Perhaps I jumped the gun in calling him a misogynist. However, I still find him to be an ass.
That being said, I certainly do NOT think that PBAs should be available as elective procedures. BUT, they should be allowed for doctors to do when there is no other alternative.
IF there is no other alternative.
So what you’re saying then is, partial birth abortions for some, little American flags for others?
Guin, your position, in theory, is very reasonable. However, in practice, I think PBA’s will be used when there are alternatives available.
It might not be right to ban them (the illegal alternative could be worse), but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that they’ll never be used improperly.
Guin, in what cases would there be no alternative but a PBA?
I still can’t get anyone to tell me of a case in which a PBA is necessary …
To be fair, I believe Crafter_Man did start a (now gone) GD thread a couple years back asserting that things would be better if women didn’t have the right to vote. That’s kind of misogynist.
<sigh>
I’ve only said this about 800 times.
In some cases of hydrocephalus, a PBA would be necessary.
The head can swell to as much as 50 cm in diameter. The baby must be delivered breech and a PBA must be performed inorder to get the head out.
From this site:
So you agree that there are cases where there are physical health benefits (hydrocephalus)?
Also, the “key quote” you posted from that thread shows a misunderstanding of the procedure. The head has not “emerged from the vagina” in a D&X - the whole point of the procedure is to minimize unnecessary trauma to the cervix by not delivering an intact head for a baby that’s going to die anyway.
Nope. Translation (from the AMA, as quoted by Astro):
[quote]
The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient.
And as you can see from posts above, you have been given a clear example.
Thank you for the cite, alice.
This has surely got to be a misprint, right?
In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter.
I just measured mine and it’s about 23 inches. My 3 year old’s is about 19 and a half.
I was thinking that maybe they meant the average infant’s head is 7 to 8 inches, but that can’t possibly be right either:
http://www.genome.gov/10004977
So I’m wondering what’s up with this.
The head has not “emerged from the vagina” in a D&X - the whole point of the procedure is to minimize unnecessary trauma to the cervix by not delivering an intact head for a baby that’s going to die anyway.
Okay. We want to minimize unnecessary trauma to the cervix, so we’re gonna let the woman stay in labor for a while and let the baby’s head get far enough down that we can do a D&X (after the feet and most of the body have already passed through it)? A 20 inch head is most certainly going to press on the cervix. IANAD, but I can’t see why this would be preferable to doing a c-section if what you’re looking to do is protect the cervix.
Because a C-section leaves a woman open for infection and other nasty stuff. A C-section may be routine, but it’s also very hard on a woman.
Good god, caesarians are NOT the answer to everything!
Snoopy they’re trying to avoid a c-section. There’s larger risks inherent to any major surgery, so, since there’s absolutely no chance that the baby will survive, you then take the route that has less chance to the mother which is most emphatically not a c-section.
Heh. You might want to look up the definition of “diameter”. 
Unless you and your kid look like the Peanuts gang, what you probably measured was circumference.
Hey, wait a minute…big heads, Peanuts gang…your name is SnoopyFan…Was that supposed to be a joke?:dubious:
'Cause if I just got whooshed, I’m gonna kick over your supper dish.
Thanks for the support, Una. And you’re right, I do not believe women have abortions “for kicks.” Sadly, it’s a very traumatic experience for most women.
BTW: Did you ever make use of that spreadsheet that solved the 3rd order equation?
We live in a hyperlitigious society. People will use every legal maneuver imaginable to get what they want. Case in point: the Insanity Defense. How many times have you heard, “Your honor, my client murdered him while he was watching football in his pajamas because she was temporarily insane”?
If you allow partial birth abortions only to “protect the health of the mother,” then all partial birth abortions will be classified as such. It will be just another checkbox on the form:
“Ma’am, if you do not receive this partial birth abortion, do you have reason to believe your mental health will be adversely affected?”
“Yes.”
“O.K. then. Please sign here, and I’ll show you the way to the examination room.”
And that is precisely why Barber Boxer wants “an exception for the health of the mother” in a partial abortion law. She’s savvy enough to know that an exception of this type will render the law irrelevant.
Now an exception for the life of the mother is a little more difficult to substantiate. But clever lawyers will figure out a way to get around it. You can count on it.
BTW: You might be surprised to know that I’m against the partial birth abortion ban signed by Bush.
Let’s start with Alice’s cite. The actual midwifery site where the quote came from goes on to say regarding PBAs required by severe fetal hydrocephaly,
**
http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/hydrceph.html
Estimates of number of PBAs performed in the U.S., however, are on the order of 3000 per year.
Indeed, the site Alice offers includes several justifications for PBAs apart from severe hydrocephaly including,
**
This is the one that bothers so many people. I’ll say this once and slowly. Everybody ought to get it because it has NOTHING to do with specialized medical knowledge.
For a normal fetus, a PBA has NO physical benefits to the mother over a completed delivery because a PBA only takes place after the “birth” is almost complete.
When a PBA occurs, the fetus/baby is literally half-delivered. Indeed, it is logical to suspect that a PBA actually poses more physical risk to the mother than a completed delivery. How can it not be more dangerous to physically prevent birth while poking various sharp instruments into the birth canal?
**
If you read the thread, I believe that you’ll see that particular quote was addressing the Senate’s defintion of PBA which also included a “head first” delivery.
[quote]
**Nope. Translation (from the AMA, as quoted by Astro):
**
Actually, Zoe, I cited the clear example myself. Read the rest of Astro’s cite e.g. “Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery.” Drs. shouldn’t be making decisions off the top of their heads. If you can’t find any actual conditions or instances discussed in the literature necessitating a PBA of a healthy fetus, that’s good evidence there aren’t any and better evidence that an obstetrician exercising good professional judgement shouldn’t perform them if the only issue is the mother’s physical health.
I’d even be willing to compromise and outlaw third-trimester PBAs of normal fetuses. But I bet most of the people most strenuously fighting to defend PBAs wouldn’t accept such a compromise. This thing about needing the procedure “just in case” is pretty transparent since Dr. Blumenthal & Co. can’t actually foresee any medical justification.
The real issue, of course, has nothing to do with protecting the mother’s physical health. The real issue is the “mental health” prong. Absent severe fetal deformity, the risk to the mother isn’t the pregnancy, it’s having the baby. PBA “treats” that problem. Live birth doesn’t.
Now if people want to argue that it’s perfectly OK to decide you just don’t want the baby right up until the umbilical cord is cut, that’s fine. But make that argument. Don’t try to dress it up as some heroic struggle to save the mother’s life in which the fetus, unfortunately, must be sacrificed. Mostly, it’s not. Even if a minority of PBAs are necessary because of severe fetal hydrocephaly, Crafterman is neither a misogynist nor an “ass” for making the argument he did.
Oh, and by the way, IIRC, it was Senor Beef who argued that women shouldn’t be able to vote.
Aye! There’s the rub! The difference between your “mostly” and Crafterman’s “none.” And it is that difference that makes the doctor’s input a must. In those cases Congress has no right to practice medicine. Because of that, who is to determine when those “extraordinary circumstances” mentioned by the AMA apply?
Again, I am pro-choice and anti-abortion. I am especially opposed to what is commonly known as late term abortion procedures unless it is to preserve the life and health of the mother.
I hate to see the words mental illness put in quotation marks as if it weren’t a real or legitimate reason. Just for the record, mental illness can be considered in protecting the life of the mother and not just the health. That was true prior to *Roe v Wade.
Truth Seeker said:
Maybe he did too, but I’m pretty sure the argument I’m talking about was advanced by Crafter_Man. The argument was that since women were more likely to vote liberal, and liberal administrations make the country worse, it would therefore be better for the country if women were not permitted to vote.
If I am mistaken, I apologize. It was certainly not something that I would like to be held responsible for.
blush
I never was any good at math …
Look, is it so wrong to say, hey, let’s make sure that we’re not totally cutting off the only option in an emergency? Is that so bad?