Well, what can I say here? I post proof that you base your conclusion on erroneous information, you demand a cite. I give it to you, you ignore it and continue to post your original point. Why even bother asking for the cite? You are still posting erroneous information, namely that partial birth abortion is rarely done for any other reason than to save the life of a mother, or to abort a fetus that is non-viable outside the womb. I’m not talking about the percentage of this compared to other abortions. I’m talking about this procedure itself. The doctors themselves admit that they rarely do it in the instances you’ve insisted they almost always do it. I would think that they would be in a slightly better position to judge.
I’m not concentrating on this to the exclusion of other, more common methods (though I don’t think it’s nearly as rare as you think it is). I’m pointing out that your information on this particular subject is not accurate. Third time now: all methods of abortion are equal, though this is a bit more cruel to the infant than the others.
Okay I apologise for that example… but how about this then,
In Vancouver BC, A Public Transit bus was forced to stop at the top of a steep hill. The hill was far too icey for the bus to safely tranverse it. The passengers were disembarking said bus to get into Transit vehicles… A woman slipped. she hurt herself. ‘She sued Transit because the driver had not said. Careful. It’s slippery’ She won.
But that is beside the point. I think it was apparent what I was getting at and while the counter-example I used may not have been the best… it was understood.
Right - leading me to believe that “PBA” is more humane than the alternative.
I hope you did that on purpose.
Again, get your facts straight. Check out this thread for the Straight Dope on the coffee incident.
All of which has next to nothing to do with late term abortions, the vast majority of which are not done on a “whim”, but rather for the reasons Satan stated. It’s not a “significant contributor” at all.
In 1996, a total of 1,221,585 abortions were reported. Younger women were more likely to obtain an abortion later in gestation. Marital status, level of education, availability and accessibility of services, timing of confirmation of pregnancy or confounding circumstances, level of fear and denial of pregnancy all contributed to the timing of the abortion decision.
Of the 1,221,585 abortions, the age of the fetus and type of method were known in 615,281 cases. Of those, 578,189 took place prior to 16 weeks lmp. That’s 94%. Of the remaining 27,000-odd cases, the vast majority were performed by D&E, induction, hysterectomy or hysterotomy. No independent data on “PBA” were collected, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the annual number is under 500. As Satan said, statistically insignificant (.08% of 615,281 and .04% of 1,221,585) and, for the most part, necessary and not “elective”.
These figures, btw, are from Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which can be found at the CDC’s site, which I am too tired to look up right now.
Everyone is so wrapped up in fetuses here. I’m sure a helluva lot of people are going to dislike me for my beliefs here, but here I go…
Unborn fetuses don’t disgust me. No matter how bloody and ripped up they are on those posters. I mean, c’mon people. Realize this…they’re just a mass of cells. They are unconcious. They aren’t any more alive than the flowers you pick from your backyard. In fact, none of us are. I think we need to get over ourselves here. Life isn’t life without death. See, I tend to look at things from a purely biological perspective. If something dies, there’s really no big deal. Now human society makes it a big deal. Heck, I’d be upset if a family member or pet died. But a fetus? It’s not even concious yet. The only people that death will affect are immediate family members and friends. So why does every other person in the US care??? None of them would even KNOW about that particular abortion.
So all the pro life people…it has nothing to do with you. And I don’t think it is fair for you to make a descision for someone you don’t even know exists. You don’t know how your descision will affect that person. You will only know how it affects yourself. And that, for lack of a better term, is selfish.
What, that women have control over their own bodies and reproductive systems? Yeah, that’s a real concern to me…
**
Woo boy! Are you an ignorant one… You don’t know a fucking thing about that case, do you…
**
Much better to have tons of unwanted babies and make people who do not want to be parents have to do so. I mean, the kids who are born are going to such great parents as it is anyway. Let’s make people raise more.
What exactly have you done to help this problem, buddy? I’ll bet nothing more than hold one of them signs or something similarly ineffective.
**
It’s demeaning that you would demand that people look at their babies as “mistakes” and “punishment” just to prove a point.
**
Does this mean that if you were to amputate your little toes, that we would have a funeral and stuff? After all, according to you, that’s all we need for human-hood and all the rightts that come with it.
I think doctors who perform amputations are MURDERERS!
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, four weeks, one day, 1 hour, 3 minutes and 34 seconds.
8481 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,060.22.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 1 day, 10 hours, 45 minutes.
You gave me a cite. And then, Cantrip (who I am quickly growing to like very much) gave you the cite that I asked you for showing you how statistically insignificant this is, and you also cannot comment upon what I said because you know it is true.
So there were a few possibly “purely elective” late-term abortions which happened? Well, compare this to the number of actual human beings who would have died had the procedure been outlawed because people think it’s “icky.”
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, four weeks, one day, 1 hour, 8 minutes and 34 seconds.
8481 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,060.24.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 1 day, 10 hours, 45 minutes.
The article you cited is highly biased, and the information is somewhat suspect. Furthermore, most physicians who perform late term abortions will perform some sort of intact D&E, but not necessarily the ACOG definition. So, the statistics cited in that article are not particularly helpful.
Terminating a pregnancy at any stage is generally not an easy decision to make, whether early or late in the pregnancy.
In general, women do not make this decision lightly (see the cites I posted earlier, particularly the Gans-Epner article). When they do make it, this method, which may be easier for the physician to learn and may cause less suffering for the woman (and, presumably, for the fetus - I still think it’s substantially less cruel to the infant than dismemberment), should be available. The right-to-life lobby has seized upon this artificial distinction (between intact and non-intact D&E) precisely because it lends itself to sound bites and horrific pictures, not because one is any less medically sound than the other.
That said, there are more emergencies with fewer options the later in pregnancy a complication arises. To remove this method from the physician’s quiver is much more likely to have a negative effect in an emergency precisely because the options are fewer, and I think that supports Satan’s point as well.
No where in here did you ask for statistical significance. You asked for proof of what I had said, which I gave you.
I will agree, statistically speaking partial birth abortion is insignifcant compared to other methods of abortion. But that wasn’t what I was speaking to. I was speaking to your assertion that this particular method was used only in instances where the mother is in danger or where the fetus is not viable. (How many times do I have to say this?)
And, yet again, an abortion is an abortion is an abortion. I don’t favor or vilify one method over another. So please, stop lumping me in with the rest of the nutjob right-to-lifers, okay? My thoughts and feelings on this issue are the result of much research (including speaking with several highly respected perinatalogists – I work [in a non-clinical capacity] for the most prestigious medical foundation in the world) and much soul-searching. I do not condemn, I do not preach, I do not impose my views on anyone else. I work towards giving women real options to abortion. And when the decision has been made, even one I disagree with, you will not find a more compassionate person than me.
However, at the end of the day I am, and always will be, pro-life.
I asked for something which would back up that I was totally wrong. Go back farther. My only error was saying “never” in the colloquial form instead of saying “hardly ever overwhelmingly.”
You will notice that I never said anything bad about your cite. I simply countered with a question. Since you seem to have a problem recalling this, I will repeat it:
Now, I even answered the question for you. I said, "That percentage is absoltely tiny. And statistically meaningless. "
Now Cantrip actually DID get those stats. I shan’t C&P them again, you can scroll up and find them your own self. It affirms what I was saying all along about this procedure, something YOU have yet to admit in your battle of semantics.
**
I do hope you realize that I amended my coloquial use of the word “never” - you know, like if I were to say “Amulet NEVER made any sense,” when in fact, you just did so rarely - in this time. I also commented about how this number, a statistically insignificant number at that, was better to bear than to deal with the many women who would die from complications or from illegal and unsafe abortions if they were outlawed entirely.
I guess you don’t recall this either…
**
Nope. To your kind, all abortion is first degree murder, right? Nevermind that a woman might die of a complication because of her fetus. Nevermind that sometimes a fetus does not develop correctly and the woman goves birth to a turnip. Nevermind the victims of rape, incest or simple misfortune.
Nope. All abortion is the same. Ban it all. All of the problems will just go away.
Are you really that fucking naive? Or are you honestly this stupid?
**
You mean like ones who would say, “an abortion is an abortion is an abortion?”
**
Right now, you seem hell-bent on making a procedure which is OVERWHELMINGLY DONE to save lives illegal because you think it’s yucky.
What option does one have when a doctor says, “You are in danger of dying?”
**
Which is totally conflicting with your statements that all aboritons are the same.
Which means you want all abortions outlawed. Which is not compassion - unless you have more compassion for a blood clot than a scared teenager…
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, four weeks, one day, 2 hours, 59 minutes and 2 seconds.
8484 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,060.62.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 1 day, 11 hours, 0 minutes.
Satan, get real. When I said ‘an abortion is an abortion is an abortion’, I was referring to the methods. Either way, the end result is the same. The life is terminated, the woman is no longer pregnant. I have said it twice directly:
From another post:
Please, point me to anywhere I said that partial birth abortion should be illegal. Please point me to anywhere I said that I think all abortion should be outlawed. Since you won’t be able to, I think I’m done here. You see “pro-life” and you have to fit me into your stereotype. Nice.
If you want to rant about the ways people express their opinions about abortion in the Pit then fine.
If you are going to debate abortion in the Pit, that’s not fine.
As an additional note I will say that as a rule I don’t like moving Pit threads into GD. So if you’d like to contribute something to an abortion debate, please start a thread there or dig up one that’s been dormant for a while.
Make your closing arguments. This thread may be closed very soon.
Well, obviously there isn’t one Christian organization, but at the same time people will tend to develop biases towards the Baptists, or the Catholics, or whomever, based upon their experiences. And of course it’s suspect; it’s a stereotype. Of course, it’s one that may be based a little more on experience and reality than most, but it’s a stereotype all the same.
Again, I think we are pretty much in agreement on this; it’s not right, but it’s reality; worth fighting against, but also worth acknowledging. All I’m saying is that this one guy showing off his bloody fetus photos tends to reflect badly on Christian organizations as a whole–even if only a little bit–because many of the anti-choice groups are Christian, and because the image of a guy with a bloody sign will stick in the mind a good bit more than the more mundane things a church does to benefit others.
The point being, as far as many of us are concerned, this is hurting his cause and alienating people.
I thought I’d point out that the dumbass above didn’t bother to read my entire post or took the above quote out of context.
To clarify for the cranially challenged, there is no monolithic “Christian” organization, like there is a “PETA” organization…there are LOTS of groups that can be describe as Christian… In a similar vein, there is no monolithic “Liberal” organization…there are LOTS of groups that can be described as liberal… .I don’t know anybody who would say, “Hi, I’m Bob…and I’m a member of the Liberal Organization” …same thing with “Christian”
If you were to say that his actions do not help the “pro life” movement or pro life organizations (which includes Christians, Jews, atheists etc…)…like the OP did, I could agree with that statement.
Well, I refuse to call it “pro-life”, because I do not belive that it is an accurate description of the cause. But that’s a bit of another issue.
My point is that, in the public consciousness, Christian organizations tend to be the groups most associated with the anti-choice movement. Obviously one nutcase doing anything isn’t going to cause a massive sway in public opinion, but of course there’s an effect.
Suppose this guy has a Jesus fish and a bumper sticker or two on his truck; he just associated Christianity with the anti-choice “crusade”. But of course he likely doesn’t have anything indicating which denomination he is (most of the stickers are pretty generic “I like Jesus” type stuff). So, in some (admittedly very small) way, he has linked Christianity to anti-choice. This is pretty straightforward–if you put two images/ ideas together often enough, people will eventually start to associate them with one another.
No, I stand by my statemenst that it DOES reflect poorly on Christians, and ONLY Christians, whether fairly or unfairly, and the existance of a monolithic Christian organization is not neccessary for this extrapolation to occur. It shouldn’t reflect poorly on all Christians. But that doesn’t change the fact that it does.
Well the OP did not mention any Christian stickers on the truck. If it had, my response would be different. What, are we making up hypotheticals as we go along…? Fine…if he has an NRA sticker on the truck, does he link gun owners? IF he has a Bush/Cheney sticker on the truck, does he link Republicans? Ih he has one of those Semper Fi marine stickers, does he link the Marines…or an Elks Lodge sticker …or a Soccer Ball symbol…etc
When you hear about the idiotic PETA campaigns (Got Beer? etc…) do you automatically associate their actions with liberalism in general and think that they have given liberalism a bad name (after all, I’d venture that 90% or more of PETA members ARE left of center)?..Unless you’re Rush Limbaugh, I’m guessing you don’t. This kind of broad sweeping association is exactly the kind of stuff Limbaugh does…it’s annoying when it’s done by conservatives, it’s annoying when it’s done by liberals.
