't. I guess that's one of the downsides to things like messagboards and chat---you can't hear voice inflection and such. I guess my post wasn't aimed directly at you either, but to the myriad of people who allow the Right to define the terms of the argument. To throw out sound-byte catch phrases like "Partial Birth Abortion" and "Pro Abortion" and "soft on crime"---things like that.

I remember once at work, I was talking to a customer who didn't have the greatest command of the English Language. I was having to repeat myself, not use contractions, use simple terms for somewhat complex ideas---after I got off the phone, a coworker said that I was the perfect example of "Political Correctness gone awry"...I asked what the fuck she meant by that....Here I had a paying customer on the phone that was having a bit of confusion over a billing issue. Perhaps the customer wasn't understanding me, or perhaps he understood me perfectly well but wasn't able to verbalize his thoughts in a way that *I* understood.

I corrected my coworker and told her that she had POLITICAL CORRECTNESS confused with POLITENESS, and that it was a common mistake nowadays because anything less than in-your-face rudenss is called "Polital Correct", and it's that way because the "Right" has ingrained in our collective consciousness that being nice = being politcally correct; that being accomodating to people = being politically correct and that being politically correct = being a mamby-pamby whiny liberal who thinks that rapists and child molestors should go free and roam the streets and other such nonsense.

We have to take the meaning out of these words. Every time someone uses the term Partial Birth Abortion, I am very happy to remind them (if I've already told them before), or Educate them (if I've never told them before) that there is no medical procedure by that name. Look in any medical textbook or literature or peer-reviewed journal and you will find no procedure by that name.

WE have to start using the correct terms. WE must use "Intact Dilation and Extraction (or D&X) whenever THEY use "partial birth abortion" or whatever.

It's time for US to reclaim the words and put the RIGHT definition to the words and to start educating the public to what the CORRECT words are for the argument.

I'm sorry if you thought I was coming down on you. I truly wasn't. I applogize if my post made it seem that way :)

hed

[Jazzgirl]

71. You go Heddi!

I am so glad someone sees how the right constantly puts labels, especially inaccurate ones, on things and manipulates how people look at things. Glad to see someone talk about not letting the other side always define everything!

[cmkramer]

37. That's not true

I do think most people are what I call "pro-life pro-choice" in that they don't really like the idea, but don't feel it's their place to tell anyone else how they should handle an unwanted pregnancy.

However, I have spoken to people who are absolutely against adoption or keeping the baby if the mother is still in school -- especially if she is still at home with her parents or if she is not financially equipped to deal with it. To them, the only solution is an abortion. I worked with a lady who referred to it as her "birth control" as she had -- at least this is what she claimed -- 15 abortions. I don't believe those people are the norm though. But I think it's wrong to say they don't exist.

As for me, I'm kind of an extremist on the topic. I think a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy at anytime and for any reason. However, I also think a woman has the right to continue a pregnancy even if the situation seems to warrant an abortion.

[catzies]

57. Your last sentence...

"However, I also think a woman has the right to continue a pregnancy even if the situation seems to warrant an abortion."

That's why it's called PRO CHOICE. Pro choice means ALL choices. :) Peace.

[Heddi]

58. The woman you mention

...wouldn't she be considered "pro-SELF-abortion"?

I guess that the origial poster is right---no one is Pro-Abortion because Pro-Abortion would mean that the person who is Pro-Abortion would accost women who were pregnant and urge them to get abortions. They would go to schools and hospitals and tell women that their only choice if they were to get pregnant would be abortion.

I don't see that happening. I don't see people walking up to women on the street and dragging them into abortion clinics and forcing them to have abortions.

Unlike Pro-Lifers, who accost women going into clinics (even if abortion is only ONE procedure that the clinic performs), tell them that abortion is NEVER an option, who infiltrate schools and hospitals and tell women that their only choice if they were to get pregnant would be to carry the child to term an *maybe* give it up for adoption.

No, I've never met anyone who was pro-abortion. Pro-Abortion would insinuate that abortion is the ONLY option (like pro-lifers who say that giving birth is the ONLY option).

However, there are (and I am proudly one) Pro-CHOICErs. Just like you, I believe in a woman's right to CHOOSE abortion or adoption or birth or whatever she wants to do

---

I guess I should clarify that the people you mentioned who believe that young women or those financially incapable of raising a child on their own would be considered Pro-Abortion in the thought-sense of it. But based on your post, it doesn't seem like these people harass young unwed mothers, or women and men who are below the poverty level who are thinking about having a child---rather, your friends would THINK to themselves (and tell others) that abortion is those people's only options while they are in that situation, but it doesn't sound to me like they are Pro-Abortion in the sense that they would force or coerce women into having abortions against their will (much like Pro-lifers do in preventing abortion against a woman's will)

[Cheswick2.0]

66. I absolutely do not believe that you know a woman who has had 15

abortions and refers to it as birth control.

[BigMcLargehuge]

11. thank you, you beat me to it!

It's a ficticious term for a ficticious proceedure used to whip the anti-abortions zealots into a frenzy.

[cmkramer]

85. Actually

I said she "claimed" to have had 15 abortions. Whatever the truth of the situation is, she was very gungho on the idea of abortion as birth control. By the way, the reaction of most observers to her comments about having had 15 abortions was pretty much eyerolling and "yeah, right".

Also on other points I made: Although I used that woman as an example, I have known people who adamantly profess that abortion is the absolute and only solution to an unwanted pregnancy. They are totally against adoption no matter if it's private or done through a private or public agency. But like I said, I know these people do not represent the majority of pro-choicers.

As for the point that most pro-choicers also support a woman's right to have a baby even when it doesn't seem to be the prudent thing to do, sorry, but I don't know that that's true. Remember that family that had the septuplets back in 1997? There were a lot of ugly comments made by liberals and leftists over that decision although most of it was because they are evangelical conservative Christians. Personally, I thought it was a foolish thing to do since the human body is not equipped to handle litters, but it was their decision to make.

[Warpy]

18. Two more points about the D&X

The skull is collapsed so the cervix doesn't have to be fully dilated, which makes the procedure of shorter duration and much less traumatic for a woman whose health may already be resting on a knife edge.

The D&X can be done in a clinic instead of a full delivery room in a hospital required for either induced full labor and delivery or a c-section (something antiabortion men cavalierly suggest).

I've seen this procedure used rarely, and only in the most tragic of circumstances, and never on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus.

It's a disturbing procedure for everyone involved. It is not used unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.

[KFC]

41. So "Partial Delivery Abortion" would be more accurate.

Apparently the procedure exists, whatever you call it.

[eyesroll]

45. There is a *procedure* that exists, yes.

"Partial Birth Abortion" is not a medical term.
It's a political term.

If I'm going to have a discussion of medical procedures, I'm going to use the medical terms.

[sandnsea]

83. D&X would be accurate

It replaces the D&E, chopping the fetus into bits and pulling it out of the vagina limb from limb, while crushing the head enutero, then pulling it out. Less than 1% of abortions, done after 20 weeks or so, almost always for medical reasons. Partial Birth Abortion is the biggest scam played on the American people since the Pet Rock.

[lanparty]

61. I share the same opinion as to the Boogey Man and the Lochness Monster

There is no such thing as birthing a dead fetus. You might as well try to birth an infected appendix.

The alternative is to do a C-section to extract a dead fetus. The issue is a giant red herring (like MOST Republican issues).

[PaDem]

77. Exactly.........

There is a lot of misinformation about this out there. I recall watching Howard Dean (my candidate in the primaries) on C-Span answer a question about this when asked by a women while he was shaking hands after a speech. His answer was great. He basically said that any doctor who actually performs the procedure you described when nobody's health is at risk should lose their license. Then, he went into just how rare this procedure is, particularly when nobody's health is at risk. Dean said he went back and looked into how many so called "partial birth abortions" had occurred in Vermont in the past five years. He found that none had occurred. This legislation actually hurts people more than it saves lives. It simply prevents a woman from having the choice to have this procedure if she is at a high risk for severe health problems in her pregnancy/delivery. It was nothing more than pandering to the base, so Bush could say he did something.

[rocktivity]

2. There's no such thing

:headbang:
rocknation

[Chicago Democrat]

3. its bull... a non-issue....all to keep women down....

FUCK THEM!

Kerry in a LANDSLIDE

[liberalnurse]

4. It is not preformed anymore....maybe in only remote

settings. The current procedure for 20-24 week gestation is to use a 2-day procedure. Day 1; inject Lanoxin in-utero; which slows the heartbeat of the fetus until it stops.....also, they dilate the cervix.....By day 2 or 3 if needed the fetus is removed.....has expired. Nature actually helps removal as it is natural to expel a non-living fetus.

[K-W]

6. My feelings:

At no point in any abortion process is anything born.

The legislation that claims to destroy this boogeyman is really just designed to make other kinds of abortion illegal or restricted.

Late term abortions are really a non-issue, people just dont have elective late term abortions. They really only occurr in cases of health issues. It is just a way for the right wing to try and get all abortions prohibited.

If you think abortions are a less than satisfactory method of birth control, fight for other methods and education so that we can reduce unwanted pregnancies, not against abortion.

That about sums up my feelings.

[Cleita]

7. There are many 300+ posts in the archives about this.

The fact is the phrase is misleading, which is what the opposition wants to do, mislead. I don't remember what the correct term is for a late term abortion, but it is something that is very seldom done and only for extraordinary circumstance. Perhaps some DUer with a better memory than mine will weigh in with more exact information.

The truth is that the RW like to drag this concept out every election painting pro-choice people as baby murderers.

[Rose Siding]

8. What's the exact procedure you mean by that term?

I don't find it in medical books, but basically doctors and the patient involved should decide on treatments, not politicians.

[displacedtexan]

9. Partial Birth Abortion is to reality...

as the Sandman is to the crud in your eyes when you wake up.

Try google.com and search for ama.org

[rbnyc]

10. There's no such thing.

Please don't use this terminology. There is no such medical procedure. Partial Birth Abortion is a political term, like death tax.

As for D&E, that's between a woman and her doctor, and is performed primarily when the woman's life is at stake.

I think most people who are pro-choice favor alternatives to abortion...like contraception!

[HFishbine]

12. Is it low carb?

???

[rkc3]

15. Perhaps not, but it could be high protein.

[Kool Kitty]

51. It is, as long as you substitute a

nice green salad for the potatoes.

[kimchi]

13. There is no such thing.

Late term abortions, on the other hand, should be an option when there is no other choice. No woman would purposefully have a late abortion after carrying a fetus that long, barring severe mental illness.

The law as it stand now is fine with me. I don't know a single human who is "pro-abortion", which makes it sound like women get pregnant just to have an operation. It is a sick, loaded term of propoganda, just like "partial birth".

[calico1]

19. Exactly. And no doctor in

their right mind would perform a late term abortion unless it were to save the mother's life or because the fetus is severely deformed. These are the typical cases where this RARE procedure is done. And it is a rare procedure. The right would like for people to believe that thousands of women every year decide all of a sudden at 8 1/2 months that they don't want the baby and go have an abortion. That is not true! This is all political and is meant as the first step toward banning all abortions, and eventually all forms of birth control! That is what the ultimate goal is.

[catzies]

14. You said it yourself: most of what you know comes from propaganda

including the use of the term "PBA."

Yours is the most clear-eyed and reasonable position: be pro-choice and let it remain a legal alternative, and your feelings about it should be only as it affects you and your private and personal life.

The "objective" information you seek is that it should not be outlawed as a practice that is supposed to remain a private, personal decision between a woman and her doctor and that she should be safe.

[bobbyboucher]

16. It doesn't exist.

Next Repube talking point.

[skygazer]

20. Pro-abortion?

You mean like people who go around inciting people to get abortions? Or perhaps getting pregnant so they can get an abortion? Or soliciting young girls outside high schools to get abortions? What the hell is pro-abortion?

As for so-called Partial Birth Abortion, yes this is another devious plot by the pro-abortion people who want nothing more than to see women all over the country deliberately waiting until their fetus is old enough to perform this procedure on.

What a ridiculous concept.

[sadiesworld]

21. As an aside...

Late term abortions (two day procedures) are quite a bit more expensive than abortions performed early in the pregnancy. This must have a chilling effect on late term procedures.

[Kid_A]

23. Thank you all, but I think you misunderstood me to a certain extent.

I used the term "Partial Birth Abortion" because that's the language used in the Act that was struck down today. Of course it's a term designed by anti-choice people to elicit a specific response in people. My question was about the facts surrounding the issue, not about the legitimacy of the RNC talking points that we hear all the time. Thanks for clearing up some of the confusion.

And another thing: There wouldn't be ANY confusion on this issue if Democrats weren't so afraid of it. Medical science is on our side in this, as is the law, and if some Democrats would grow some fucking BACKBONE and stop letting the right define the issues all the time then we wouldn't have to play defense all the time.

[K-W]

25. Democrats dont LET the republicans define the issues.

The Republicans CONTROL THE MEDIA.

The Republicans have a massive propaganda establishment. We dont, so stop blaming democrats for being victims.

And the point is that the fact is that there is no such thing as partial birth abortion. You asked for the facts surrounding partial birth abortion... there is only one fact, there is no such thing as a partial birth abortion.

[Kid_A]

27. I disagree on both your points.

First, Democrats often appear on the GOP-controlled media, and RARELY do they ever call them out for what they are. I'm sure there will be some talking heads discussing this decision tonight, but don't look for any of the liberals on those shows to challenge the language used. Yes, I know, the producers of those shows choose their guests, and they'll pick liberals that they know won't say anything too ballsy.

Second, the term "PBA" wouldn't exist if there was no procedure to be defined by it. And even if that term doesn't accurately describe the procedure, people won't know that if our side doesn't step up to the plate and challenge the definitions of the terms of debate once in a while. I will freely admit that I was ignorant of the FACTS about PBA until recently, and that's because there was no argument about the accuracy of the name.

[K-W]

29. Your logic isnt sound.

In your first paragraph you answer your own question. The supposed 'liberals' in the media arent really liberals. Read David Brock's 'The Republican Noise Machine' There are two lines of attacks, there is the massive conservative propaganda machine and there is the highly effective maneuvere of changing the face of debate, so that balanced doesnt mean objective, it just means that a far right conservative gets equal time with everyone. The whole point is that the supposed liberals are not liberal ideologues, they are moderates and journalists who can very easily be manipulated by republican propaganda workers.

The conservatives LIE and manipulate, democrats are very very limited on what they can do. Kerry spends all his time talking about issues, and a large portion of America thinks he is running soley on his vietnam record. This is not a fair fight and you play into the conservatives hands when you act as though this is the democrats fault.

In your second paragraph your argument is basically "the religious right wouldnt just make things up"... they do lie constantly about abortion and partial birth abortion is a LIE it is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

And there are PLENTY of arguments against them and there are plenty of facts. You are making the inexcusible mistake of thinking that just because you havent heard something it isnt being said. You need to get over this immediately, because the problem in America today is NOT that there is no opposition. It is that public perception is being masterfully manipulated by one group. And until you realize that you are just another person being manipulated by the right.

[Kid_A]

32. I see where you're coming from, but I still think this is worth discussing

"You are making the inexcusible mistake of thinking that just because you havent heard something it isnt being said."

No, if I haven't heard something then it isn't being said ENOUGH. I pay as close attention as anyone else here, but this is one issue that I was unclear on. I knew people here would have the truth, and that's why I asked. Searching for the truth is never "inexcusable".

"You need to get over this immediately, because the problem in America today is NOT that there is no opposition. It is that public perception is being masterfully manipulated by one group. And until you realize that you are just another person being manipulated by the right."

With all due respect, I don't think telling people to "get over it" is very good advice. I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as knowing too much about something, or looking into an issue too closely. I can be concerned about the way our side is portrayed in the media, while still being aware of the manipulation that results in the inaccurate portrayal. Believe it or not, it is possible to examine both the cause and effect of something simultaneously.

[K-W]

38. I dont think you do see where Im coming from.

You did the right thing to come searching for the truth. That is exactly the point, you need to search for the truth, no one is going to broadcast it into your house. Plenty of people are working hard every day to spread the truth about this and many issues and you shame them with what you say. It isnt thier fault that the very few people and groups that control access to public perception dont air thier perspective.

Get over it is amazing advice. Everyone needs to get over the illusion created by the media and conservative propaganda. Now obviously you are on your way to that, but you are still a little effected by the media and by public perception. Thats where the blame the victim mentality comes from with democrats. There are plenty of liberals and plenty of democrats who yell and scream and give riteous rants and tear apart conservative bullshit. They dont get access to mass media. Meanwhile conservative propagandists, with no qualifications other than that they know how to use manipulation and lies to spread conservative propaganda have nationally syndicated columns and are all over cable and now network news.

The democrats are NOT playing of a fair field of play in the battle for public perception. Yes they need to find ways to win anyway, they have no other choice, but we only hurt them when we blame them for being underdogs.

[Kid_A]

47. I seem to remember being told to "get over it" after the 2000 election.

That was the first election I voted in (I'm 23), and the fact that it turned into such a travesty is the main thing that woke me up politically.

Now I'm not expecting to turn on CNN and see Noam Chomsky or Naomi Klien debating Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly (although I would pay money to see that), but I would like it if the liberal guests that do appear on those shows take advantage of the opportunity that live TV gives them. And if blaming them for not using that opportunity to inform people of the truth hurts them, then so be it. Maybe it's the swift kick in the pants that this party DESPERATELY needs if we want to beat the Republicans at their own game.

[K-W]

49. What a completely invalid comparison. Are you trying to smear me?

So now if I use the same words as someone who was wrong once it means I'm wrong? thats beautiful rhetoric Kid_A, just beautiful.

Listen very very carefully. If the people who do get on cable 'used the opportunity' they wouldnt accomplish anything. They would get charecterized as wakkos and marginalized. If they continued to do it they would end up never getting invited back. They would become just like Noam Chomsky, brilliant but largely irrelevent. Conservatives have made liberals and liberal rhetoric useless.

We need to fight back to level the playing field, not blame democrats for playing ball on the field as it is. We need to counteract the influence of corporate money in giving conservatives the media. We need to organize and fight them. When we do that, and win, then we will have the voices in the media that we want. And all the whining about democrats will never accomplish a damn thing.

[Kid_A]

53. I'm not trying to smear you, I promise.

I just think telling someone to "get over it" is extremely condescending. It implies that what they're upset about is meaningless, and that they're a fool for caring about it. I'm sorry if you see that as rhetoric, but that's how I feel. I had a RE-ELECT GORE IN 2004 sticker on my car for years, and since I live in a red state people were constantly yelling at me to "Get over it!" It really, really pisses off.

And I don't think getting some competent liberals on TV to state our case intelligently and forcefully. The right can make people believe a lie by repeating it incessantly on the news outlets that they own, so why we can't we get people to believe the truth by repeating it incessantly and forcefully. I know what you're going to say. "Because they control the media and who gets booked on shows". That's true, but what other options do we have?

If every liberal guest on TV grew some balls and stood up to the lies that spew out constantly, then the network would respond by either giving our views some decent airtime, or by not inviting any liberal guests on their shows. If the former happens, then the field will begin to level out. If the latter happens, then the conservative bias of the media will become even more obvious than it already is, and people will begin to notice the imbalance in the news. Either way, we benefit.

So think of it like having to rebreak a leg to get it to heal correctly. Sure it'll be painful as hell, but it's for the best.

[noiretextatique]

33. i agree with you...did you see cleland's comments yesterday?

about bush, inc attempts to tarnish Kerry's (and others) military service? there was no "i strongly disagree"...he called bush to the carpet in plain, and clear language. that needs to happen more often on ALL issues hijacked by the rw, and its media.

[Kid_A]

36. EXACTLY.

[K-W]

39. And what happened in the media?

He gets called crazy and Bush calls it a stunt, and he gets written off as a liberal wakko and people dont listen to him.

The problem is the media, not the democrats.

[noiretextatique]

44. who cares? it will happen ANYWAY

the point is to stop using their reaction as an excuse. his message resonated with those who were open to it, and that includes some republicans. i am sure there are some republicans who dislike what bush, inc is doing as well. and what is the alternative...continued capitualtion? :eyes: THAT has been working real well.

[K-W]

46. I thought this was a site for people who care.

We have to care, until we fix the problem we are going to lose this fight. And I dont care how nice I feel while losing it. We need to battle the conservatives so that democrats can speak up without being ignored or marginalized. If you honestly feel that it is hopeless, im not sure what the point of even trying is.

[Kid_A]

48. You just made the point I've been trying to make

in our little 2-way discussion up the page. I really think we're debating the same thing here.

"We need to battle the conservatives so that democrats can speak up without being ignored or marginalized."

You're right, and the way to do that is to call out the liberal who appear on the corporate media channels for the damage they're doing to our cause.

[K-W]

50. But your strategy only hurts us.

So now the conservatives are attacking the democrats and the liberals are attacking the democrats. It only helps the conservatives. Meanwhile you have done nothing to accomplish anything. Attacking democrats doesnt fix the problem. It doesnt get liberal voices on the air. It doesnt wrest control of the media from corporations.

[noiretextatique]

59. oh please....spare me your self-righteous moralizing: AGAIN

why don't you just say: i agree? :eyes: the CRAP from the media has to be countered...how is what you are saying any different from what we are saying? clue: it isn't.

[napi21]

24. I am FOR the Gov't staying out of all abortion issues!

I am personally agains all abortion, but I do not believe in forcing my opinions on everyone else.

I think the medical community, the individuals, and their own personal beliefs should determine the issue, and gov't should just stay the hell out of it!

[fairfaxvadem]

26. And if this practice does exist as "they" claim, and

They make it sound as though this is going on ALL THE TIME BY THE THOUSANDS...then,

Why aren't doctors being arrested? R v. W is pretty clear on the whole trimester bit as I recall, and if women by the droves are getting these done late term because they've simply changed their minds, then I'd like to know where the lazy media is in reporting this.

The right-wingers think it is better for a woman to carry a brain-dead baby "to term" then to do the in-tact procedure. That is how sick and inhumane they are.

[LibraLabSoldier]

28. Is a lot like an "assault weapon"

It is a term that has little meaning. It is just something to get the Pro-lifers riled up.

[greenohio]

30. Where do people stand on viability?

The partial birth debate is a trick by pro-lifers.

I'm with Clinton, safe, legal and rare. The real question is what regulations, if any, do you think there should be? Even Roe has an exception for viability.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/ABORTION/majorus.html
1973 Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113
Nature of Case: Challenge to a Texas law prohibiting abortions except to save the woman's life.
Holding: The law is unconstitutional. The right to privacy extends to the decision of a woman, in consultation with her physician, to terminate her pregnancy. During the first trimester of pregnancy, this decision may be effectuated free of state interference. After the first trimester, the state has a compelling interest in protecting the woman's health and may reasonably regulate abortion to promote that interest. At the point of fetal viability (capacity for sustained survival outside the uterus), the state has a compelling interest in protecting potential life and may ban abortion, except when necessary to preserve the woman's life or health.

I also think there should be laws against coercing women to make a decision one way or another. I don't think women should be forced to carry a child against her will. But I don't think they should be forced to abort either.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. It's a BS issue - like flag burning.

Common sense should tell anyone that women aren't sitting around waiting until their 8 months pregnant to have an abortion.

It's a "designer" issue made for the rightwingers and the pablum DLC Democrats to vote on.

[noiretextatique]

35. and...a way for control freaks and misogynists

to feel "noble."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. I consider all "pro-life" legislation to be anti-woman.

And, I believe that the motivator for most of the pro-preggers is the fear that women should pay the penalty of child rearing because of their "sin".

I always find it amazing that so many of the strident "anti-abortion" types are also stridently against sex-education and birth control which prevents more abortions than they could even dream of.

[noiretextatique]

43. agree 1000% eom

[Kool Kitty]

52. Hear, hear! I agree.

[lanparty]

64. There IS a certain nobility in this ...

... but I feel it is misplaced.

I respect anybody who looks after the little guy. They believe those are lives. I disagree, but I respect that opinion.

What I DO NOT respect is forgetting about the fetus after it's born.

[noiretextatique]

65. i respect those who understand

where their bodies end and other people's begin. i respect those whose own beliefs, consciences, etc determine the choices THEY make. i have no respect for people who think their beliefs should determine the choices ALL women can make.

[BiggJawn]

34. Nothing known by that name...

Outside of a "promise-keepers" rally...And it's not a common procedure anyway.

The RW tries to paint this procedure as being as common as getting rubbers from PP, as though a woman would say "Well, I know it's taken me 9 months, but I've decided I want an abortion now..."
Such is not the case. the procedure is usually performed when the mother's life is in peril from the pregnancy.

But the anti-choice crowd wants the sheeple to believe that thousands are done daily for retroactive birth control purposes...

And please explain what "pro-abortion" is? Would somebody who is "pro-abortion" be for mandatory abortions for all women, all the time?
kind of a drastic way to ZPG, isn't it?

I did a quick check, and other posters are correct. there is no procedure known officially as a "partial-birth abortion".

[TexasBushwhacker]

54. I've read about the procedure ....

and although it sounds gruesome, I just don't think that it's the government's place to decide what MEDICAL PROCEDURE is best for a woman to have. That's between her and her doctor.

The D & X procedure is rare (about 1/4 % of all abortions) but sometimes necessary. One of the more common reasons to perform a D & X is because the fetus has severe hydrocephaly (fluid on the brain). Though the fetus is alive, once born it will live only for a short time, never gaining consciousness. It's brain has been irrevocably damaged by the pressure of the fluid. It is not unusual for a fetus with hydrocephaly to have a head that is 20 inches in diameter, holding up to 2 gallons of cerebrospinal fluid. Obviously the afflicted fetus cannot be delivered vaginally, so when this defect is discovered, the choice is to deliver by C-section, with all of its inherent risks, or do a D & X.

Good info here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

[Heddi]

60. most medical procedures are gruesome

I hear pro-lifers all the time talk about this DISGUSTING procedure and how much BLOOD is lost and all this nonsense---

I wonder, have any of them seen a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and radical hysterecomy performed on a woman with ovarian and endometrial cancer? I have. I've seen them many times, and let me tell you there is ALOT of blood. An incision from the pubis to about an inch above the navel. Blood, tissue, cancerous masses, ascites...nasty stuff.

I wonder if any of them have seen a hip replacement surgery? Or knee replacement surgery? Or the surgery where they replace the acetabulum of the femur (the "ball" part of the ball and socket joint of the hip & upper leg)---they saw off the top part of the femur and put in a steel acetabulum. They do that by drilling a hole in the leg bone and HAMMERING in this steel replacement joint. VERY nasty surgery. VERY gruesome.

Yet I don't hear them arguing over THOSE procedures. Or open heart surgery (talk about alot of blood!) or brain surgery or anything like that.

Strange how they're so concerned about the grotesque-factor with regards to only ONE procedure out of millions that are performed in hospitals every day.

And they should take a gross-anatomy class. Here's a hint: EVERYTHING inside the body is gross...not just the vagina and cervix...EVERYTHING...nasty, fluid-filled, bloody, and not very colourful--all the organs are a pale fleshy colour...very unlike the "All About Your Body" books we got in 4th grade where the stomach was purple, the heart was red, the kidneys were yellow and the brain was pink...

[lanparty]

63. Funny you should mention the heart ...

... they used to be RADICALLY against open heart surgery. But all that is gone now.

[Heddi]

76. Really? Why the hell would they be against that

other than the obvious fact that they're completely stupid and devoid of any logical thought no matter how simple it may be

[lanparty]

79. They felt the heart was the repository of the soul ...

... it was complete superstitution. They felt that if the heart was operated on, it would damage/desecrate the soul.

[BonjourUSA]

74. Why you don't legalize the abortion-pill ?

In France, we did. That's simplier. And this pill is paid by the Social Security

[greekspeak]

55. I feel it is a rhetorical construction made up by the right

to return more control of men's property...er...wives...to them.

[sangh0]

62. What are you talking about?

There's no such thing

[truthspeaker]

67. I am confident that it is medically necessary in the very rare instances

when it is used.

Do you have any idea how few abortions are performed in the third trimester?

Do you have any idea how few third trimester abortions are done with the intact dilation & extraction procedure?

Well, me neither, but I'm sure a DU pro-choice activist will post up-to-date stats soon. But last time I saw the numbers it was a VERY small percentage.

[Cheswick2.0]

69. Late term (afer viability) D and X are about .03 percent of all abortions

and only done in cases of life and health of the woman.

[Cheswick2.0]

68. I love abortion

in fact I often wait until I am 8 months pregnant because it is that much more fun to get an abortion after viability.

[BonjourUSA]

70. What does it mean "Partial Birth Abortion" ?

Is it magic, supernatural, devilish or something like that ?

[Zomby Woof]

72. Partial Popcorn Abortion

We haven't had an abortion thread
All week, the very sad Zomby said
Let's stir up GD, it was getting dead
Never mind helping Kerry turn the red
States into blue, to kick Bush on his head

I had some sperm escape me I named it Fred
Because every sperm is sacred, Monty Python said
If this were a poem about reggae, I'd say natty dread
But reason sinks like partial popcorn full of lead
When another innocent DUer starts an abortion thread

I say the women has the power, the right, and I said
You try to ruin her freedom, for which many of them bled
Too many of you claim progressive, making me see red
For you wouldn't know freedom if it shit down upon your head
On the subject of human rights, you have so little cred

--- ZW

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. Bwahahahahaha!

you rule

[Bat Boy]

82. Popcorn!

With extra buttah!

How thoughtful!

[noiretextatique]

84. ZW, your poetic talents

are a good as your popcorn :hi:

[jackieforthedems]

75. I'm Personally Not For It

But unless it's illegal, I'm not going to make someone else's choices for them.

[djg21]

78. I'm for it if limited to the Bush family/

In fact, if it's not to late, Babs should abort Shrub.

[leesa]

80. So you think abortion is murder but it's ok for someone else to do it?

How many of these unwanted children are you planning to adopt? Will you take a dozen or so into your house and raise them? Who will care for these millions of unwanted children? You?

[SoCalDem]

81. There are only TWO sides to this whole issue..

BUTT OUT and leave the choice to the woman/doctor/religious leader
..Pro Choice


ANTI CHOICE....People who simply MUST insert themselves into the crotches/uterii of every sexually active woman in the USA..

It's not about the abrotion.. it's about the CONTROL...

Abortions have been around since Jesus invented the "sharp stick"..

It's a PRIVATE THING.. women do not get a sticker, like when you vote.. "I just had an abortion"..

Contrary to the spin... it's NOT a first choice..and probably 99% of women who ever had one..wished they had never HAD to use the option..

BUT.. once again.. IT'S NO ONE'S BUSINESS except the woman/the doctor/the religious beliefs (if any)