You must have linked the wrong page by accident. The page you linked to only talks about 2nd trimester abortions (20-24 weeks). It also doesn’t say that the abortions are purely elective just that they’re done for “non-extreme” reasons in the opinion of one guy.
So what we’re looking at is that “partial birth” abortions are more common than some assert, and that they’re more often performed on healthy women with healthy pregnancies than some assert. But D the C has a good point. It’s all too easy in our climate of abortion rhetoric (from all sides) to believe that “partial birth abortion” automatically equals “late-term.” And the truth is that many ID&Es are performed before the third trimester, and many late-term abortions are not ID&Es.
I’m “in the field” (OB-GYN) so should have better information than I have, but I seriously doubt the numbers of LTA’s. The ONLY LTA proceedure I’ve ever taken part in was on an already dead fetus who was …um…er…“soft” and the head was extremely difficult to remove vaginally.
According to this site, most late term abortions are not performed for reasons of “convenience”:
“Only about 1% of abortions occur after 20 weeks. The demand for late-2nd-trimester abortions is largely from two groups: women who learned from amniocentesis that they were carrying defective fetuses, and women who were unable to get abortions earlier in pregnancy.
It should be possible to reduce the numbers of women in both of these groups. The size of the first group can be reduced by continuing improvements in early prenatal diagnosis. The size of the second group can be reduced by eliminating reasons for delaying an abortion (by improved access to providers, eliminating parental consent and waiting-period requirements, and providing funding so poor women don’t delay abortions for financial reasons), and especially by preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place – through effective sex education and family planning programs, as well as by addressing the needs of poor families so their “choices” are less likely to be dictated by limited finances.”
Delaying and denying access to abortions by a variety of tactics and then displaying outrage that women are having them relatively late term (still unusual given widespread state laws against third-trimester abortions) strikes me as a repugnant form of hypocrisy.
And in regards to the OP, “abortionist” is a term that is a relic from the days when abortions were illegal. Abortionists came from a range of people including barbers, quacks and occasionally physicians. Using such a loaded term now seems more related to a desire to insult than to inform.
Without responding to the specific numbers of LTA…I note that your cite was "Tennesseans for Choice. First published in 1997, last modified May 6, 2000."
I note that if pro life cites are referenced in debates on the boards, that the legitimacy of said cite is immediately called into question.
Why? I’ve seen plenty of references to pro choice web pages used as “cites” in plenty of previous abortion related debated. I’ve yet to ever see one pro choice poster chime in with an objection to using that kind of sourcing (even though I’ve seen plenty of objections directed towards anything with a hint of a pro life viewpoint).
OTOH…if you REAAAAAAALY were just about to post such an objection (I guess there’s a first time for anythng)…then consider the observation retracted.
beagledave, I invite you to cite any instance on these boards where I have said that anti-abortion rights sources are automatically to be discounted regarding factual claims. It is no more acceptable to dismiss statements solely because they are made on a pro-abortion rights site - particularly when they are in accord with statements I have heard from others in the medical community and are presented in a reasoned and logical manner (as opposed to the “convenience” arguments of the anti-abortion rights side, which presuppose that women are frivolously selecting late-term abortions without regard to the greater dangers and expense of the procedures involved).
And why not? You might respond to the other points I raised, as well.
Jackmannii I invite you to point out where I accused you of doing that. Oh thats right…I didn’t. :rolleyes:
Great…perhaps you’ll pass that message along to some of the frequent pro choice posters who HAVE “dismissed” pro life cites. For example, I’d say 99.9% of the time that pro life poster JThunder has included a pro life cite as part of his post, some pro choice poster will quickly chime in dismissing said cite because of its pro life viewpoint.
If you’re interested in examples…do a search on his name and abortion in GD…you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Uhh because the point I responded to is the one I had a point to make about. Wow…are you saying that every time you respond to someones post you ALWAYS respond to ALL the points in that post? :dubious:
Clearly, you did not respond to anything that I posted (i.e. the relative scarcity of late term abortions, the hypocrisy of anti-abortion rights advocates delaying and denying abortions as long as possible and then making an issue of it when they occur late-term, and the dubious tactic of referring to “abortionists”).
Instead, while admitting you had no facts or figures of your own, you dismissed the cite I presented, while claiming “I note that if pro life cites are referenced in debates on the boards, that the legitimacy of said cite is immediately called into question.”
If you have a beef with some pro-abortion rights poster who allegedly does that, take it up with him/her. I post infrequently on abortion-related topics and I am not an official spokesman for Pro-Abortionists Inc.
Meantime, your disclaimers sound pitifully disingenuous.
Please. Specifically. Show me where I dismissed your cite. I made no comment about the veracity of your cite…did I?
I did not “admit I had no facts or figures of my own”.
Please. Specifically show me where I “admitted” such a thing.
(I said that I was choosing not to comment on that particular portion of your post…that DOESN’T mean I couldn’t comment on the number of LTAs, indeed I have done so on numerous times in numerous other threads) Otherwise, kindly withdraw your lies.
I pointed out the source of your cite (I did NOT dismiss it)
I pointed out that when pro life folks do a similar thing, they immediately get challenged on the source of the cite.
Uhhh…tap tap…is this thing on? That’s exactly what I WAS doing (perhaps you might even notice my response to cheddarsnax). I’m using your post (and similar pro choice sourced posts in the past) to point out the hyprocricy among those specific pro choice folks who immediately jump on pro life cites…while giving cites like yours a pass.
The contortions involved in explaining how you were you were using my post to highlight the hypocrisy of other people must be painful. Try Advil.
Otherwise, I see you still have nothing to say about the points I raised.
Excuse me, you’re positively brimming with facts and figures, but choose not to be responsive.
Far be it from me to criticize your right to choose.