And so it begins...

[mr_genius]

There are few serious medical procedures that don't make you sick. It was my impression that these operations are pretty risky as it was... there are other safer ways to perform a late trimester abortion - as far as I know - which is admittedly, not much.

 

it doesn't matter how you kill the person, it's the fact you're killing them. in it's current state the baby could be removed from the mother and live. it certainly isn't just a fertalized egg at this point.

Edited February 23, 2006 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

Actually I did give that some thought...it wasn't just a knee-jerk thing.  I think there's a big difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion.  There's also a big difference between being anti-choice and being anti-abortion.

 

 

lol

 

the big difference is you don't want to be labeled pro-abortion... but to you, anyone who is against a late term abortion is anti-choice (i'm sure all of the anti-choice people don't want you to make any personal choices, thus making your anti-choice label accurate).

[YASNY]

And which would also make it possible for the federal government to actually institute a ban, by simply getting a majority vote in both houses of Congress.  Yes, it would go to the states at first, but there wouldn't be any reason to assume it would remain only a state decisision.

 

Is there any reason to assume it wouldn't?

[YASNY]

Actually I did give that some thought...it wasn't just a knee-jerk thing.  I think there's a big difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion.  There's also a big difference between being anti-choice and being anti-abortion.

 

I believe the terms each side uses to identify itself are pro-choice or pro-life. So, if you can justify using anti-choice, then .....

[vandy125]

I believe the terms each side uses to identify itself are pro-choice or pro-life.  So, if you can justify using anti-choice, then .....

 

I am going to start using the "anti" words. So, I am now an anti-choicer, and the others are anti-lifers. I think that accurately depicts what each side believes.

[NorthSideSox72]

it doesn't matter how you kill the person, it's the fact you're killing them.  in it's current state the baby could be removed from the mother and live. it certainly isn't just a fertalized egg at this point.

 

I agree. For lack of a better definition of life, my line is drawn at the point where the baby could live on its own (thus, an indepedant life form). So, I feel the only time any sort abortions after that point of viability should be allowed is if the mother's life is in danger. If it comes down to the mother versus the child, that choice needs to be left to mother/father. And this is the way the law is currently structured, correct? There aren't any scenarios where a late term abortion could be performed when the mother's life wasn't in danger, are there?

 

Now, I am not up on the details on this, but I understand this is regarding a specific method or methods for the procedure, right? So my question is, if anyone can answer it... Are there other procedures available, should that mother/baby choice arise, that can get the job done effectively?

[Controlled Chaos]

I agree.  For lack of a better definition of life, my line is drawn at the point where the baby could live on its own (thus, an indepedant life form).  So, I feel the only time any sort abortions after that point of viability should be allowed is if the mother's life is in danger.  If it comes down to the mother versus the child, that choice needs to be left to mother/father.  And this is the way the law is currently structured, correct?  There aren't any scenarios where a late term abortion could be performed when the mother's life wasn't in danger, are there?

 

Now, I am not up on the details on this, but I understand this is regarding a specific method or methods for the procedure, right?  So my question is, if anyone can answer it... Are there other procedures available, should that mother/baby choice arise, that can get the job done effectively?

 

 

DOCTORS SEE LIES BEHIND REASONS FOR LATE-TERM ABORTIONS

 

 

 

by Mike Royko former columnist Chicago Tribune - reprinted from Human Life Review Spring 1997

 

Leading abortion advocates are circling their wagons, and poor Ron Fitzsimmons, once one of them, seems to have been shoved outside the tight circle. Fitzsimmons is the conscience-stricken head of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers who now admits that he took part in telling Americans the big lie about so-called partial-birth abortions.

 

During the national debate on the late-term brain-sucking procedure, Fitzsimmons was one of many pro-abortion spokespersons and media dupes who assured the nation that almost all late-term abortions were done to preserve the health of the mother or because the fetus had serious abnormalities.

 

Now, Fitzsimmons said, "I lied through my teeth". And that most late-term abortions were done for the same reason as early abortions - because women wanted to end pregnancies.

 

Fitzsimmons’ confession was barely out of his mouth when he was whopped by fellow abortion advocates, who held a news conference to say, in effect, that he was being truthful when, he now says, he was lying. But now he is lying when he says he is finally being truthful.

 

Typical was Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. She said; "If he thinks he lied, that’s his problem to deal with. We have not lied".

 

Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said Fitzsimmons had been "mixing up gestation with procedure".

 

Whatever the heck that means.

 

While they squabble about who did or didn’t lie, let’s listen to someone else for once - genuine physicians, rather than pro-abortion lobbyists and other non-medical spin experts who seem to get all the invitations to yap on TV.

 

One is Dr. Pamela Smith, former director of medical education in obstetrics and gynaecology at Mt Sinai Hospital. She recently resigned that post to do anti-abortion public-health work in the community and practice medicine at the Lawndale Health Centre.

 

The only thing that surprised her about Fitzsimmons’ confession was that he made it.

 

"Most of the time, there is nothing wrong with the baby or the mother (when late-term abortions are performed)", she said. "People have known about this for a decade.

 

"There is a clinic in New Jersey that said of the 3,000 abortions it did last year, 1,500 were late-term.

 

"So we went from being told that only 200 a year were being done in the entire country to one clinic saying it does 1,500 a year. Obviously, the actual number (of late-term abortions) is in the thousands.

 

"The media believe what they want to believe. And because a lot of doctors who have testified in support of the partial-birth ban have been pro-life, the knee-jerk response is that it is a pro-life pro-choice thing.

 

"There’s been all this propaganda that it is done only because women need it. So people said: ‘If my wife needs to have this to save her life, she should have it’. The problem is that it is not this procedure versus your wife’s life. It’s really infuriating to me to hear that women medically need this".

 

One of the arguments for the late-term procedure is that it helps a woman preserve her fertility. Smith describes that as "fantasy".

 

The future-fertility risk was one of the excuses offered by President Clinton when he vetoed the bill that would have outlawed the procedure.

 

Clinton said: "There are a few hundred women every year who have personally agonising situations, where their children are born or are about to be born with terrible deformities which will cause them to die just before, during or just after childbirth.

 

"And these women, among other things, cannot preserve the ability to have further children unless the enormous size of the baby’s head is reduced before being extracted from their bodies".

 

Which is bunk, according to Dr. Nancy Romer, chairman of obstetrics at Miami Valley Hospital in Dayton and a clinical professor at Wright State University.

 

"I don’t understand that argument about fertility at all". she said. "We have no idea what happens to women who have this procedure down the road. We don’t have a clue. There is no scientific evidence that shows that procedure would be preferable over existing techniques. I question why it is not being taught or performed by the majority of people who specialize in these pregnancies."

 

As for the propaganda campaign that led Clinton to veto the bill outlawing the procedure, Romer believes she understands it.

 

"Those who opposed the legislation have a much broader agenda, and that is to have totally unrestricted access to abortion. They will defend abortion rights blindly, regardless of the facts of the matter. Any legislation, if it’s antiabortion, they are against it.

 

"They don’t think ‘Is this procedure appropriate, who is doing it and why are they doing it?’. They don’t care about the details. They won’t acknowledge the truth of what we are saying because it defeats their larger agenda".

 

So the whole battle is going to be fought in Congress one more time. And if a bill passes and gets to Clinton’s desk, maybe he can ask the CIA or the FBI to find out who is telling the truth before he makes any more sombre pronouncements.

[YASNY]

If liberals keep having abortions and conservatives keep having babies, this problem will just go away.

[Rex Kickass]

No need, we're all just turning gay.

[Reddy]

No need, we're all just turning gay.

 

it's true, all you conservatives have to do is just wait it out. pretty soon you'll be the only ones left.

 

 

then who would you argue with?

[YASNY]

it's true, all you conservatives have to do is just wait it out.  pretty soon you'll be the only ones left.

then who would you argue with?

 

Cub fans.