racist! anyone can jive if they’re taught 
And so forcing these unspeakable women to have a child is a GOOD thing? Yeeks. I think not.
Anyhow, despite how unusual, I still believe there are some cases* where this procedure could be medically necessary. I’m resistent to the idea that the women in those cases are SOL because the procedure is nasty. (Which I will conceed, it certainly is.)
*Certain cases of hydrocephalus, as I stated in the original thread.
Even if he’s saying that no abortions in the last term should be medically necessary (and in truth, that’s my reading of it even when not taken out of context), how again is Crafter_Man a “misogynist”? I’ve met plenty of women who hold similar, or even more strictly anti-abortion views than he was displaying in that thread. I don’t think I’ve seen evidence of him being a “misogynist” in the threads I’ve seen (and since the two of us are GQ people most of the time, I see a lot of his posts…)
Thanks Ludovic, for providing a much needed humor break. 
Why would this be wrong if abortions for medical purposes are not?
I mean, either you’re pro-choice or you’re not. Make up your mind. Is the baby a person or isn’t it?
I also would like to know how this equals misogyny.
That’s a little like asking why should life sentences for stealing hub caps be wrong if life sentences for murder are not. The two are incomparable.
Abortions performed for medical purposes affirm the value of the life of little girl fetuses after they are born and grow up and become pregnant themselves. :rolleyes:
Do you care only about the life of a fetus or a baby? Make up your mind. Is the fetus a person after she is born and grows up or isn’t she?
I am pro-choice and anti-abortion. The world is more complex than I thought thirty or forty years ago.
At any rate, Crafter Man was in error when he said that there are no circumstances which require an emergency late term abortion.
In the cite that cheesteak gives for the AMA’s opinion (which says that there are circumstances – although they are “extraordinary”), the paragraph following that says:
And that’s pretty much what Crafter Man was pitted for, except he combined the terms “none” and “late-term-abortions.” In so doing, he made a medical call for which he apparently does not have sufficient knowledge.
And as opposed as I am to late term abortions, isn’t that the crux of the problem? Should Congress be making medical decisions for which they do not have sufficient knowledge? That’s why there should be exceptions for the health of the mother – in my opinion.
I do get tired of medical opinions stated as fact here.
After she’s born, yes. Beforehand, no. My mind on the issue is made up; abortion should be legal, whatever the reason.
Defining whether or not abortion should be legal by the caimed reason for the abortion is, IMHO, utterly absurd, a complete moral shortcut. If you want to argue that a fetus is a person beyond a certain number of weeks of pregnancy and therefore should not be aborted, you may be able to convince me. If you’re trying to convince me that the legality of an abortion should be based on WHY the mother wants the abortion, I don’t buy it. Decide whether the fetus is a person or not, or at what point it becomes one.
I think I understand what you are saying better now. Thanks.
If you ask me, yes, a fetus is pretty much a person beyond a certain time period (though I don’t know WHICH, medical science does).
HOWEVER, in the case of a woman’s life/health being at stake, it’s sort of like self-defense-having the child will KILL her.
I don’t think anyone WANTS an emergency abortion-that’s my point. This isn’t something the woman wants because she doesn’t want to be pregnant anymore-it’s something that has to be done because it’s the safest option. I’d be willing to bet that these are, for the most part, wanted pregnancies.
I’m also not saying that the reason she wants an abortion should be included in the law. I’m saying there should always be an option for a medical emergency.
I believe Crafter_Man is acting like a misogynist because he apparently believes that a majority of women are so stupid they’d go out and have this procedure done just for kicks.
With all due respect Guin I think you would lose this bet in a fairly decisive fashion. Historically, in real world terms, according to the doctors that performed them, the vast majority of late term PBAs are not done for reasons of the mother’s physical health or to terminate flawed fetuses, but were basically elective decisions made to terminate the pregnancy.
This doesn’t make the exceedingly personal decision to terminate what is in essence a living, nearly born child, any easier, but claiming that, historically, the majority of late term PBAs have been desired babies, and unfortunately “medically necessary” is nonsense. They were primarly desperate, last minute attempts to terminate an undesired pregnancy for personal not medical reasons.
Guin-
I would really look into the dental work that you need. You seem to have an abcess from your teeth that has effected your brain and should have it attended to. What you call an abortion at 5-7 months is what most WILLING moms would call a premature baby. I do not understand your argument . If woman is late in a WANTED pregnancy and needs to deliver her child for her health, I cannot imagine that she would rather have it killed than try to see it nurtured.
I’m trying to figure out why PBA would be a good option for a woman who “will die if she has the baby” … considering she has to almost completely deliver the baby breech before the PBA can be done.
I hate people sometimes… 
sigh
Could you please provide a cite for this? I’ve heard contrary positions from doctors.
See the cites below regarding prevalance and necessity. Do you have any cites for these “contrary positions” you indicate, as I really didn’t think this “medical necessity” issue was even much of debate anymore as it has been shown via direct testimony of the PBA service providers that the large majority of PBAs are not “medically necessary” from a physical health perspective. Responding to these facts pro-PBA choice positions have now mostly morphed to freedom of choice arguments, and “god forbid - what if” argument scenarios for the narrow band of situations where it might be medically necessary. Another strategy used prior to the current legislation to certify “medical need” was a fairly prefunctory determination that the procedure was necessary for the mothers mental health.
The bottom line is that historically, PBAs have used for the most part, as late term birth control by mostly poor, disadvantaged or desperate women who did not take care of the situation earier for any one of a number of reasons. I’m generally pro-choice, but I’m not a big fan of PBA since it does involve killing, in a fairly gruesome fashion, what is in most cases, a nearly developed and perfectly healthy baby.
Partial-Birth Abortions: A Closer Look
[sub]
From the American Medical Association regarding the “health necessity” issue -
H-5.982 Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques.
[/sub]
[sub]
** WHAT?!
Okay, it’s now conclusive that you’re completely and utterly ignorant about any and all medical issues.
Medical science is incapable of determining when a fetus becomes a person without a definition of what a “person” is, and as yet no such definition has been suggested.
Idiot.
It seems clear to me that Crafter_Man felt that a “loophole” (a term I don’t like using) would be abused very highly, or perhaps all of the time in his opinion, but I saw nothing to support him showing misogyny or even implying that women would have abortions for “kicks”. And I say this as a generally pro-abortion rights / generally morally opposed to abortion conservative.
It’s a volatile issue, and I can understand you being upset at the opposing viewpoint, but let’s not demonize Crafter_Man for things he hasn’t said or done. I think your main beef is still valid, if he’s actually asserting that there is no medical cause, and that all abortions would be elective ones - thus, in his view, unnecessary and wrong. But it’s not really certain to my reading from what he wrote, and pending a dialogue in this thread I can’t draw that conclusion. Well, it doesn’t matter what I think, as my opinion is just that of One.
I believe you are completely full of shit because you, apparently, don’t bother to find out what the hell you are talking about before go off the deep end.
In point of fact, Crafterman is substantially correct with respect ot partial birth abortions. The following GQ thread which is less contentious and shorter than Astro’s GD thread.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=169238&highlight=partial+birth
The key quote is,
The consensus in that thread was that, absent extreme hydrocephalus, there are no possible physical health benefits to PBA over regular delivery, since the fetus has mostly been delivered anyway.
Crafterman’s opinion isn’t misogynistic in the least. You owe him an abject and groveling apology.
Zoe
If anything, the quote you provided highlights the case against partial birth abortions.
**
Translation: “I can’t think of single actual medical situations when a partial birth abortion might be necessary to protect the physical health of the mother. But dag nabit, you just never know what might happen. What if one of them alien abductees gits pregnant? The fate of the Earth could be at stake!”
Right. Medical procedures and drugs are banned all the time even though they may have some utility in some situtations. Dr. Blumenthal is being extremely disingenuous.