Moreover, the term “abortionist” is perfectly valid, albeit unpalatable to some pro-choicers. Ditto for “partial birth abortion” - which is, in fact, the LEGAL term adopted by both houses of Congress. For reasons mentioned in the article which I cited, it is also the most accurate term.
I’m mildly amused that someone would attack me for citing the National Right to Life Committee. As Bob Cos said, exactly how does this refute my arguments? It’s both sad and irritating that so many pro-choicers attack pro-life arguments on the grounds that they come from (gasp!) pro-life sources, yet are perfectly willing to acccept the claims of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and any number of abortion providers.
PBA is not a “legal” term, it’s a political term. The fact that it is used by right- wing politicians pandering to anti-abortion activists still does not make it a legitimate term.
“Abortionist” is not a term that has any meaning or legitimacy in medicine. It’s simply a term which is used to dehumanize and villify doctors who perform abortions.
The use of this kind of terminology undercuts the credibility of the user because t drags the debate to a purely emotional level rather than a rational one.
The OP asked how doctors can “face” performing abortions and posted a link to dubious anti-abortion propaganda video which showed dozens of (probably rubber) fetuses and body parts being paraded around as though that was representative of what abortion providers do. I pointed out that third trimester abortions are extermely rare and are only performed for [url=http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/ABORTIONPARTIAL.HTMcompelling medical reasons
Any alleged third trimester abortions performed for purely elective reasons by unethical doctors are so rare and anamalous that they are irrelevant to the discussion. They also don’t refute my main point which was that the video linked to by the OP was dishonest in what it represented
Using the (unsupported) testimony of a handful of off the reservation abortion providers to try and get the D&X procedure banned is like saying that guy who carved his name in a uterous proves that hysterectomies should be banned.
Furthermore the “partial-Birth” abortion legislation does not ban late term abortion. It only bans one specific procedure (the safest one for performing them. I would like to ask those in favor of banning the procedure what alternative (and more dangerous) procedure would they like to see replace the D&X. Remember, the legislation you favor forces this choice. It does not prevent abortions.
My mistake. I should have looked for a cite before I spoke. Of course, now Diogenes has thoughtfully provided one for us.
I am actually ambivalent about abortions; it’s just that to me, a statistic has precedence over an anecdote. To take it to a less politically charged area, I’ll use my logic professor’s “yellow dog” analogy. If you are trying to prove that all dogs are yellow, it is more useful to cite a national dog census stating that all the owners surveyed had yellow dogs than it is to cite a dog groomer who has only groomed yellow dogs. The census covers a larger area and eliminates more variables than the quote from the dog groomer (i.e. - perhaps there are no black dogs in the area where the groomer works, or perhaps the owners of the black dogs groom their dogs themselves, or take them to a different groomer.)
That, if I may say so, is highly unsympathetic, and (not that this is the first time), it strikes me as a case of presuming to know what somebody else should do with her life.
I think it’s up to a doctor to determine the nature of risks like these, and up to the doctor and pregnant woman to decide what to do in a case of such risks, not Congress.
>>That, if I may say so, is highly unsympathetic, and (not that this is the first time), it strikes me as a case of presuming to know what somebody else should do with her life.<<
I just wanted to add that I have to go with the " give the OP the benefit of the doubt" camp. Yeah, he comes across sounding like a sanctimonious twit, but he has just had a huge breakthrough and can be forgiven for not really being in top form. It’s always disturbing to realize that people like you, who grew up in the same area, in similar circumstances and opportunities, spend their lives doing stuff you consider awful. If you’ve always, as the OP admits to doing, figured it was some flaw in “those people” or the way they were raised, it’s a pretty major paradigm shift.
How can people stand to perform abortions? The same way they can stand to do any other medical procedure. You have to remember, these people are doctors. The first week of medical school they were given a cadaver (who used to be someone’s mother or father, cousin, friend, lover, etc.), a dissection guide, and told to start cutting. They learn to seperate the job from the emotions most of the time, or they don’t make it.
Doctors who choose to perform abortions (I consider abortionist a silly, anachronistic term) generally have no moral problems with it. Someone who considers abortion evil, or wrong, or dangerous, or whatever, doesn’t perform abortions. If you don’t have moral objections, it’s just another bit of surgery. It’s not pretty, but most medical procedures aren’t pretty.
Not to get into get side tracked into minutiae, but I clearly didn’t make my point very well. I must state that I do not know the doctors involved personally, and, for previously addressed reasons, we can’t really look at the individual cases. That being the case all we can really go on is their word. That being the case, what kind of person would make themselves look bad to support someone elses position? That person is called a shill. Now I am not saying that these doctors ARE shills. I am saying, look at the above quotes from both of our posts. One would have to assume that:
A) These doctors are actually monsters, doing something that the majority of people on BOTH sides of the debate would find untenable (specifically casually performing late third tri abortions on healthy babies for no other reason than the healthy mothers whim).
OR
B) These doctors are insane and are admitting to terrible deeds they have NOT done, for no other reason than to feed their insanity.
OR
C) These doctors are shills.
OR
D) Something I can’t think of that makes this all make sense. (I am not being sarcastic, I freely admit that just because Ican’t think of an argument does not mean it does not exist)
Option (D) is simply a non-argument. It amounts to saying “I can’t think of any other reasons, but there must be one.” Granted, there may be some other explanation, but unless somebody can offer one, this does no good in matters of debate.
Option (A) is the only tenable answer. Is a nine-month abortion monstrous? I certainly think so, but these physicians may say otherwise. That is, in fact, the positions of many pro-choicers. Heck, here on the SDMB, we’ve seen several people insist that life, humanity and/or personhood doesn’t begin until the very moment of birth, so such a viewpoint is not entirely uncommon.
So again, unless someone can plausibly explain WHY these doctors would be falsely incriminating themselves, the only reasonable conclusion is that they are admitting to the truth.
So you’re saying that these highly paid abortionists are acting as shills to the pro-life groups, all for the sake of money?
HOW?!?!??!?! How do they stand to benefit financially from falsely admitting to doing third-trimester abortions on healthy women and healthy fetuses? Where is the profit motive, pray tell?
Well. looking at your cite again, it doesn’t really say the third-term abortions were purely elective, it says they were psychiatric difficulties with the women. That’s good enough for me to constitute a medical reason. It may not be good enough for you, but since you’re neither the patient nor the doctor it doesn’t really matter what’s good enough for you.
Your prize “abortionist” basically says that he performed “thousands” of elective abortions in the second trimester (so what?) and that he performed third-term abortions (plural, no numbers, which means it could be two or three) because there were medical issues with the woman. Psychiatric issues count as a compelling medical reasons.
I cited a monetary incentive because it was the least absurd of the options, looking at it again, I think the doctors words were just twisted to to make it sound like he was performing third-term abortions by the thousands for purely elective reasons. That’s obviously nonsense. The doctor does not say once that he performed a single purely elective third-term abortion.
I already addressed this point. The problems included abortion for rape or incest – which is most certainly NOT a medical condition. If there’s some specific trauma, then that trauma can be addressed, but pregnancy due to rape or incest is not a condition that merits medical treatment.
Yeah, right. It’s really inconceivable that some doctors would truthfully confess to this act, eh? So in your mind, it’s far more plausible to surmise that they’re falsely admitting to these monstrous deeds for the sake of some unknown financial gain, procured from unknown people through unknown means and acquired for unknown motives?
You think rape victims don’t need medical treatment?
You don’t know much about rape or incest. They both very definitely qualify as mental health issues(and sometimes physical health) issues. I think it would be despicable to force a woman to carry the fetus of her rapist. Every second it’s in there is a trauma.
AFAIAC, rape and incest are absolutely rock solid justifications for abortion at any point in pregnancy.
Actually, as I said before, those doctors weren’t really confessing to anything partcularly shocking. Abortion for rape and incest is not “elective.”
Okay, you’re conflating separate issues here. Rape does require treatment – but pregnancy due to rape does not. Ditto for incest. It is disingenuous to treat them identically.
Then there’s the question of whether abortion IS an appropriate treatment for a rape victim. The trauma of rape is tragic, but killing another human being is NOT an acceptable solution.
Pregnancy due to rape or incest does require medical treatment, specifically an abortion as well as mental health treatment. As for whether it’s “acceptable,” that is for the woman, and the woman alone to decide, not the government.
Would you be opposed to abortion for rape or incest in the first trimester?
You do realize, JThunder, that your argument about the disingenuousness of DtC’s argument can be turned around on you, right?
Someone who really, truly doesn’t consider a fetus to be a human being, or a person, or whatever term you want to use could just as easily accuse you of deliberately conflating two separate issues: the human being seeking treatment, and the fetus. They’re not at all the same, and it’s disingenuous to treat them identically.