Don't Feed the Beast By Using the Hate Wing Term "Partial Birth Abortion"

[omega minimo]

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on Late Term Abortion.

There is no such medical procedure or term as "Partial Birth Abortion."

The term "Partial Birth Abortion" is a Hate Wing perjorative, created by the likes of Rove, Luntz, the "Wise Use Movement," the Swiftboat Liars, Rush Limbot, O'Lielly, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.......

Created to sensationalize a medical procedure, to manipulate a gullible public, to deny women's rights to reproductive health and privacy.

PLEASE DON'T USE THEIR TERM. Call it "Late Term Abortion."

DU is big on "memes" and "framing." This simple step will have an important effect in reducing the deceptive tactics of the Hate Wing.

(And another one is "Abortion on Demand.")

Feel powerless? Feel like you can't do anything, don't know what to do and it doesn't matter anyway?

DU this!

It matters.

:bounce: :hi: :bounce:

[saltpoint]

1. Agree. A keen observation and excellent advice. 1st-tier post. /nt

[omega minimo]

7. Much obliged-- this term will be showing up after today......

:thumbsup:

[NMDemDist2]

2. a K&N for sage advice. n/t

[omega minimo]

15. Sage!

:yourock:

[judy]

3. Thank you omega, I agree

that using the right words and not the RW propaganda memes, is very important.

Let's also remember to always say "so called" before we use the words "War on Terror" or "War on Terrorism", to describe BushCo's endless fake war.

Let's always ask, when someone says "9/11 was an act of war", what it is exactly that makes it an "act of war" and not a crime against humanity committed by individuals whose financing remains to be exposed...

And so on...

[omega minimo]

9. a War on everything, yet they never actually formally declare war

:crazy:

[cali]

12. I like using 'so called' too.

I always refer to it as so called partial birth abortion. It's my understanding that more than 1 procedure is bundled into the term. I'm not sure changing to late tern abortion is really taking ownership over the definition of the debate.

[omega minimo]

13. That's good. "So called" works

If you have ideas or can point to some good info, that would be great.

"I'm not sure changing to late tern abortion is really taking ownership over the definition of the debate."

[suziedemocrat]

95. Why do they call it "partial birth"?

Do people start giving birth and then they club the fetus as it comes out? I'd love to know why they call it this?

I was substitute teaching a civics class and the subject of abortion came up. (I'm in a very right-wing area.) One senior girl said "I'm anti-abortion AND pro-choice." I thought that was classic!!! A great way to say - I don't want to have an abortion - but I think that's a decision for each woman to make on her own.

edit- typo.

[omega minimo]

112. Maybe the baby seal image is what they were going for

That young woman's position may be affirmative in these times. However, it used to be understood, a "given," that "pro-choice" ENCOMPASSES the right to your own decisions and others to their own. Now that concept has been separated out and requires endless discussion and argument-- including folks wanting to sidestep "choice" (which was the inclusive term)....................

IMHO "even at DU" a lot of time is spent/wasted with people arguing about it as if the whole issue hinges on THEIR OWN decision-making process and reasoning ...................which is fine as an exercise/discussion but it goes nowhere ..................the point is that they HAVE THE RIGHT to make their own decision, but NOT to decide for others. At some point, in terms of the law, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THEY WOULD CHOOSE OR CONDONE FOR THEIR OWN FAMILY. The distinction isn't made in most of these discussions.

That includes legislators.

(The need for these too-apologetic "no one likes abortion" arguments is due to the onslaught of anti-woman propaganda: "elective'" "abortion on demand" "abortion as birth control" etc.) (and once again subtracts out the experience of real women except as props in the grotesque theater of Hate Wing intrusion).

[omega minimo]

14. CBS: "late term abortion" and PBS "so-called 'partial birth abortion'"

tonight.......

And so it begins (again)


and about that financing............... :eyes:

[yellowdogintexas]

4. Thank you. I hate the way the Hate Wing has twisted this

around

the term "abortion on demand" is essentially a lie. There are many places where a woman has to travel hundreds of miles just to find a practitioner, and then if she is past 12 weeks travel even further in a different direction. This has been the case for a very long time.

You would think any woman can just march into a dr's office or hospital at 8 months and have the pregnancy terminated because she just doesn't feel like being a mom any more. As IF. I honestly think many of the right to life folks actually believe that.

Rant over.

[omega minimo]

10. Tonight on the nooz a Cong. Repug objects to consideration

for the health of the woman

"...because that could be ANYTHING!"

Well excuse my language yellowdogintexas but MAYBE THAT BLOODY WELL OUGHTA TELL THEM SUMTHIN YA THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????

These idiots see that as a PROBLEM????????? :wtf:

They want incubators-- women are an inconvenience in these twisted minds.

[Clark2008]

11. Yeah - and they'll also end up killing both the woman and the

child in some of these cases because continuing the pregnancy would be a threat to both the woman and the child.

Sanctity of life, my ass.

[Warren DeMontague]

211. Yeah. Just leave the door open a crack for those harlots

and they'll be busting down the doors to get those late term abortions.. you know, because they're so much fun.

Sigh. Women.

[sundancekid]

5. 5th N -- let's frame on OUR reality-based terms -- thanks for reminder

[Canuckistanian]

6. I saw a post with that term earlier

I was going to say something.

Just because you hear a term 5 times a day doesn't make it right or accurate.

It's sorta like "Terrorist Surveillance Program"

[omega minimo]

8. "Death Tax"

:puke:

[Raster]

16. It's like the term "pro-life." There is no "pro-life." There is CHOICE

and anti-choice.

[omega minimo]

18. Yep they should be "pro-zygote"-- don't care about "life" outside the womb

Saw a LTTE this week that some poor sod referred to "unborn and their wombs." Excuse me? "Their" wombs? They have a lease on the place? How do these crazies completely subtract WOMEN from the equation? :freak:

[gauguin57]

124. I love it! "There was a pro-zygote rally at the Capitol today ..."

If you're not a zygote or in a vegetative state, they don't give a crap about ya'. Tax money used for programs to help women who struggle for years because they've chosen to keep their children? NO WAY! LET 'EM FEND FOR THEMSELVES! But let's protect those zygotes at all cost -- no matter what the circumstances.

Feh!

[judy]

22. Yesss! Absolutely!

Can we please all stop ever using "Pro-life", and use "anti-choice" instead?
Never use "pro-abortion" but use "pro-choice" instead?

Let's not ever fall into bushspeak!

[bunkerbuster1]

117. There's Criminalization and anti-Criminalization

never, ever, pass up the opportunity to remind one and all that the right wing wants to put women and their docs in jail.

And Sen. Coburn (Retard-OK) wants to execute them.

[Raster]

121. there's also CHOICE and coathanger...

[omega minimo]

253. Only from a malecentric point of view

BAD MEME BAD MEME :spank: :spank:


This term sounds like a repetition of the problem-- leaving women out of the equation. As if it's supposed to appeal to men who don't want to face the realities about women's rights.

I've heard it on DU once before-- sounds like it came from THEM!!!!!!! :evilfrown:

[Raster]

258. the entire "protect the unborn" bullshit is from a malecentric view.

[Warren DeMontague]

264. I disagree.

You know, ever the antagonist. :hippie:

I think that anti-choicers squirm and bob and weave when they try to swear up and down that women are the 'victims' of abortion- and they won't be prosecuted. Bullshit. Listen to the rhetoric of the woman who headed the "march for life" this year- she spoke of "feminist abortionists" and "nuremburg trials" for "crimes against humanity".

Reminding people that the goal is to prosecute women for exercising control over their own bodies is not, in my mind, a bad thing. People should be encouraged to think that line of reasoning through to its logical endpoint: Protective custody for pregnant women deemed a 'danger' to the unborn citizens inside them? Prosecution for use of the pill and IUD as murder weapons?

All manner of screwed up bizzarro realities become possible once you grant, as the GOP platform has advocated for the past several decades, rights under the 14th amendment to fertilized eggs.

And it's true- for lots of folks, it's really not about whether one, personally, likes abortion- it's whether one thinks it should be against the law.

Just my ever-so-humble opinion.

[omega minimo]

266. ESHA

Ever-so-humble-antagonist :dilemma: Hey, it's preferable to EVER SO MINDLESS DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.

Speaking of which (and thank you for this post elucidating the insanity) how do these zygote worshippers justify really not giving a shit about the "unborn" once they're born-- or the women that give the gift of life (I know the answer to that one).

Still won't be buying the "Criminalization-- Pro or Con" bumpersticker....................... :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

268. I've got a several point plan for the folks who don't like abortion:

support a single payer health care system, and a liveable minimum wage, so single, poor women facing unplanned pregnancies will have more options.

support full coverage of birth control, and government funded research into broader, more effective, and safer options for the same.

Make "Plan B" and oral contraceptives available OTC; thereby neutralizing any 'debate' over the 'rights' of fundy pharmacists not to fill prescriptions.

Support comprehensive sex education with contraceptive availability in High Schools.

And, last but not least-

Don't like abortion? You'll be pleased to know you don't have to have one.

[beam me up scottie]

270. Brilliant!

I've been throwing the hypocrisy in their faces for years and alas, it does no good.

They whine about their tax dollars supporting women on welfare...

[omega minimo]

273. Well DUH. Since the MOST VICIOUS ABORTION BIGOTS ARE MEN!!!!!!!!!

:wtf:

"And, last but not least- Don't like abortion? You'll be pleased to know you don't have to have one." MEN DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ONE.

[beam me up scottie]

275. They are, but you also know that

their women partners would waste no time at all getting rid of a little problem for their junior miss fundybot if it happened to have say... a black father.

Hey, don't blame me, Bill Maher was the one who pointed it out.

[we can do it]

17. Good Point -

[Harper_is_Bush]

19. Just like "brain suction abortion", another non-medical term used

for political purpose.

Just as important as trying to stifle a bad term is understanding what it is. Late term abortion is used in cases when the life of the mother is at risk.

[omega minimo]

21. "Late term abortion: used in cases when the life of the mother is at risk"

Excellent point. Thank you.

So if a late term abortion is used in cases where the life of the mother is at risk and the abortion foes object to legal protections for the health of the mother........................... more circular non-logic for ya.


"Just like "brain suction abortion", another non-medical term used for political purpose."

Sounds like "treasury suction administration."

[barb162]

45. I never heard that term; it's really loaded

[GOPNotForMe]

20. I agree!

Partial-birth abortion is another GOP bogeyman term.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Flame Away, But I Completely Disagree.

In most cases (from all I know about it) the baby is out of the uterus except for the head or upper trunk, followed by his head getting punctured and brains sucked out. To me I would think the term partial birth abortion is dead on, though debating it is just an issue of semantics to me. I also know that Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, states that he lied through his teeth to toe the party line that this was rare and mainly used to protect the health of the mother. He went on to admit that most of the time it is in fact used electively. I think performing an abortion this late for elective reasons when the mother and child are otherwise healthy is disgraceful, unethical and blows my mind people advocate it. So no, I can't join your coalition to soften up a brutal procedure.

I do, however, support a woman's right to choose for standard abortions though I myself think abortion is wrong outside of when done for health issues or rape issues (and some others I won't list one after another). But whether I agree or not, it is her right to choose. But when it comes to this procedure, though I would still condone it when the mother's health or childs health warrants it, would no way consider it something that should be legal for elective reasons.

I know this is an unpopular opinion but it is one I can't be swayed on. I have two children and it sickens me to my stomach to think this procedure can be performed for any reason other than emergency or when the child has an affliction that it could not survive with. Since I have my stance I will most likely not respond to the flames that can follow, unless there is one put in an intellectually enough manner that I feel the need to respond to.

Just stating my view, that's all.

[omega minimo]

25. NOT "late for elective reasons when mother/child are otherwise healthy"

You have been misinformed.

"...states that he lied through his teeth to toe the party line that this was rare and mainly used to protect the health of the mother. He went on to admit that most of the time it is in fact used electively. I think performing an abortion this late for elective reasons when the mother and child are otherwise healthy is disgraceful, unethical and blows my mind people advocate it."

That's not what this is about. No one advocates what you are describing.

"So no, I can't join your coalition to soften up a brutal procedure."

And of course, that's not at all what is suggested here.

What's really "brutal" is the folks who want to add more pain, agony and legal abuse on families that experience this.

[Katherine Brengle]

27. Any sources to back that up?

As far as I know, this is not a procedure that is often performed electively--I would consider such an act infanticide, unless there were immediate grave danger to either the mother or the child that would warrant it.

(I don't understand why any person would WANT to do this--at this point, it would certainly be easier to simply give the child up as soon as it were born, rather than go through this. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I am concerned, that this would be done electively by any sane person.)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. There have been many published reports as to it being used far more then

spoken for elective purposes, thereby having it be an act of infanticide as you and I both agree it would be. I'm sure many would choose to argue any reference to it being done electively but I sometimes think it is only because they refuse to want to accept that, since the reality of it is so disturbing to visualize. So instead of casting my opinions on you or directing you to specially chosen sources I'd want you to visit, I'd rather you do what I did to begin with and research it objectively online. It is difficult when clicking on links to not find some that are polarized one way or the other due to the nature of the issue itself, but after you search enough you will start to grasp a better idea on the truth lying in the middle kinda situation. That's how I did it, and am convinced that the procedure is not only done electively, but done electively far more often then proponents here would ever allow you to believe.

But please don't take my word for it. This is just my opinion and I want you have your own for your own reasons. If you feel like it, do some searches and see if you don't find some things out that surprise you. But one way or the other god bless you, since your response to how you'd feel if someone did do it for those reasons is right on par with what I consider to ethically be how anyone should feel.

[beam me up scottie]

35. No, there are NOT "many published reports".

You are NOT interested in objectiveness when you parrot the religious zealots.

And you even use their tactics: "I sometimes think it is only because they refuse to want to accept that, since the reality of it is so disturbing to visualize"

Yes, women are weak like that, aren't they?

I'm disgusted by your disturbing lack of empathy and concern for the women who will pay the price when you and the other fundies finally succeed in banning what is an emotionally devastating, painful and necessary procedure.


I guess you won't be blessing me, will you?

[Hello_Kitty]

71. Hey BMUS!

Aaaah...I knew I'd find you here. Guess we're supposed to accept Faith Based Research now, huh?

:rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

77. Yeah, but

they're just concerned about the nine month old babies we're killing because we can't find anything that fits to wear at the company picnic.

assholes

[Hello_Kitty]

82. Those prom dresses are SOOO unforgiving too!

And luckily, school bathrooms have private stalls and garbage pails, for the murderous teen harlots unable to find a willing partial birth brain sucking abortionist! :sarcasm:

[beam me up scottie]

85. Misogyny?

On DU?

Perish the thought.

[LostinVA]

108. I know... what a surprise....

[MountainLaurel]

120. Color me shocked.

NOT!

[beam me up scottie]

87. Where did everybody go?

http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav

[Hello_Kitty]

92. Nice crickets!

Sorry, I was at the gym. Yes, I work out at 1 am.

[Oilwellian]

39. Let's see those "research papers"

I'm anxiously awaiting to see your sources.

[Katherine Brengle]

40. I've researched it in the past, and all I have found to back up what you

have said comes from pro-life, fundie websites...

That's why I asked. I certainly hope you are wrong (not because I have any animosity toward you or your post, but because you are correct in your conclusion that it is too horrible to even think about).

[beam me up scottie]

57. Papers published by groups like this?

(graffic warning)_

http://www.dr-tiller.com/fort.htm

http://www.klannedparenthood.com/History_of_Abortion_Statistics/

http://www.wordinwarfare.com/

http://www.mttu.com/Slain-1.htm

http://www.forerunner.com/fyi/killer/

http://www.mercyseat.net/



I won't take your word for it.

I'll take theirs.

That is who you are helping when you spread the same misinformation.

[omega minimo]

62. Why do they have such a gruesome fixation on fetuses

and when it comes to live children and women......eh, not so much? :shrug:

Isn't that kinda :crazy:?

[beam me up scottie]

67. They're mentally ill.

It's not about saving fetuses, it's about control.

Of course, you already knew that.

[stepnw1f]

105. BINGO... It's About Control and Their Mental Illness

I do think these folks are mentally ill.... too fixated on something they are too uninformed on. The pain these pricks have inflicted on the people of this country... the dividing of society and demonization of people who have suffered through the experience of having to have an abortion, is sickening.

I have no respect for their bullshit cause.

[Baconfoot]

63. I have searched extensively. You are mistaken on this factual matter.

However, it doesn't matter as there are NO people who seriously advocate on demand third trimester abortion.

Thanks for playing.

[beam me up scottie]

68. Thanks.

How easily they fall for it.

If indeed, they're falling for it at all.

I have to wonder sometimes.

[Raster]

114. should have been "thanks for preying"

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

126. Prove It.

[ima_sinnic]

191. prove a negative? hello?

prove that "there are NO people who seriously advocate on demand third trimester abortion"?
well, gee, uh, the "proof" is in the "absence of proof," don't you think, huh? YOU come up with ONE who does want it.
sheesh. where are these "many published reports" you were going on about?

[Radio_Guy]

102. Never

Partial birth abortion has NEVER been done electively. In every case the mother's life has been in danger. Every time. And the freepers would rather the mother die, or both die, than allow the emergency procedure to occur.

[Raster]

115. even the term "partial-birth" is a freeper creation. It is NOT NOT NOT

found in ANY medical text or reference. Once again, I challenge ANYONE to put up or shut up.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

128. Prove It.

If I'm gonna keep getting slammed for proof it is ever used electively, the same standard should apply. Prove that it isn't EVER used electively. Cause even once is too much.

I'll await your reply.

[11 Bravo]

130. Beautiful! Ask someone to prove a negative.

How downright Hannityesque.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

131. Then Please Respond That Way To All Those That Asked The Same From Me.

If ya can't do it ya can't do it. And if it can't be done, then all the rage cast my way merely because I think it is a brutal procedure that should never be used electively (which is all I fucking said to begin with) is misguided and undeserved. Because as long as there is potential or possibility that it IS in fact used electively, then I have every fucking right as a caring liberal to think that is disgraceful, disturbing and non-condonable.

Thanks.

[11 Bravo]

140. You are claiming (or at least implying) that the procedure is frequently

performed electively. Your supposition, if true, would be statistically supportable. But a request for those who take issue with your position to attempt the impossible, ie: to prove a negative, is precisely the sort of sophomoric debating technique employed by the Hannity's and Limbaugh's of the world.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

143. Spin It However You Want. It's The Same Question.

Prove that the several thousands of these done a year are all done for non-elective reasons. Now I don't want to hear your spin or your debate tactic rhetoric. It is a straight forward question and one I would think is extremely important when debating this issue. From where I stand, one elective procedure of this nature is too many. Hell, even the chance of one being done electively is too many. So from an ethical view I would think the burden of proof is more substantial to prove that it NEVER occurs electively, than to prove it does.

[11 Bravo]

154. I'll say it slowly.

It is not possible to prove that 1, 10, or 10,000 people have NOT done something. You are not asking a "straight forward question". The "spin" and "debate tactic rhetoric" are yours. If you can't understand that, then you're wasting our time. Otherwise, please prove that you have never had sex with George W. Bush, clubbed a baby seal, or murdered an orphan.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

156. Thank You For Solidifying My Argument And Ending This Debate.

I appreciate your help in this matter.

See, if you can't prove it, then it is impossible to say it is NEVER done. And if in fact then, it may in fact sometimes be done electively, then I have every right to my position and don't deserve the rage.

Thanks again! :hi:

[Nikki Stone 1]

170. You're not smart enough to understand that you got beaten in this one

Which makes your opinion rather useless.

:hi: :hi:

Thanks for playing, though.

[stepnw1f]

174. Sad Isn't It?

Mr morality is lying *)^(&&%%^$%.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

183. So Says The Poster Who Chose Not To Even Enter The Debate.

Yeah, your opinion is so much more valuable in that response.

Oh, wait, you offered no opinion whatsoever within this thread on anything to do with the issue whatsoever and just came in to cause trouble. My bad...

[11 Bravo]

182. I'll let this go now, because you are obviously and intentionally

being obtuse. You allege that a concrete act has occurred, yet even though the onus is clearly on you, you offer no proof. Instead, you fall back on the tiresome and, yes, juvenile, ploy of asking those who have called you on your fallacious argument to do the impossible. My 9 year old realizes that no one can prove a negative, but you not only fail to comprehend this well understood fact, you attempt to employ your lack of understanding as evidence in support of your claim. Hell, I can forgive obtuse, but this has become just plain tiresome. Have a great day!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

186. With All Due Respect Bravo,

Your response above is just rehash. My point was that you said it cannot be proven, and you did so again. Saying that bolsters my case that it may in fact happen. If it may in fact happen, I think that's attrocious.

[spooky3]

250. You are the one who is asserting that women are having

late term abortions for "elective" reasons. You are proposing that it be outlawed. Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to to demonstrate that they are in fact doing what you claim and that what they are doing is so morally wrong it should be opposed, if not outlawed.

The burden of proof is YOURS.

What if I asserted that men abused dogs, and so therefore they should not be permitted to own dogs? You would expect me to demonstrate conclusively that men do abuse dogs and that the abuse is too horrible for society to permit. You would scoff if I told you that no, I think men should not be allowed to own dogs because "people say" or "there are lots of reports..." and that it is up to you to prove that men never abuse dogs.

[Tesha]

279. This is a delibertae Right WIng tactic.

> If you can't understand that, then you're wasting our time.

That's probably precisely the point, and Right Wingers do
it all the time. By keeping us distracted trying to jump
thorugh their endless hoops, we waste valuable time that
could be spent convincing those people whose minds are
still open.

Don't waste ypur time.

Tesha

[Warren DeMontague]

210. Really? How about the "chance" of your wife or daughter dying

or suffering permanent health damage because, due to legislation written by people who never met them, a doctor can't perform medically indicated procedures necessary to save her health or her life?

Apparently, since you're so ferverently repeating rightwing lies and propaganda on this issue, it's more important for you to self-righteously second guess women --- and why they might need this procedure.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

212. Can You Point Me To Where I Said Anything About Condoning Legislation?

I'm so fed up of those of you who are so quick to attack and jump to conclusions without having a clue what they're talking about. I never once said I backed any legislation on this issue so your post is without merit.

Furthermore, I'll maintain my right to second guess anybody, woman or not, who in my opinion crosses ethical boundaries. Now if it turns out that no woman at all ever does this for reasons not relating to severe health issues for the mother or child than there is no issue, as no ethical boundary was crossed and there was no reason to second guess. However, if a woman does do it based on the baby having a cleft palette (as per testimony) than I have every goddamn right to second guess her.

[Warren DeMontague]

214. We're still waitin' on that evidence, there.

For some, the 'ethical boundary' comes at the moment of conception. For others, the IUD is a murder weapon and use of the birth control pill should be a capital crime.

You keep referencing 'evidence' around this issue that you won't produce. Well, I have 'evidence' of my own. I personally know of at least one situation where a woman who didn't think she could conceive, who when she figured it out was between four and five months pregnant in the midwest, couldn't get an abortion- she was told, across the board by numerous doctors, that it was 'too late'- and she had the baby.

The idea that there are these morally deficient women and doctors, running around terminating far along pregnancies willy-nilly- and that YOU have been placed on this Earth to play moral arbiter of the situation- it's quite a bit of self-righteous conceit, isn't it?

I just wonder why you're so obsessed with the idea that there are these evil women out there having late-term abortions for dubious reasons that you need to put a stop to... Honestly, on my planet at least, morality begins with keeping your own house in order, not running around issuing edicts and fatwahs about everybody else's life.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

215. So what you are saying is that the woman shopped around and

couldn't find one to do it? Well bravo for the doctors but wouldn't she fall into the morally deficient woman category reference you provided or am I reading your own words and story wrong?

Furthermore you again are perpetuating the falsity that I support the federal legislation. You really should get over that lie already.

And there's evidence right in this very thread. A woman had one because of a two headed baby. The poster even said it probably would've survived fine, regardless of a severe abnormality. Now this wasn't a child that would suffer imminent death upon birth, nor gave any health threat to the mother. That case is elective infanticide, period.

But whatever. I'm gonna stay out of this thread for now on I think. Most posters in it ceased providing anything factual or logical to support the procedure a long time ago from what I'm reading. Instead it's just a thread filled with a ton of replies of "they don't they don't they don't just trust me they don't you're a fool they don't I swear I can't prove it or provide any data whatsoever showing they never do but they don't I swear you retard you fundy you liar they don't never ever ever cause I say so". Well, I think they do. Maybe not as readily as I may have made it sound at first, but I'm still convinced they do. Sorry bub.

[beam me up scottie]

225. Where are the reports you claimed you've read?

We're waiting.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

227. Riddle Me This, Riddle Me That. I'm Not Gonna Set Myself Up Like That.

There is a time you must be honest with yourself. It doesn't matter what link, resource, article, interview or other form of anything I provide, you would reply with nothing different than "oh that's fundy garbage!, Oh that's bogus! Hahaha that's a horrible source! Oh my god that doctors a quack! Oh come on that abortion doctor was bribed to say that to congress! Oh you call that evidence? He's lying!" etc....

So what's the point? Be honest with yourself, there isn't one.

[beam me up scottie]

231. Honesty? Read your post: "There have been many published reports ...

There have been many published reports as to it being used far more then
spoken for elective purposes, thereby having it be an act of infanticide as you and I both agree it would be. I'm sure many would choose to argue any reference to it being done electively but I sometimes think it is only because they refuse to want to accept that, since the reality of it is so disturbing to visualize. So instead of casting my opinions on you or directing you to specially chosen sources I'd want you to visit, I'd rather you do what I did to begin with and research it objectively online. It is difficult when clicking on links to not find some that are polarized one way or the other due to the nature of the issue itself, but after you search enough you will start to grasp a better idea on the truth lying in the middle kinda situation. That's how I did it, and am convinced that the procedure is not only done electively, but done electively far more often then proponents here would ever allow you to believe.

But please don't take my word for it. This is just my opinion and I want you have your own for your own reasons. If you feel like it, do some searches and see if you don't find some things out that surprise you. But one way or the other god bless you, since your response to how you'd feel if someone did do it for those reasons is right on par with what I consider to ethically be how anyone should feel.

Back up your bullshit.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

233. You May Wanna Read My Post Again To Avoid Going In Circles.

I've said all I need to say in this thread and lord knows I don't know why I keep replying to angry posts that offer no new substance, or why I even contribute to its continuance.

I think this should be the last of it.

[beam me up scottie]

238. It's quite simple, you posted: "There have been many published reports"

and now you can't provide proof of your claim.

You should back up your bullshit or explain why you cannot, instead of complaining about how angry we all are.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

243. Again

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=485746&mesg_id=494427

[beam me up scottie]

245. Nope, no reports there.

Did you forget to put the links in?

[Beaverhausen]

246. Where are these reports you speak of?

Why won't you give us links if you are so sure of yourself?

That's all we are asking here. If you can't back up your claim then maybe you shouldn't have made it in the first place and you need to admit that you were wrong.

[Warren DeMontague]

263. Uh, No source could make your argument look as weak as it does

with No Source.

[Maru Kitteh]

283. I for one would be very open to credible evidence widely accepted by

neutral parties, those without an axe to grind, dog in the fight, however you wish to say it. I will admit I'm predisposed to doubt that you have such evidence available but that will not color my ability to consider objective evidence, if you can provide any.

So please, for those of us genuinely interested please provide us with evidence to back up the assertions made in your post.

[Warren DeMontague]

262. Unlike you, I didn't make any ethical commentary about her either way..

all I said was, I personally know of at least one person who was told that four-five months was too late to have an abortion, so, no abortion.

Morally deficient? This person didn't know she was pregnant until she was several months along. She was young and was having more than enough difficulty taking care of the one small child she already had. (I assume, since you're passionate about this issue, that you unequivocally support a single payer health care system and a LIVEABLE minimum wage- two real world solutions that could improve the lives of millions of poor, single women facing unplanned pregnancies) She didn't realize how pregnant she was until she looked into getting an abortion and was told she was too late. She was desperate and young, and she didn't know what to do, so she got a few opinions. They all said no go. So she kept the baby.

Maybe that constitutes 'moral deficiency' to you, it doesn't to me.

But the fact that you CAN'T just get a late term abortion for the hell of it only proves that this argument that women are running around pregnant for seven, eight months and getting 'em--- and doctors are performing them- is a lie. A manufactured, right wing lie.

I can't speak for the other posters in this thread, or their comments- all I know is, there has been a great deal of misinformation spread around this topic; and that was part of Omega Minimo's point in posting the OP. I'm not interested in insulting you, but I would suggest that you take a step back and think for a moment- for instance, you're offering an example of a woman whose fetus had two heads as an example of an egregious case of someone (someone you've never met) wrongfully terminating a pregnancy.

I'm sorry, but clearly that's a case where something has gone horribly, developmentally, wrong. Now, I have a severely handicapped relative- I would never criticize a woman who wants and chooses to take on the risks of giving birth to someone with that level of serious abnormality (and whether or not 'imminent death' might have been a risk, SERIOUS health problems were inevitable) but I sure as SHIT would not put myself -much less the law- in the position of saying "You MUST carry this child - this child that will be born with severe deformities and clear, major, life threatening health issues- to term". I don't think any of us has the right, much less the capacity, to put ourselves in the place of that woman who just found out that the fetus she's carrying has two heads and tell her what to do.

That, sir, is the whole point.

[beam me up scottie]

276. I've just reread your post.

That is the most articulate explanation I have read to date, and please don't take this the wrong way, from a man's perspective.

Your point is all the more valuable because it IS a man's perspective.

Hearing the tragic stories of women who have made this decision should be enough to shame the blithering idiots who claim that these women are somehow immoral for having done so.

But appallingly, it's not.

If they're fundamentalists, consider the fact that without all new technology, most of these fetuses wouldn't make it to term, let alone survive outside the womb.

There is no excuse for the hypocrisy of people who think they have the right to judge ANY woman who makes the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

How dare they?

[ehrnst]

195. Prove that PLs are not all suffering from PTSD.

I state that they are, now it's up to you to provide evidence that I am wrong.

Fair's fair.

[FooFootheSnoo]

167. I spoke to a good friend of mine about this

several months ago when the late term abortions were going to be banned. She's been an ob/gyn nurse for 20 years. She has also worked in abortion clinics. When I explained what partial birth abortions were she said she'd never heard of such a thing, she flatly stated"that's not true". She said that she didn't know anyone, doctor or nurse, that would perform such a gruesome procedure. However, she has assisted in what is called "voluntary interuption of pregnancy". These are done in a hospital, not an abortion clinic. In that procedure, which is sometimes elective and sometimes done for the mother's health, the mother is given a shot of a med that produces very strong uterine contractions. Normally, the contractions are so strong that is what kills the baby. The "elective" procedures are usually done because the baby has severe birth defects that are incompatible with life, like anencephalic babies (this is where only the brain stem has developed). The doctor would not do this because the woman decided she didn't want to be a mom. There has to be a very serious medical reason. I too was very upset about the "partial birth abortions", but was very relieved when my friend explained all this to me.
After 24 weeks gestation, if the mother's health is at risk, then there is no reason for an "abortion" the fetus is viable at that point. The doctor can deliver the baby and take it to a NICU.
I hope this clears things up for you. Really,think about it, what doctor would do a "partial birth abortion"? What nurse would assist?

[Gelliebeans]

206. My good friend

is a NICU nurse and an ob/gyn nurse and she confirmed what your nurse friend said.

I will always take medical science stance before I would ever believe those who have an axe to grind.

[ehrnst]

193. Then you'll have no problem providing links to these 'reports'

Will you?

Just show us the results of your objective online research.

[Raster]

113. It is a procedure that is NOT, NOT NOT performed electively.

A late-term termination is ALMOST ALWAYS done because the mother's health is at risk. There are no statistics that say it is more common BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST. I challenge ANYONE to come forward and prove otherwise. Do it now or shut the fuck up.

[lastliberalintexas]

201. Actually it IS performed for elective reasons

MEDICALLY elective reasons that is. Anti-choicers don't like to admit that there is a difference in the medical and common definition of elective, and that is how they spin their stats on how many late term abortions are done "electively". You see, an abortion which is performed due to sever fetal malformation is ELECTIVE, since it is not necessary to save the life of the mother.

You'll run into people who claim that there are plenty of elective late term abortions, and they are correct. But since they don't actually understand the medical language which they are speaking, they don't really understand what elective means in that situation. Don't let them get away with it- call them on it every single time so that people start to understand the types of "elective" abortions that could be banned.

[Raster]

257. well then, it is our job to clarify. No woman carries a fetus to the

third trimester and then decides that the pregnancy is inconvenient, or as some idiot suggested, she looks too fat to be pregnant. THAT is just not the case. A late stage abortion is a dangerous procedure. No doctor worth his or her salt would undertake such a risky procedure so lightly.

[Seen the light]

30. I won't flame you

I agree with you 100%. :toast:

[LostinVA]

109. You agree with what? Inaccurate facts?

RW anti-choice talking points and studies?

[NFL80]

180. Me too!

Even if it is done rarely, if it is elective it is infanticide.

[11 Bravo]

196. True, and if it is NOT done electively than this is just more RW, bullshit

strawman, talking points. If you have evidence of late term, elective, intact dilation and extractions, post it. Otherwise ...

[Warren DeMontague]

33. The idea that there are women running around pregnant for 6, 7, 8 months

and then "electing" to get abortions on a whim, like a woman suddenly decides she "looks fat", are just as much a right-wing manufactured lie as those bon-bon eating 'welfare queens' that were supposedly running around buying expensive vodka with their welfare checks during the Reagan years.

Get it? It's a LIE. Beyond that, I sure as shit don't trust the government to interfere properly if my wife or a family member or someone I care about has a dangerous, problem pregnancy and this is the MEDICALLY ADVISABLE thing to do.

I mean, you already have a situation in this country where God help you if you get some kind of crippling, painful cancer or other situation that requires aggresive pain management- doctors are terrified of the DEA, and they'd much rather have you be in pain then end up in the slammer.

Call me crazy, but I think these sorts of decisions are better left up to doctors than to Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, and the Justice Department.

The bottom line with all this isn't whether or not you 'like' abortion or 'approve' of it- it's the mindset that says YOU have a right to make that call for a woman you've never met, that she obviously isn't capable -intelligent enough, moral enough, whatever- of making her own decisions and coming to her own conclusions about HER OWN BODY.

It's patronizing.

You don't have to like abortion, any kind of abortion, to be pro-choice. All you have to do is recognize that you have the right to control your body and make decisions about it--- but you need to respect other peoples' right to control theirs, even if that means making decisions you don't agree with--- as well.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Thank you.

I was avoiding this place tonight, I stopped by to recommend Omega's thread and saw that disgusting lie.

How fucking insulting can they get?

Anyone who claims women have late term abortions because they've suddenly changed their minds is a misogynistic asshole who is helping the American Taliban overturn Roe V Wade.

[omega minimo]

43. Touche

...and "Abortion On Demand" is particularly pernicious-- sounds like there's a drive-up window somewhere. "Would you like fries with that?"

Your other well-stated points are at the tipping point of more people (and more men in particular) relating to this personally (which might help them "get it") whether it is their own loved ones affected or...... male bodies impacted by similar intrusions and judgements and policies.

"Call me crazy, but I think these sorts of decisions are better left up to doctors than to Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, and the Justice Department."

"All you have to do is recognize that you have the right to control your body and make decisions about it--- but you need to respect other peoples' right to control theirs, even if that means making decisions you don't agree with--- as well."

Maybe some people won't understand what that means unless their own rights to those private decisions are taken away.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. As a philosophical bedrock principle, I think the right to control one's

own physical person is the cornerstone of liberty.

As in, if we -not the state, not "God"- don't own our own bodies, how free can we truly claim to be?

I'd like to see someone -anyone- in our political arena start standing up for that as an across-the-board principle. However, I don't hold out a lot of hope for that kind of thing gaining traction, not given where this country is currently. If anything, we're moving in the opposite direction.. and abortion is just the tip of the iceberg. After that it'll be legal birth control.

Certainly part of the problem that I think some men have grasping the personal, privacy, right-to-one's-self aspects of this is that men don't have uterii, and as such they can tend to focus on abstract arguments about 'protecting human life' while forgetting the woman upon whom the process entirely depends. Ask most men how they would feel about granting independent 'rights' to the quite alive sperms swimming around in their boxers, you'd probably get a different answer.

I think that a good deal of these anti-choice arguments are dependent upon caricatures, for sure. And there's definitely some semantic ju-jitsu going on. Like you say- abortion "on demand"; you're supposed to picture these angry women, charging into planned parenthood and banging their fists on the counter. Anti-choice folks like to make all kinds of blanket moral pronouncements about women and abortion, and yet it's been repeatedly demonstrated that pro-lifers, and pro-life legislators in particular, are notoriously hypocritical when it comes to their own lives and the lives of the women close to them. The assumption being, apparently, that those (bad) women are having abortions for the wrong reasons- they're selfish, they're slutty (poke a pro-lifer for five minutes, and you can generally get to "people can choose to keep their legs crossed"), they don't give a damn- but when we do it, we clearly know what we're doing and have good justification.

That, I think, is the core assumption of the "pro-life" movement: that women don't know what they're doing, or they don't have the moral capacity to make these calls. So we better make 'em for 'em.

In terms of framing, I suspect that was the point of the "Who Decides?" placards at the big pro-choice march... to remind folks that any way it goes, someone is going to be making these decisions. Should it be George Bush? Pat Robertson? Or should it be individual women-- each one in her own very individual situation-- and their doctors? It's terribly presumptuous to assume one can, much less should, legislate medical decisions like this. Every situation is different. How can anyone- particularly a man- presume to be able to second guess the reasoning or the circumstances of a pregnant woman making the kinds of very difficult decisions this involves?

It's ludicrous, and it's certainly not someplace the government belongs.

[Nickster]

101. Very well thought out response. Great job. Thanks.

[omega minimo]

261. Brilliant. Top. Somehow suggestive of another aspect of this whole mess

which is:

This issue is one component in the package of social progress that was achieved through blood, sweat and tears over generations.

Ths idea that we have to fight this fight again-- and so soon-- is completely wretched and makes the bully pulpit religious bigots seem as hateable as they are hateful.

This paragraph really resonates with the universal "personal, privacy, right-to-one's-self aspects" under the iceberg's tip:

"In terms of framing, I suspect that was the point of the "Who Decides?" placards at the big pro-choice march... to remind folks that any way it goes, someone is going to be making these decisions. Should it be George Bush? Pat Robertson? Or should it be individual women-- each one in her own very individual situation-- and their doctors? It's terribly presumptuous to assume one can, much less should, legislate medical decisions like this. Every situation is different. How can anyone- particularly a man- presume to be able to second guess the reasoning or the circumstances of a pregnant woman making the kinds of very difficult decisions this involves?"

[LincolnMcGrath]

73. Wow, there's a shocker!

NOT

[beam me up scottie]

78. You're aquainted with the flamee,

I take it?

[LincolnMcGrath]

79. We may have crossed paths a time or two.

P.S. I am always on the left side of the path. lol

[beam me up scottie]

80. I just stepped out a minute to get my flamethrower,

next thing you know, he's gone.:shrug:

[LincolnMcGrath]

81. Trust me, the poster will come back with a whopper. lol

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=359740&mesg_id=364977

[beam me up scottie]

83. I can feel the love.

[LincolnMcGrath]

84. Rotf

[LostinVA]

111. giggle

[eridani]

90. When did you start thinking it was done at any time OTHER

--than an emergency? If your baby is dying in your womb, and you want to risk death or permanent sterility, your call. Just don't force your choice onto anyone else.

So what if it's gross? So is having your throat slit. I'd bet if your airway was blocked you'd be very grateful for a tracheotomy though.

[Hello_Kitty]

91. Distraction

Evoking horrific imagery of the procedure distracts from the reality that there is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that it is being done on women with normal pregnancies.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. I'll Tell Ya What, PROVE To Me It Isn't Being Done. How Bout That.

[stepnw1f]

127. And Prove to Us Santa isn't Real

Is this the tactic you are left with? Jeeez...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

129. It's The Tactic Everyone Has Used Against Me, So Spare Me The Hypocricy

I say that it IS used electively. You say it ISN'T.

I say prove it. Cause even a chance that just once it is used electively bolsters my position in my opinion.

[Lars39]

135. You haven't listed any sources yet for your initial post.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

139. Neither Has Anyone Else.

[Warren DeMontague]

272. That is correct.

No one has listed any sources for your initial post.

[stepnw1f]

149. Proof of Burden is On the Accuser

You are the one making an unsubstantiated claim. Back it up next time... now spare all of us.

"I know you are, but what am I. Nya..."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

151. You Accuse Me Of Being Wrong In That It Is Done At Times Electively.

Thanks for bolstering my argument.

Now prove it.

[stepnw1f]

158. That Wasn't your original claim

Suck it kid

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

161. Yes It Was, So Please Stop Deceiving.

[stepnw1f]

171. According to your own Post you Lie

"In most cases (from all I know about it) the baby is out of the uterus except for the head or upper trunk, followed by his head getting punctured and brains sucked out."

Buh bye...:wow:

[Solon]

137. That's easy, only 1% of aborions occur after 21 weeks...

Yet over 6% of all abortions are done because of Maternal health and fetal inviability reasons, you do the math.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

138. That Math Would Show That It Is In Fact At Times Done Electively.

And that's uncondonable.

[Solon]

147. If it is done at all, its at the condemnation of the State Medical board..

Any doctor that performs the procedure electively faces having their license pulled. I know of no affiliate or licensing agency in the United States that condones it for elective reasons, and, in fact, they strongly condemn it for reasons you cite. While some rogues may in fact do it, its extremely rare, and when found out, their careers are ruined.

[lastliberalintexas]

187. Do you even understand what "elective" means in this situation?

Apparently not. MEDICALLY SPEAKING, if the procedure is not necessary to save the life of the mother, it is *elective*. Meaning that women who choose to terminate a pregnancy at 35 weeks when they discover that their fetus has a severe birth defect/malformation which will result in death are committing the sin of elective late term abortion in your eyes.

THAT is the situation that you and your fundy friends are spinning to "prove" that some late term abortions are "elective". Does it feel good to use such a tragic situation to make you feel morally superior by denigrating women who have "elective" late term abortions? :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

188. I Haven't Denegrated Anyone, And That Is Not My Definition Of Elective.

That is 100% Glaringly clear in my posts. And to spin away childishly by calling me a fundy is rather sad.

All I ever said is that I believe it is in fact done at times other than for parental and child health reasons, and that I find that to be disgraceful.

Don't be so quick to jump on the rage bandwagon.

[lastliberalintexas]

194. I don't give a shit what your definition of elective is

It doesn't matter what my personal definition of elective is- all that matters in this situation is how the procedure is defined *medically*. The point of that is that the "reports" you've seen are from right wingers who use the term elective in its vernacular form rather than worrying about the actual medical definition of the word. Meaning that the reports of supposedly elective (ie, used in the non-medical sense as in just woke up one day at 35 weeks and decided she didn't want to be preggers) procedures that you've seen are spin by right wing anti-choicers trying to chip away at reproductive rights in this country.

Although anti-choicers claim that there have been elective late term abortions because of the MEDICAL data which uses the MEDICAL definition of elective, they have never ever been able to produce a single instance of a woman having a late term abortion for something other than a MEDICAL reason. They have never ever been able to prove that a late term abortion has been performed for convenience, but they sure as hell try to spin it that way.

Kind of like the people who are opposed to the inheritance tax have never been able to produce a single instance in which a family lost their farm because of the "death tax".

You didn't say that you *believed* late term abortions were done for other than medical reasons- you stated it was a fact that was so, and that they were performed fairly frequently for (non-medical) elective/convenience reasons. There is a big difference between that, so I hope you can see it.


You need to understand the *medical* terminology involved in late term abortions and other medical procedures better before you get in this debate, or else understand when people jump your ass for having your "facts" wrong.

And read better, I said you and your fundy friends. I did not call you a fundy, just pointed out that you and the fundies are on the same page in this issue- spin, "facts" and all.

[omega minimo]

217. Thank you for clarifying this and for another clue as to deceptive tactics

[omega minimo]

216. If you don't understand the procedure & don't "condone" all health options

will you please find another thread and let the folks here continue a discussion?

THANK YOU

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

219. I'm Part Of This Discussion. Thanks.

My whole original point which got way off on a tangent downthread was that since a large part of the fetus is outside the body, I see no issue with it being called partial birth abortion. It's a message board. There will be dissent to opinions. Not quite sure the discussion should only be limited to those that agree with you ya know?

[beam me up scottie]

220. So cough up those reports you claim you've read.

Unless you can't, which would lead me to believe I had you pegged all along.

Produce the proof you claimed to have.

Anything less would lead me to believe you are indeed intentionally helping the American Taliban.

[omega minimo]

223. You're not contributing-- and you know it

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

229. I missed the thread declaring you Supreme Judge Of Members Contributions.

I'll try and search for it.

Sorry I didn't automatically default to agreeing with your position though I had reasons to view things otherwise. My bad.

[beam me up scottie]

249. I missed the post where you provided proof of those reports.

Why don't you search for that, instead? ;)

[omega minimo]

255. THE GREAT AND TERRIBLE OM HAS SPOKEN!!!!!!

The OP opened a discussion of word/mind games-- NOT an invitation to play them.

REMEMBER I TOLE YOU ALREDDY HOMEY DON'T PLAY DAT :evilfrown:

[beam me up scottie]

271. !

[Hello_Kitty]

203. You're asking me to prove a negative?

Please. Go back to Logic 101 for a primer on that. No, you have to prove that it DOES and second-hand anecdote, your intuition, and some fundie websites ain't gonna do it here.

[lynne]

104. I agree 100% -

- and my understanding of the procedure is as you explain it. I certainly understand concern for the life and health of the mother. BUT - if the baby is being delivered vaginally for this procedure and it is at gestation age 21 weeks or later and viable - why not just deliver the living baby?

What is gained at that point - after the feet and trunk have been delivered - by perforating the base of the skull to kill (sorry, I cannot find another word that fits because the term abortion just doesn't apply after 4/5th's of the body has been delivered) the baby? How does the perforation of the infant's skull base impact the health and well-being of the mother?

I have no problem with early term abortion in the first trimester and with abortion after that first trimester if it is needed for the mother's health prior to the fetus becoming viable.

BTW - what term should be used for this procedure if Partial Birth isn't correct? Seems to me to describe it precisely.

[stepnw1f]

106. Seems to Me You Bought Into the Bullshit

from the right wing nut bags and their bullshit crusade.

[LostinVA]

110. Completely wrong.

People deserve their own opinions, but not their own facts.

[11 Bravo]

207. See Post # 141 n/t

[LostinVA]

107. The procedure is NOT elective and is NOT called that

It's nothing but pure, hateful propaganda. Period.

[BoneDaddy]

123. I tend to agree

Both the right and left arguments on this issue tend to be black and white or all or none. The left stands by this ridiculous idea that they are not dealing with the death of a living being, and the right totally denies a woman the choice and right to proper family planning.

I would still support late term abortion if the life of the mother is in danger, but if a person waits that long to make their decision, then they are culpable and need to take responsibility for waiting that long. I am all for aborting the small piece of tissue that the early stages but the argument becomes more and more ludicrous as the term continues.

We decry the use of torture of prisoners yet we allow a late term fetus to be killed without batting an eye. A fetus that could potentially live on it's own. That is pretty inconsistent if you ask me.

Education, birth control, early abortions and the morning after pill are ways to combat this. Is it perfect, no, but it is fair, rational and realistic.

[CornField]

132. You want the truth?

As the movie quotes go, I don't think you can handle the truth.

If you look at the total of all abortions, you'll discover that less than one percent fall under the "D&X" terminology (which, btw, is the accurate medical term for so-called partial birth abortions). Of the less than one percent, less than one percent is done electively -- that is, the procedure is not done following a confirmation of fetal demise and/or maternal health concern. If you look even more closely at that very small number, you find that the majority of healthy mother/healthy fetus D&X procedures are done on very young girls, 14 and under, who have managed to keep their pregnancy a secret until the first stage has passed.

Laws which seek to completely ban 'partial birth abortion' do nothing to prevent the vast majority of elective abortions in this country. The ban does not educate nor does it act as a preventative measure. The ban does do one thing: it requires women -- women who wanted to have a child -- to risk their lives in order to birth a child which will never live or one which will only live for a few minutes. The ban forces families to possibily lose their ability to reproduce in the future. The ban is nothing more than an added insult to an already present injury.

In 1995, when I had my D&X procedure, had this ban been in place, I would have died. It's difficult to spin that fact in any other direction.

In order to believe that women are electively having such a procedure done, you must also believe that doctors (people sworn to protect life) are willing participating in the destruction of children. How many doctors do you know who would willingly take part in a medical procedure which would end a healthy life?

D&X is not now, nor has it ever been, an elective procedure. It is a situation which no woman ever wants to be in. If you believe differently you are one of two things: 1) extremely naive and without understanding of a D&X or 2) someone with a political agenda which aims to control women.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

136. Just One Is Too Fucking Many. And You Also Contradicted Yourself.

"Of the less than one percent, less than one percent is done electively"

Followed by:

"D&X is not now, nor has it ever been, an elective procedure"

Well which is it? You contradicted yourself in the same post for gods sake.

Furthermore, You respond as if I'm supportive of the federal ban on Partial Birth Abortions. I challenge you to show any instance where I've said such. You won't be able to.

I never said anything more than an opinion that the procedure when used electively is disgraceful and disgusting. It is. I'm a decent liberal human being. That means I care, and by caring feel that PBA's done electively are uncondonable, period. Now the funny thing is all those raging against me actually agree with that statement, but follow it with "but it's never ever pixie dust ever used electively". Well, I find that to be naive, unless someone could prove otherwise.

[Solon]

142. It would be nice if you were informed...

But since you are not, I'll inform you, then you will know about Intact D&X procedure. First, of ALL abortions in the United States, only .02% use this procedure. This accounts for only about 2000 abortions out of over a million performed each year. How many are elective is probably you next question, the answer is none, they are done to either ensure the woman's health, life, the fetus is dead or the fetus developed an abnormality that makes it non-viable outside the womb.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

145. You Say The Answer Is None. My Challenge For You Is To Prove That.

It's easy to say it never ever happens. But why are you so sure? Where does this evidence come from that makes you so confident that it is never? I would think, to be responsible, that anyone who that clearly and factually can state that it is NEVER done electively would have to be doing so based on factual evidence that can be presented. So I just simply ask that you present it. If you can't, or if it doesn't exist, then it is impossible for you to say Never. And since you couldn't say never, the answer would be "maybe sometimes, we can't be certain". And if the answer is maybe sometimes, that ain't good enough.

[stepnw1f]

153. No One Has to Prove Shit to You

you made the claim, back it up!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

155. I Don't Have To Prove Shit To You Either.

Many made claims to me that I'm wrong that it is done electively, back it up!

:hi:

[Lars39]

159. You're on the slippery slope to hell anyway, what with allowing

some exceptions, but not others. Burden of proof is still on you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

162. LMAO!

:eyes:

[stepnw1f]

160. I Did? Is That What I've Said?

Can you quote me saying that to you? Nope... you are full of shit.

You should really know when to "fold them".

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

165. Wow, Take A Second To Read The Reply Will Ya?

Notice I Didn't Say YOU? Oh, ya didn't? Read it again, I said MANY HERE, never said you.

That's all for me. My position is documented enough in this thread and I don't foresee any further need to reply.

[stepnw1f]

169. You are Full of Shit

Buh bye fool.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

181. Your Attacks & Lack Of Mature Response Is The Only Foolishness I See.

Take Care.

[ehrnst]

192. Well, physicians won't do it if the woman and viable fetus is healthy.

And I think that a healthy woman requesting an abortion on a healthy viable fetus (who has not been prevented from having one earlier) is about as much of a problem as people going in and requesting an amputation on a healthy limb.

And they'll have just as much luck getting one, even without legislation that could potentially tie a physician's hands in an emergency situation.

[CornField]

146. Your loved one is on life support and the doctor says the person will die

Tell me, who should have the final decision as to pulling the plug? Should it be you or should it be the government?

Deciding to terminate a pregnancy, is much the same. The mother herself is the life support which is keeping a terminal fetus alive. It should not be the government's choice as to when, if ever, the life support is removed. That decision belongs to the family.

As is always the case, there will be some family who decides to pull life support on a family member who may have been able to continue living. Do those very few exceptions require that we *all* need government oversight? Do such very rare exceptions change the fact that families and not government should have the final say about their loved ones?

Depending on whose statistics you read, there are somewhere between 2,000 and 5,000 D&X procedures in the US annually (although I wonder if those performed in hospitals, when a doctor unexpectedly finds fetal anomoly are included). For the sake of argument, I'll use the highest figure. If there are 5,000 such procedures done, then you would have roughly 50 which are done "electively". (That is, that no test has determined an overt case of fetal demise and/or maternal risk.) If you look more closely at those 50 procedures each year, you'll find that most are done at the urging of parents who discover their young daughter is pregnant and kept it a secret. For young women, there is concern about childbearing, labor and delivery. Would those cases then be moved into the maternal risk category?

The point is that so many have placed their energy on a topic which is a very rare and very unusual procedure. It is also a procedure which is done to save the life of the mother and/or the reproductive health of the couple. I do question such individuals, yourself included. I believe, having been through what I have, I've earned that right.

D&X procedures, regardless of the slim chance of abuse, must remain legal, safe and the choice of the woman/family. I have two daughters who I hope will never face the same experiences I have. If they do, however, they must also have, at the very least, all the choices which I had during that same time.

Finally, feel free to carry the banner of the 1, 5, 10, 25, or 50 fetuses who may die because this procedure remains legal (write swear words on your banner if you think it helps). I'll continue to carry the banner of the 1, 100, 1000, 2000 or 4,950 mothers who may die if this procedures becomes illegal. I do grieve my son, but I'm thankful that because D&X was legal, my husband and daughter do not have to grieve me as well.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

148. 50 Is Disgraceful (though I bet it's more), and I stand by my position.

Furthermore I never said anything about supporting the federal ban, so I'd appreciate it if you stop replying as if I had. Though on reading your posts, I can't say I wouldn't support 100% the banning of it's use electively, period.

[CornField]

163. Prove to me it's done purely electively

If you somehow feel this is the end-all, be-all of the argument, I challenge you to find one woman who had a D&X for no other reason than because she didn't want to have a child.

You can't. You can't do so anymore than I can prove to you that it isn't something done electively. There is a reason for that, you know: Medical decisions are supposed to be private. So, when we go back and consider your argument we're only left with one thing:

The whole point of your argument is that YOU DON'T CARE. You don't care how many women may die as long as you don't have to live in a world which would allow such a horrendous procedure to take place. You don't care how many families will be ripped apart by their inability to produce a child as long as you don't have to put your head on your pillow and consider that some woman might be having a medical procedure you find offensive. Bottom line: You don't care at all about anything except your own feelings and misconceptions about the subject.

You don't care because it isn't something which has ever personally touched your life. The really ironic part is that although I'd like to wish such a circumstance on you, I can't. It isn't something I'd wish on my worst enemy.

There is something in all your arguments which you haven't yet considered: there are women who make the choice not to have the D&X. Some hope for a miracle -- others can't stomach the choice -- still others just want those few moments with their child before he or she dies. Some women freely give their own lives on the smallest fraction of a chance that their child will be touched by God and healed. You want to know what I have for those women? Unbelievable respect.

In as much as I was allowed to make my choice, I also respect the fact that others were allowed to make their choice. When it comes to life and death decisions, the government simply has no business sticking its nose through the doorway. I would no more support the government forcing all women who carry a child with terminal defects to undergo a D&X than I would support our government banning D&X procedures.

Of course, none of what I've typed, although heartfelt and sincere, will matter to you. You simply don't care. Good-bye.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

168. It Is Boggling How Readily You Default To Misguided Judgement & Assumption

Again, you are acting as if I ever said I supported the federal ban. I didn't, so your attemps at guilt-tripping are completely unwarranted.

I'm done. There is nothing more productive that can come from this thread for this debate to me as there is no way you or anyone else here can prove it never is used electively. Since that can't be done I stand firm in my original position.

I appreciate your position, but have not been swayed by any reply in this thread that would convince me that it is never done outside of emergency. Sorry.

[Bridget Burke]

175. So--you never could find those references?

Hardly surprising.

[Yupster]

24. Isn't the case about dilation and extraction abortions?

They take place as early as the fifth month.

The term partial birth abortion is politically loaded, but the term late term abortion just doesn't seem at all accurate.

Or am I wrong?

Doesn't this law attempt to ban D&X abortions?

[Katherine Brengle]

29. Am I alone in not considering 5 months pregnant "early" ?

I mean, seriously... When I was pregnant with my daughter, I could feel her kicking at 5 months--it seems completely unreasonable to me to have an abortion at this point, unless there is some serious medical reason to do so.

Personally, I think that with very few exceptions, most abortions should be done during the 1st trimester--of course, there are rare cases where women/girls do not know that they are pregnant until later than this, and they should still have a choice, but for a woman who knows that she is pregnant at 7 or 8 weeks, there is absolutely no excuse for waiting this long to have a completely elective abortion...

I don't think it should necessarily be illegal, but I think it's ridiculous.

[Djinn]

46. no excuse

how 'bout having trouble making a decision because almost everyone you meet will have some opinion on what is acceptable for you to do with your body

frankly I have no problem with what anyone wants to call late or early abortion, it wont change my mind on them one iota and I don't it changes the minds of many anti choice/anti abortion/pro life whatever folks either and I'm fine with that too

it's the incosistencies of the squeamish folk in the middle that I take exception to, those who think abortion is murder but that it's OK in cases of rape (coz we kill the children of rapists) or those who think that it's just a medical procedure until a pregnancy reaches their own personal cut off point, ie it's fine to abort up to 12 weeks but immoral to do it at 13 which makes zero sense at all

[Katherine Brengle]

59. I'm sorry, but you have to draw the line somewhere--I would

absolutely have a problem with a woman who is 7 or 8 months pregnant, at a time when a healthy fetus could possibly survive outside the womb with proper medical care, choosing to kill that child because they had a change of heart.

As a woman, I do not find it at all limiting to prohibit abortions after the 2nd trimester with an exception for the health of the mother.

An embryo is not a child, but a healthy 3rd term fetus that has the ability to survive is a child, in my opinion.

[Leopolds Ghost]

66. Re: squeamishness -- you could say the same thing about

"consensual" date-rape, or killing forms of life (sentient or otherwise) outside the womb. Where do you draw the line as to what is and is not acceptable? Of course there are those who feel that applying a moral code to a continuum of human behavior is "absolutism" and that we each have our own moral code. But even a completely left-libertarian society would fall apart if there were no community standards, so the "no universal ethics, only what is in our own interest" theory never made sense to me. That approach turned alot of "moral relativists" into Reagan republicans, it seems like.

[Yupster]

56. I just thought that

first trimester is early term abortion.

second trimester mid-term.

and third trimester late term

Maybe I've just thought that but I was wrong?

[beam me up scottie]

60. You're entitled to your opinion, just keep it away from my body.

The fact that you're female and a mother does not give your opinion any more weight than that of people like Terry Randall.

[Leopolds Ghost]

64. She's referring to D&X abortions - her opinion is bunk?

You are arguing that D&X (where a viable preemie is partially born and then lobotomized) should be an elective procedure?

Before you accouse me of using loaded terms like "born" and "lobotomized", consult a surgeon. Preemies are "born" when premature birth is induced... that's what they call it because at a certain point (the cutoff point cited by the Roe court) the fetus is viable outside the womb.

As for "lobotomized" and how inflammatory it may be to say so: have you ever heard of hemispherotomy? That is when live, severely epileptic patients have half their brain removed. It is a recognized procedure. In the case of D&X, apparently the entire brain is removed.

[beam me up scottie]

65. What the FUCK does any of that have to do with my right to choose?

Sorry, I should have phrased that differently.

I don't give a FUCK what you consider to be acceptable.

How's that?

It's between a woman and her doctor.

Period.



Edited to add my disgust at your obvious attempt to portray pro-choice women as ignorant of the medical procedures we're being told we shouldn't be allowed to have.

"...consult a surgeon. Preemies are "born" when premature birth is induced."

[Leopolds Ghost]

70. You tell me. The person you replied to is pro-choice, she just

Doesn't support D&X being used as an elective procedure. What does that have to do with the right to choose?

Even you would not support D&X-ing a fetus that had come to term. Actually, by that point doctors don't call it a fetus any more, it's simply considered a baby. So there's a continuum and there has to be a cut-off point for societally acceptable behavior based on common sense understanding of what is and is not a viable human being, whether you like it or not.

The only way I can imagine D&X being useful would be in the case of a severely deformed infant where the mother cannot have a C-section. Since that is not an elective procedure I still don't see what D&X has to do with the right to choose, but I didn't bring it up.

If the "partial birth" law does not refer only to D&X that is one thing. Although the Roe court did basically say it's OK for the government to ban certain late-term abortions if they want to, so you gotta argue with them.

[beam me up scottie]

74. I'm not arguing with you or anybody else about my rights.

Got it?

[BushOut06]

100. All rights have their limits and responsibilities

You honestly don't believe there should be ANY limits whatsoever? I'm not arguing about a woman's right to chose to terminate a pregnancy, I fully support that. But with every other right that we enjoy, there are limits and responsibilities. We have a right to free speech, but not an absolute right to free speech. Likewise, there should be responsible limits on this - in the case where a fetus becomes a fully functioning, viable infant.

[beam me up scottie]

221. Then who would you, as a man, prevent from having an abortion?

And why do you think you or anyone else has the right to make this decision for someone else?

[BushOut06]

254. Why even throw that little caveat in there?

Because I'm a man, I cannot have an opinion in this matter? But if you want an honest answer, I'll give it to you. If the baby is viable, then I believe that it would be wrong. Of course there are exceptions in the case of medical necessity, and I don't believe Fitzsimmons when he says that most late-term abortions are elective. It just doesn't make sense that a woman would carry a baby for several months only to decide that at such a late stage that she didn't want it anymore.

But even if a woman did decide at a late stage that she just didn't want to carry it, why not simply remove the baby, but allow it to live? Put it up for adoption? Do you believe that a woman should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy right up until the moment before birth? If you're going to ask me where to draw the line, would you even draw a line at all?

[beam me up scottie]

259. I didn't. YOU did. See, when you start deciding who can and who can't

have abortions, you've crossed over into fundieland.

Especially when you do so based on fictional material spread by militant anti-choice zealots.

How about you let this go, because I'm not willing to argue over an issue that doesn't exist, except in the mind of freepers and misogynists.

[GumboYaYa]

133. It has nothing to do with your rights. It is the rights of the child that

people are concerned with. Yes, there is a point where a fetus is a person and deserves the protection of the right to life.

[ehrnst]

190. As per Roe. But the woman's health must be protected at all stages

of pregnancy. She has a right to that as much as a non-pregnant person.

[GumboYaYa]

280. Agreed.

We should call them "Life-saving Abortions" because that is what they really are in almost every instance where it happens.

[Name removed]

222. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[colinmom71]

141. Wow, you really have no knowledge about obstetrical care do you?

Even you would not support D&X-ing a fetus that had come to term. Actually, by that point doctors don't call it a fetus any more, it's simply considered a baby. So there's a continuum and there has to be a cut-off point for societally acceptable behavior based on common sense understanding of what is and is not a viable human being, whether you like it or not.

Ok, firstly, the surgical abortion procedure titled Intact Dilation and Extraction (ID&X) cannot be performed on a pregnant woman and fetus beyond 26 weeks into the pregnancy. By that point in gestational development, the fetal skull had become too ossified (firm, harder tissue) for a canula to peirce the skull and drain the cranial contents (brain tissue, cerebral-spinal fluid, etc.). It couldn't be done on a fetus that is anywhere near full term (40 weeks). So it's irrelevent what you might think about whether someone would support ID&X being used on viable fetuses, because that would be medically impossible.

Secondly, doctors do use the term fetus in their technical writings, charts, medical conferencing, etc. They do not however tend to use the term fetus around their patients, just as they don't tend to unnecessarily spout other medically and legally technical language around their patients either.

The only way I can imagine D&X being useful would be in the case of a severely deformed infant where the mother cannot have a C-section. Since that is not an elective procedure I still don't see what D&X has to do with the right to choose, but I didn't bring it up.

Actually, any medical procedure that can be scheduled (is non-emergent) is considered an elective procedure. Very few abortions are non-elective surgeries. What you're describing here is what you see as a morally justifiable situation where ID&X may be preferable to an abdominal surgical pregnancy termination (which BTW is something that is now almost never done - too risky to maternal health).

Terminating due to compromised fetal health *is* a choice. Some parent(s)-to-be in that type situation may choose not to terminate, preferring to let the pregnancy go to term and elect for appropriate medical care after the baby's birth. And some families may feel their better option, for whatever reasons, may be to terminate in order to spare the baby that would be born undue suffering from it's illness. Happens every day...

A C-section is never the first option that should be pursued (despite what Britney Spears might think). C-sections are major abdominal surgeries and come with a set of risk factors that are actually more dangerous than abortion surgeries like ID&X, especially when we're addressing the second trimester. An ID&X is extremely rare because it is usually only used in situations where there is a desire to terminate due to a fetal defect diagnosis *and* there is a compelling medical complication on the part of the pregnant woman (blood clotting disorder, etc.) that may make other methods of a later abortion injurous to the woman's long term health and/or future fertility.

If the "partial birth" law does not refer only to D&X that is one thing. Although the Roe court did basically say it's OK for the government to ban certain late-term abortions if they want to, so you gotta argue with them.

Thatis the crux of the matter. The so-called PBA law uses a made up term you will never find in any medical or obstetrical surgical text because it is not a legitimate medical term. If the scope of this law was to *actually* ban certain types of later abortions, then the actual procedures would have been specifically listed. Instead, it uses an illegitimate, phony term that is ascribed a bastardized definition from the ID&X procedure. Legally, it's gibberish. It was nothing but a bone thrown to the Republican's fundamentalist and radical pro-life supporters that gives the Repubs political capital by blaming the courts and "activist judges" (their favorite catch-phrase) when they cannot keep a patently unconstitutional onthe books.

As for what you said here about Roe, it's also clear you know little about aboriton case law. The trimester analysis of Roe was modified by Casey v. Planned Parenthoood (1992) which thus allowed states to proscribe abortion after fetal viability is determined. But since ID&X, D&X, and D&E's are not performed on medically viable fetuses, this PBA law remains legal junk.

[Leopolds Ghost]

150. Why would parents terminate due to poor fetal health?

That's eugenics. I'm not saying it should be illegal, but unless there is a danger to the mother, I think it's highly unethical. About on the order of designer genes, IMO. Keep in mind this is why there are so few Down's Syndrome babies being born compared to years ago. But yes, it is certainly a choice. So any procedure that can be scheduled fall under the right to choose, in doctor's opinions?

I wonder what obstetricians think about the man in California who can't get executed because they can't find a doctor willing to perform the procedure?

[Bridget Burke]

179. What about anencephaly?

There are worse defects than Down's Syndrome.

Eugenics is the practice of preventing "bad" genes from polluting the gene pool. Babies born with the more severe defects won't live long enough to reproduce. They will usually have a short & painful life.

[lastliberalintexas]

199. No, any procedure that can be scheduled is ELECTIVE

The supposed stats out there from the anti-choice crowd which are being used to "prove" that late term abortions are being performed for vanity or convenience reasons twist and distort the MEDICAL definition of the term elective. Even a late term abortion performed due to sever fetal malformation which will result in immediate death to the "born" child is an ELECTIVE procedure.

Again, the anti-choicers have NEVER been able to show that even a single late term abortion has been performed for anything other than a medical reason. The only way that they can insinuate that such a thing occurs is by distorting the MEDICAL definition of elective.

[Gelliebeans]

209. You are exactly right

last year I made an appointment with a surgeon to have part of my intestines removed and it was called "elective". If I had not had the procedure I might of died. They skew the term elective to make it sound as if I was getting a nose job. :eyes: for fucksake people.

[colinmom71]

205. Not necessarily...

In order for a parent's decision to terminate due to fetal defect to be considered eugenics, you would have to show that parent's main motive for terminating was to eliminate the bad genetic material from their bloodline. I highly doubt any parents-to-be have that motivation in mind when they are faced with the devastation of a poor fetal health diagnosis. Frankly, I've never even heard a parent utter that sentiment on support boards for people who have been through this ordeal.

And also, your statement draws a false conclusion in that not all fetal health problems that are incompatable with life or would cause medical suffering after birth are caused by genetic errors. Some fetal defects, such as a severely malformed heart, hypoplastic lungs, polycystic kidney disease, etc., are not always related to a genetic disorder and therefore could never relate to eugenics in any fashion.

They *are* however motivated by not allowing the child to be born to suffering due to the health ailment and/or by the self-knowledge that they may not feel capable of parenting a child with severe disabilities and/or medical issues. Raising a child with disabilities is heart-breaking and exhausting and not every person is necessarily able to walk that path...

Where you asked above, "So any procedure that can be scheduled fall under the right to choose, in doctor's opinions?"... Well, yes. And that applies to any medical procedure or surgery. A doctor's role is to inform the patient of their health status and to present to them their best and most relevant options for treatment, by which the patient then chooses the treatment they're most comfortable with - it's called informed consent. And that applies to the context of abortion for fetal defects as well.

As for how obstetricians feel about the doctors opposed to performing a medical execution, I'd imagine it's much like any groups of persons whose bounds are the commonality of their profession. Their are probably widely ranging opinions on the subject, which frankly I wouldn't even begin to speculate upon... But then, the death penalty is a non seqeutor to abortion as they are not at all analogous issues.

[Crowdance]

172. Facts!! Thank you, CM71!

Not that it'll stop the kool-aid drinking, but what an informative post. You've shone a precise spotlight on the absurdity of the wing nut argument. I've bookmarked for later re-use!

[BoneDaddy]

281. Dont you get it

If you are liberal you are supposed to believe exactly as Beam up Scottie who clearly knows everything about everything. Nevermind that she belittles anyone who doesn't think just like her or questions her authority and then quotes people out of context and then accuses you of being either fundamentalist or a republican.

Just because I am as cautious of the rhetoric from the hard right I am equally suspect of the liberal rhetoric. Abortion should be legal and safe, but there is no way of getting around the killing of life and the funny thing is with all the rhetoric about choice and MY RIGHTS, they can be so flippant about the death, and "rights" of the potential human. Life isn't about ME ME ME.

[Yupster]

72. Why do people say it's between a woman and her doctor?

Don't you mean it's a woman's choice?

So if a woman wants an abortion and her doctor says, jeepers, I'm pro-life, then what?

I don't understand why people say it's between a woman and her doctor, or a woman and her partner or a woman and her whatever.

If people mean it's a woman's choice, period, then that's what they should say.

[beam me up scottie]

75. Because IT IS.

That's who gets to MAKE the decision, not a woman and her partner.

[Lars39]

118. Because the doctor needs to be able to impart information

without being gagged by some law that states he cannot.

[LaurenG]

97. I'm in agreement with you

If a fetus is viable then every effort should be made to save the life of both mother and child. 5 months is a mighty long time to wait. I don't know how early a fetus can survive outside the womb but any time it can survive with support, it's a child. I can't stand even thinking about that procedure. That is all I have to say about it.

[beam me up scottie]

224. And that's exactly the reaction the fundies wanted when they made it up.

Too bad your squeamishness prevents you learning the truth.

They do know their sheep.

[LaurenG]

230. Get a life,

You don't know me, and I hate to break it to you but also don't know it all. You are exactly the problem on our side that the freepers are on the other. Grow up.

[beam me up scottie]

232. Sorry, sister, my life, and the lives of women everywhere, are threatened.

So we're going to be extremely focused on keeping the rights our sisters, mothers and grandmothers fought so hard to acquire.

Don't worry, we'll pick up the slack from ingrates who don't even know what we stand to lose.

You can stand on the side of the road and whimper about how icky it all is.

Just stay out of the way.

[LaurenG]

236. You make quite the quantum leap there superman(woman)

How do you know what I think other than I can't stand to think of late term abortion when the child is VIABLE at the time. You go right ahead and assume you know it all and you keep right on making enemies of those who basically agree with you. Try not to be so judgmental, especially when you really don't know what you are talking about. Now go take a break, chill out and come back when you figure out who the real enemy is.

[beam me up scottie]

239. You're supporting reichwing lies about late term abortions.

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Ask the shill who posted them to begin with for proof of his claim instead of whining about those of us who take exception to being portrayed as infant killers.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

241. Again

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=485746&mesg_id=494427

[beam me up scottie]

248. I'm sorry, did you mean to put your proof in that post and forgot?

I'll wait.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

235. Well stated.

I made a mistake of replying far too much in this thread, when I should've just walked away at the first sign of angry irrational rabid responses. I didn't, and it ate up way too much of my effort and time, to the point I was starting to defend aspects I never really declared to begin with.

I hope you are better than me and have the control to not keep going round and round with them cause I'll know you will be far better for it.

I regret not having said my piece and walking away last night, instead of giving these rabid responses far more credence or attention than they ever deserved to begin with.

[beam me up scottie]

240. You made the mistake of posting a claim you couldn't prove and now

you're having a snit because we called you on it.

We're still waiting for those published reports you referred to.

Cough em up.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

242. Again

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=485746&mesg_id=494427

[beam me up scottie]

244. I'm sorry, I didn't find the link to your reports in that post.

Perhaps you can provide it again.

[Lars39]

247. And once again you side step.

[Left Is Write]

218. Yes. It is specifically about D&X.

The term partial-birth abortion is inaccurate. It's not a medical term. It is, as the OP says, and inflammatory term used by opponents.

"Late-term abortion" is not accurate either, because the ban pertains only to this one procedure.

According to the ACOG, a D&X is never the only available procedure for certain situations, but in some cases it may be the best procedure to preserve the health of the mother. The decision whether or not to use a D&X is best left between the woman and her qualified medical caregiver, NOT the government.

[Katherine Brengle]

26. THANK YOU! n/t

[dooner]

28. Such an important point

more like

Emergency, lifesaving, last resort, to save a life abortion

[Warren DeMontague]

32. You are absolutely, positively, 100% correct.

The language is deliberately designed to create a wedge in a population that is overwhelmingly pro-choice. (worth keeping in mind when you hear people flatulate about how we need to kowtow to the so-called "values voter")

The bottom line is, this is about putting televangelists, lobbyists and crusty-ass legislators in where they don't belong- namely, between a woman, her doctor and their medical decisions about HER body.

[omega minimo]

37. eta

:thumbsup:

[iconoclastNYC]

34. Hear hear. Every activist must understand FRAMING.

Read "Don't Think of an Elephant" by Lakoff

[beam me up scottie]

36. Sorry for the flames, O.

But I'm sick of seeing right wing talking points on DU, especially when they're being used to twist, misinform and manipulate emotions about this procedure.

It's a fucking LIE that women choose this procedure for no other reason than they suddenly don't want to go through with it.

The people that are spreading lies about Dr. Tiller and what happens in his clinic are reichwing shills and they can be trusted about as much as the other freepers.

[omega minimo]

44. Better you than me

All I could come up with was "bs"

He knows what he is

[beam me up scottie]

50. Fuck them.

I can't think of a better reason to be banned that shining a light on them so everyone can see what they are before they can scurry away under the cupboards.


Time to realize that calling forth their hateful gods isn't going to work anymore.

This isn't about religion, it never was.

It's about the lives of women, and if they think we'll be bullied into allowing them to take away our rights, they'd better think again.

[omega minimo]

51. Sorry

I agree with you but I don't see them scurrying away anytime soon

[beam me up scottie]

53. Wait til we start stomping on them.

:evilgrin:

[FreedomAngel82]

41. I like the last one

I'll use that one from now on. :) And I was once watching a campaign meeting of Howard Dean's and a nurse asked him about "partial birth ban" and he was saying how it's nonsense (he and his wife are doctors remember) and how nobody in his state had one in the year 2004.

[beam me up scottie]

42. For those of us who are interested in the TRUTH about this procedure,

ignore the fundie assholes and visit the clinic.

This doctor and his staff risk their lives, yes, their LIVES, daily to provide this procedure to women who have had to make this horrible decision.

Read about what happens there, and the next time someone claims women do this frivolously, let them have it.

I do.

http://www.drtiller.com/

Another informative site: http://www.prch.org/publications/Profiles/tiller.shtml


And a website in support of him by a TRULY compassionate person of faith: http://www.uua.org/news/wichita.html

[omega minimo]

48. Thank you so much Beam-- what term is appropriate?

IYHO? :hi:

[beam me up scottie]

52. The doctors call it late term abortion.

There is no reason to add hyperbole, it's a medical procedure.

Another excellent site: http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/index.html

[omega minimo]

55. There it is

Thanks for the info. This will be a good time to offer DU some solid info to counter the inevitable "opinions are like assholes" threads. :yoiks:

[beam me up scottie]

47. More info about the procedure:

Late Abortion Care
for Fetal Anomaly

Counseling & Consultation | Procedure
Remembrances & Special Requests
Chaplaincy Program

If you are reading this information, you have received devastating news regarding your pregnancy: a serious or lethal health problem has been diagnosed. We recognize that you are sad and concerned about the diagnosis and this has come as unexpected news. You may, based on the information provided by your doctor or genetics counselor, elect to end your pregnancy early due to the serious medical problem explained to you. At Women's Health Care Services, we offer Fetal Indication Termination of Pregnancy consultation and care.

We recognize your decision to come to our center is distressing. We understand that many of our patients are experiencing the most difficult situation of their lives. All of our services are oriented around our philosophy that the easy part of the process is the premature delivery of a stillborn -- the hard part is saying goodbye to the hopes, dreams and relationships that you have with your baby.

Kindness, courtesy, justice, love, and respect are the cornerstones of our patient-provider relationships. Our outstanding reputation for high quality abortion care is the result of our dedication to providing professional, respectful, and confidential health care services.

*****************

Admission Criteria
In order to offer you an appointment, we require that a physician refer you to our center. In addition, we need your genetic counselor or doctor to provide us with gestational and diagnostic information regarding your pregnancy. Over the past twenty-five years, we have had experience with pregnancy terminations in such situations as anencephaly, Trisomy 13, 18, and 21, polycystic kidney disease, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, Potter's syndrome, lethal dwarfism, holoprosencephaly, anterior and posterior encephalocele, non-immune hydrops, and a variety of other very significant abnormalities.

http://www.drtiller.com/fetanom.html

And because of the zealots, look at what these women are forced to read before they can consent to the procedure:

If You Are Pregnant

Published by
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
900 S.W. Jackson, Suite 1005
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1290
Toll Free 1-888-744-4825

This publication was produced in compliance with K.S.A. 65-6708, known as the "Woman's Right-to-Know Act." The "Woman's Right-to-Know-Act" requires that the physician inform the woman of the following language. No person shall perform or induce an abortion when the fetus is viable unless such person is a physician and has documented referral from another physician not financially associated with the physician performing or inducing the abortion and both physicians determine that: (1) The abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman; or (2) the fetus is affected by a severe or life threatening deformity or abnormality. (K.S.A. 65-6709) This language, however, is no longer used to determine the legality of an abortion performed in accordance with K.S.A. 65-6703.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment acknowledges contributions for this publication from: Lennart Nilsson (in utero photographs used by permission, A Child is Born, Dell Publishing, 1990); drawings by Wesley Jerome Boyd and text excerpts from Abortion: Making a Decision, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.

***snip***

Week 34


(36 weeks after the first day of the last normal menstrual period)
The fetus is about 12-1/2 inches from head to rump and weighs about 5-1/2 pounds.
Scalp hair is silky and lays against the head.
Almost all babies born now will live.


http://www.drtiller.com/bk1.html

Do the fundie morons really think the women who need to have this done don't fucking know this already?

[Stephanie]

49. "Hate Wing" - so smart

communication is everything - it's our best weapon - you're right on the money

why do you think they say about this admin that they do 'politics, not policy'?

wouldn't it be great to have a government that was smart at politics but also did policy well? what a concept!

[omega minimo]

54. Ya got me

Borrowed that from a caller on AAR.

"wouldn't it be great to have a government that was smart at politics but also did policy well? what a concept!"

Wouldn't it be great to have a public that rejected the bullshit politics and demanded the policy? We can't be playing these mind games ALL the time.

[upi402]

58. agreed, terms are important and it have effect

use terms to set the terms

[beam me up scottie]

61. They're using "PBA" on NPR, too.

I just heard it again.

How convenient, it's time for me to make my yearly donation this week.

They claim they welcome my opinion.

We'll see about that.

[Hello_Kitty]

69. Emergency Medical Procedure

Practically all performed late in pregnancy are to save the woman's life and/or to remove a severely damaged fetus. Not to mention that they are extremely rare. This stat is a decade old but I seriously doubt there's been much change to it.

"In a multimillion dollar nationwide campaign to pass the far-reaching abortion bans in 28 states and Congress, supporters of "partial-birth legislation" claimed that the laws were intended to target a single "late term" procedure known as "dilation and extraction" (D&X). AGI researchers have determined the D&X procedure amounts to less than 0.05 percent of all abortions in 1996, a total of about 650 of the 1.37 million abortions performed. It is estimated that only 14 facilities nationwide perform the procedure"

http://www.crlp.org/pr_98_1210abstats.html

We're having to wage an argument against something that is not partial birth anything and represents less than a percent of pregnancy terminations! It's a bullshit con job, that's what it is.

[beam me up scottie]

86. Only 17 votes???

Come on, people!

We have to stop letting them corrupt our language so that it matches their morals!

[beam me up scottie]

dupe

[beam me up scottie]

88. Somebody got to NPR before I did!

They just used the qualifier "What abortion opponents call partial birth abortion" !
They went on to briefly explain the procedure using only medical terms!

I think I may double my contribution this year.

[Hello_Kitty]

94. That's awesome

There's still some real reporting there despite the increasing Right Wing slant.

[suffragette]

89. Language matters

Names matter.
It is a medical procedure with an established medical name - Late Term Abortion.
That is the only name that should be used by anyone.


Thank you for this important post, omega.

[Hekate]

93. If the ban on LTA passes w/ no exception for the woman's life/health

If the ban on LTA passes with no exception for the woman's life/health America could end up being one of the few places in the history of the world where a woman's life would be by law deliberately sacrificed for her fetus.

The LTA procedure is by itself risky for the woman (uterine puncture is one potential hazard), but it has been utilized for centuries as far as I know if necessary to save the life of the mother. In previous centuries special instruments were designed for dismemberment of a fetus that could not be expelled from the uterus in the normal way, for instance conjoined twins. If the choice was that or let the woman die in labor...

In other words, the procedure is by no means the invention of cruel and debased pro-choice women of the 20th century. It is a known medical procedure, used in extremis.

Maternal mortality due to childbirth has dropped dramatically in the developed world, it is true, but there are still some cases where a pregnancy can kill the mother. All organs of a woman's body are subjected to intense stress during pregnancy -- heart, lungs, kidneys, circulatory system. The failure of any of them can spell death for her.

Certain birth defects or anamolies are incompatible with life once a baby is born. Anencephaly (failure of the skull to close and the brain to develop) is one of those; with only a brain stem and not much else, the infant dies within a week.

Major surgery of any sort is bloody and gruesome. Think of heart surgery: the chest is cracked open like a lobster...

The opponents of abortion brought this rare procedure into the public arena and the courtroom for one reason: to force medical experts to outline the procedure in all its surgical goriness, so that uninitiated laypeople (like our elected lawmakers) could be shocked and horrified.

They were unmoved by the testimony of women who for whom it had been necessary, supported by their husbands. Women and men for whom it had been a traumatic decision, but one necessary to their lives and health.

Oh well, I don't know why I bother to respond to these threads anymore. No one is ever swayed from their original position, and the arguments are emotional and vituperative. It's sad beyond words.

Hekate

[Virginian]

200. Maybe not swayed. but informed.

I may be too old for this ban to affect me personally, but I'll be dog goned if I want some elected old man who has no medical training making medical decisions for me. Tell Santorium et al to go to medical school if they want to practice medicine. Until then, leave it up to the real doctors.

In some cases, the closest these guys have been to childbirth is bragging about never having changed a diaper.

[Hekate]

234. Amen sister. eom

Hekate

[foreverdem]

96. I'm very surprised

I've heard many interviews with doctors and nurses alike who explain crystal clearly about the fact that so called "partial birth abortion" is a rare procedure that is only performed when the life of the mother is in danger or there is some kind of medical problem with the fetus that will not allow it to survive. I've heard it so many times that I thought it was common knowledge. That's why I'm still shocked and outraged when these fundies talk like this procedure is performed every day for women who just decide they do not want to be pregnant anymore. How the hell do they know? I seriously doubt they pay any attention to any fact that goes against their hateful, control freak way of thinking.

[Chalco]

98. ACCORDING TO MY BROTHER, the OB/GYN

late term abortions are virtually unheard of. They are ONLY done if there is something seriously wrong with the baby or with the mother. Evidence from my own circle of friends--a colleague had a late term abortion when it was discovered that her baby had 2 heads. She opted to have a late term abortion. According to bro these instances are rare and necessary.

This is from my bro who is a rabid wingnut, but as far as women's rights he is pro-choice. In his opinion the right wing, anti-abortion forces have exaggerated the frequency of this procedure in order to promote their agenda. THE PROCEDURE IS SO RARE AS TO BE NON-EXISTENT, according to him. NO DOC WOULD PERFORM A LATE TERM ABORTION ON A HEALTHY BABY. In fact, since my bro is a leading expert on pre-natal development he attests to the fact that if the baby has to be taken out of the womb, the docs have the capacity now to help it survive and most do. Therefore, if the baby has to be removed to save the woman's life, ie. she needs some form of therapy for cancer, the baby will survive and so will the mother who will then care for the baby.

This whole issue is a RUSE.

[Raster]

119. THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

This "partial-birth" bullshit, is just that: BULLSHIT and a complete ruse! And I am surprised that some on a PROGRESSIVE board would still trot out that bag of horseshit and expect it to run a few laps. That type of freeper, wingnut propoganda belongs on another board, not here.

[Name removed]

213. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftchick]

99. I was irritated to hear it on CNN's wolfie show

over and over again. :grr:

[ehrnst]

103. But "Late Term" is misleading, too! Just say "Procedure Ban"

They want people to think that it's just prohibiting late term abortions.

The vague list of "procedures" can also include elements of commonly used procedures for 12 week abortions.

Part of the myth is that it only includes one procedure or one trimester. That's why they didn't make it medically specific.

When it first came out, some of the few abortion providers who did 12 week abortions stated that they would have to stop for fear of being prosecuted, the so-called procedure was so vague.

So, "Late Term" is inaccurate, and plays right into their game.

[land of the free]

122. Excellent point. "Procedure Ban" is a good term.

I heard a story, I believe it was on CBS radio this morning, where they described these "partial birth abortions" (their term) as "a procedure where a baby is partially born and then killed" (paraphrased... sorry, I was half asleep at the time, and this really woke me up on my clock alarm).

I personally do not like the idea of abortion, and I can't imagine doing it myself, but I don't believe the government should get in between my doctor and me. I don't think the government should have any business controlling my reproductive choices or my end-of-life choices.

I had an interesting discussion yesterday with a friend who is vehemently anti-abortion. He firmly believes abortion is always murder, no matter how early or late in the pregnancy. I disagree, as I don't believe a cluster of cells that cannot live on its own is truly sustainable life, and therefore has "human rights". I was able to get on common ground on one issue:

*the world would be a better place if, instead of spending millions of dollars each year arguing abortion rights, we instead spent that money on preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.*

This is how we have to frame the debate. Get away from the graphic terms and the graphic images and put our money to work in the right places. Common sense can defeat rhetoric, but it takes a lot of effort to keep the debate at this level.

[ehrnst]

144. commonality is often difficult with PLs because...

Often the issue isn't really abortion, per se, but controlling the sexual behavior of women with the negative consequences of abortion, stds, etc.

That's why so many PLs oppose contraceptive access and the new HPV vaccine. They want unwanted pregnancy and HPV as deterrents to sexual activity.

Those PLs who are truly focused on reducing abortion, instead of controlling what people do in their bedrooms are far more likely to work with us on this.

However, even they are still caught in the "closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out" theory of childbearing options. Once pregnancy occurs, all the discussion on prevention is moot.

As long as women can get pregnant without wanting to, we will have to deal with the fact that women, normal, non-psychotic, law-abiding, loving women-mothers-wives, will seek abortions. That's where PLs and PCs run into problems with each other.

PLs want to deny them safe abortions, somehow thinking that this is a preventative measure, and PCs want abortions to be safe so they won't die.

[Spider Jerusalem]

116. Actually, the procedure is called "intact dilation and extraction".

As opposed to "dilation and curettage" which is the procedure used for early-term abortion.

[ehrnst]

152. so-called PBA is not the same as Intact D& X

They refused to use the medical term for one procedure, because it would limit them. If they meant Intact D&X they would have used that term. But they created a name for a collection of procedures so vague that it could criminalize other earlier procedures.

They played it both ways - intimating that it was only applying to Intact D&X, when it is so vague it can be used to describe procedures used as early as 12 weeks.

[Yollam]

134. Why is it inaccurate?

In order to complete the procedure, the child's head is removed from the womb and punctured, then the body is removed. It is indeed a gruesome procedure no matter how one looks at it. I personally was against the ban, because it is exceptionally rare and only used when there is a danger to the life of the mother. But I am not bothered by the term "partial birth" because that is in essence what happens. That doesn't mean that the infant was viable, or that the procedure is wrong.

You may have a point with "abortion on demand" which is only a short jump away from "Drive-thru abortions".

The fact is that this rare procedure was banned. It was the the fact that it is so rare that made it easy to do so, not memes and spin.

And it will be the Supreme Court hearing the case, not the Congress. No amount of squawking from us or the bible-beaters will change their ruling. It will be interesting to hear what they decide.

Feel powerless?
Of course. I live in a non-democratic fascist oligarchy.

Feel like you can't do anything, don't know what to do

No, I know exactly what to do. I have my one-way tickets out of the country in hand.

and it doesn't matter anyway?

In the larger scheme of things, does late term abortion, or whatever you choose to call it matter? Not really. Abortion is America's greatest red herring. Perennially used by the right to con dull-witted religio-nuts to go to the polls in the hopes that the repugs will eventually ban it. But any thinking person knows that the repugs would NEVER kill their Golden Goose. So they give their lemmings little scraps or meat like this meaningless late-term ban, which undoubtedly will cause harm to some women, but luckily it will be very few, and hopefully, doctors will choose to ignore the ban. The day the repugs fully outlaw abortion will be the day that the democratic party is reborn, because that will be the day that the poverty-stricken, bible-fanatic dullards wake up and realize that all this time they were worried about abortion and prayer in schools, their pockets were being picked clean by the GOP, and they won't have a pot left to piss in.

I'm sorry if I sound flip about this, and I know that abortion is the tantamount concern to a lot of DUers, but I truly do wish they would understand this about the GOP.

Would you believe that in a lot of other countries, there IS NO "abortion debate"? That you can go months, or even years and not even have to hear the word abortion? That was the case in Japan, where I can assure you, a lot of abortions are performed. But there it is simply accepted as a reality of life, not something to dwell on and spend incalculable amounts of time and energy as a society fighting against or defending.

[ehrnst]

157. Politicians are describing a non-existent medical procedure

They cobbled so-called "PBA" from several steps in different procedures.

It's not one procedure recognized by physicians. That's one reason that the courts struck it down- it would criminalize physicians for something that was not clearly defined in medical terms.

IF they had stated Intact Dilation and Extraction - which is much more specific and does not encompass other procedures, instead of some new unknown term, it would have had a better chance of passing. But it would not have implicated providers that used other procedures.

Let me tell you - a c section is a gruesome procedure. So is an amputation.

The fetus is euthanized prior to Intact D&x, so it's not any more gruesome than the alternative - dismembering the fetus, and possibly missing some of the parts to cause complications in the woman.

[Yollam]

164. Okay, but it's still all semantic games.

You did read the rest of my post, right? It's all just a symbolic gesture so that the GOP, which CONTROLS ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT can appear to be "doing something" about abortion for their moron voters. This was not a ban that was passed in good faith. As I said, I am not opposed to the procedure, but I fail to see how quibbling about the nomenclature is going to bring it back. They don't care if SCOTUS strikes it down, because then they can come up with another equally meaningless measure like a parental notification law or limits on what color scalpels can be used. Anything but actually propose a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. I wish they'd try it. Bring it on!

[Lars39]

166. It's not semantics if you're the woman on the gurney.

[ehrnst]

184. or the physician who has to consult an atty before performing a procedure.

[Bridget Burke]

173. The term "Partial Birth Abortion" is not medically valid.

I can understand your lack of concern about Choice issues. You're a guy & are on the way out of the USA.

Bon voyage!

[Yollam]

176. Thanks for NOT reading the post.

And NOT understanding it.

The fact that I realize that neither this symbolic law, nor the framing argument of "partial birth" vs. "dilation & extraction" is not going to make a lick of difference to the legality of the vast majority of abortions does not mean I am not concerned about abortion, or that I don't support choice in general.

You should know that more women, probably thousands, are hurt by the de facto ban on abortion in many rural areas where nobody is willing or able to perform abortions, so that women are forced to travel hours away to get one, or have an unwanted child. How many women does this "ban" affect in an average year? 3?

[ehrnst]

185. And have a great day yourself!

[Bridget Burke]

189. Well--if I hadn't read the post...why would you expect me to understand?

I see you added two paragraphs on Edit. Makes your reply a bit less snippy but a bit more defensive.

I actually do know that women who suffer from lack of abortion providers in their area. I live in Texas, where a 24 hour "waiting period" separates the first clinical visit & the abortion. That situation exacerbates the difficulty of distance.

So what if a few women are "inconvenienced" by having to give birth to a monster that lives a short, painful life? They are definitely in the minority & the law is only "symbolic."

[Yollam]

198. "monster"?

Wow.

I won't even touch that one. Anyway, you're entitled to go about trying to defend choice in the way you think best. If you disagree with me, that's fine. All I want is for people to get where the people who run the GOP are coming from. I mean, you don't really think Bush, Cheney, Frist, any of them really care about abortion one way or the other, do you? That's the difference between activists like you and them. You are coming from a place of sincerity and wanting to preserve a civil right and a privacy right. They come at it from a place of complete cynicism and knowing how useful this is to keeping their drones in line so that they can continue to line their pockets. That's all I'm saying.

[Bridget Burke]

202. "Teratogenesis" is a medical term--sorry I was being literal.

Teratogenesis is a medical term from the Greek, literally meaning monster-making, which derives from teratology, the study of the frequency, causation, and development of congenital malformations—misleadingly called birth defects. Teratogenesis has gained a more specific usage for the development of abnormal cell masses during fetal growth (see pregnancy), causing physical defects in the fetus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratogenesis

Some "birth defects" (to use the popular term) are treatable & others are not.

Yes, I am aware that Bush, Cheney, et al., are cynical. I, personally, am not cynical enough to let their lies go unanswered.

[Baconfoot]

208. That's really not too strong a term for the victims of genetic defects

which are sometimes the justification for late term abortions including but not limited to anencephaly (basically lacking a brain) and some 100% fatal (by 100% fatal I don't mean the infant would live e.g. 10 years and THEN it's fatal but instead that the infant would die e.g. in less than a year) forms of extremely painful and disfiguring dwarfism.

[Raffi Ella]

177. ...

Just want to show my support for this thread.



P.S. I never use the term pro-life either.When I refer to people against a womans right to choose I describe them in the appropriate terms; Anti Womens Rights Activists.

[Lars39]

178. And you would be correct!

Welcome to DU, DemEtienne! :toast:

[Raffi Ella]

204. Thanks Lars

:toast:

[lastliberalintexas]

197. Apparently we also need to remind people that

there is a difference between medical terminology and the every day meaning of words.

Definition of Elective

Elective: In medicine, something chosen (elected). An elective procedure is one that is chosen (elected) by the patient or physician that is advantageous to the patient but is not urgent.

Elective surgery is decided by the patient or their doctor. The procedure is seen as beneficial but not absolutely essential at that time.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=14354



Even a late term abortion performed due to severe malformation of the fetus is *medically elective*. Don't let them define- or incorrectly re-define- the medical terms necessary for this debate.

Thanks omega!

[mzteris]

226. No such thing as "partial-birth" abortion . . .

From the Guttmacher Institute:

"The term "partial-birth" abortion does not refer to any particular medical procedure. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the term is not recognized by the medical community. <48: Statement on so-called "partial birth abortion" laws by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, news release, Feb. 13, 2002, <http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releas... >, accessed Mar. 29, 2004.>

[beam me up scottie]

228. Exquisite timing, as usual, O.

Your threads have a way of drawing them out of their caves.

I know it's frustrating when they start to smell up the place, but your skills are necessary and very much appreciated.:patriot:

[WindRavenX]

237. thank you

And to all of those in this thread who have identified themselves as an enemy of my bodily autonomy:

Get bent.

[omega minimo]

251. If born w/2 heads, they could chop off the one that doesn't work so good

:evilgrin:

Well put, WindRavenX. Thank YOU.

"And to all of those in this thread who have identified themselves as an enemy of my bodily autonomy:
Get bent."

[beam me up scottie]

252. Kudos to the men and women of DU who see through the ruse.

I was afraid to look at this thread when I came home today, but you guys make me proud to be a member of DU.

[omega minimo]

256. BMUS it's spelled R-U-B-E-S

:rofl:

Such great people and info came out here! An actual discussion amidst the blinding snow of bat guano.

The info will hold up better than the emotional reactionary knee-jerking in the coming discussions. More of the solid sources you and others provided here (and some just can't) will be the way to go.

Cheers all! :toast: :grouphug:

[beam me up scottie]

260. Can you believe they're still trying to make it an issue?

My new book will be titled:

How To Have More Abortions

For Fun and Profit

[Warren DeMontague]

265. If people could just comprende that what other folks do with their bodies

aint really none o' their bizness, I suspect the planet would be a much more relaxed place.

[beam me up scottie]

267. That would require a medical procedure as well.

Removing the iron bar from their lower digestive tract.

They could save money by having their heads removed from it as well.

Or, better yet, leave them to enjoy the view.

[Ciggies and coffee]

269. .

[cynatnite]

274. I knew some doctors who got pissed over this...

They basically felt it was the politicization of a trauma that many parents are forced to deal with when the fetus dies in the uterus. The ones I've spoken with didn't know any physician in their right mind who would do this to a healthy fetus during the latter part of a pregnancy.

Keep in mind the anti-choice people came up with this because it's the only foothold they have into making abortion illegal. They want people to envision women heavy with child walking into an abortion clinic. They want people to think the worst and they will do everything in their power to make sure that's what it is no matter the lies.

When I hear 'partial birth abortion' it makes me want to scream and pull my hair out. It's a damn lie. It pisses me off corporate media does so little to educate the public. The public in general won't take the simple step of a five minute google search to educate themselves either.

[imaginary girl]

277. Here's an excellent article about the procedure

From http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/01/25/my_late_term_abortion/


My Late-Term Abortion
President Bush's attempt to ban partial-birth abortions threatens all late-term procedures. But in my case, everyone said it was the right thing to do — even my Catholic father and Republican father-in-law.
By Gretchen Voss, 1/25/2004

Way too excited to sleep on that frigid April morning, I snuggled my bloated belly up to my husband, Dave. Eighteen weeks pregnant, today we would finally have our full-fetal ultrasound and find out whether our baby was a boy or a girl. I had no reason to be nervous, I thought. I was young (if 31 is the new 21), healthy, and had not had so much as a twinge of nausea. Well into my second trimester, I was past the point of worrying about a miscarriage.

The past 3 1/2 months had been a time of pure bliss -- dreaming about our future family, squirreling away any extra money that we could, and cleaning out a room for a nursery in our cozy, suburban home, then borrowing unholy amounts of stuff to fill it back up. From the day that we found out we were expecting a baby -- on New Year's Eve 2002 -- we thought of ourselves as parents, and finding out whether the "it" was a he or she would cap the months of scattershot emotions and frenetic information-gathering. I just couldn't sleep. I invited our 105-pound yellow Labrador "puppy" into bed with us and snuggled even closer to Dave.

Later that morning, at quarter past 9, Dave held my hand as I lay on the cushy examining table at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center office in Lexington. As images of our baby filled the black screen, we oohed and aahed like the goofy expectant parents that we were. "Can you tell if it's a boy or a girl?" I must have asked a million stupid times. The technician was noncommittal, stoic, and I started feeling uncomfortable. Where I was all bubbly chitchat, she was all furrow-browed concentration. She told us that she had a child with Down syndrome, and that none of her prenatal tests had picked it up. I thought that was odd.

Then, using an excuse about finishing something on her previous ultrasound, she left the room. Seconds passed into minutes while we waited for her to return. Staring at the pictures of fuzzy kittens and kissing dolphins on the ceiling, I knew something was wrong. Dave tried to reassure me, but when the ultrasound technician told us that our doctor wanted to see us, I started to shake. "But she doesn't even know we're here," I said to her, and then to Dave, over and over. That's when I started crying. I could barely get my clothes back on.

[beam me up scottie]

278. I don't believe in hell,

and the people who read that and still call this procedure infanticide and claim that women do this because they've simply changed their minds, better hope I'm right.

[omega minimo]

282. Hell would be NEEDING this procedure & being persecuted/prosecuted for it

:cry::evilfrown:

[Warren DeMontague]

284. Thank you for posting that.

it should be required reading for anyone intending to open their mouth about this subject.

[imaginary girl]

285. Agreed ...

... And I really admire the author for taking what was a horrible personal experience and using it to help inform others about an important public discussion.

I am pregnant and recently had markers show up on an ultrasound which could indicate a devastating genetic disease. The follow-up blood test was negative for it, but I saw how quickly this could happen to anyone. Detailed screening ultrasounds aren't even done until after the first trimester ... though I don't know what decision I would have made, the government really has no place in that decision.

[Warren DeMontague]

286. Well, first off, Congratulations!

I know what you mean, and I agree with you 100%. It's about as personal and private a matter as there POSSIBLY could be. And what is right for one person might not be right for another. That's the whole point, as far as I'm concerned.

And if this is going to be your first baby, I'd highly advise you to get as much sleep as possible while you still can. :party:

[imaginary girl]

287. Thanks! Second, actually, so extra sleep is out! (n/t)