# Moral crusaders strike again! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 14, 2003, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231 "2003-03-14T01:49:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/21 "2003-03-14T08:32:05Z")
Oh, and I apologise for not providing a cite for the Dutch procedures: I was unable to find one in English. ---
**Author:** ![Essured](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Essured](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Essured)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/22 "2003-03-14T08:38:31Z")
**Coldfire,** I’m not sure if you’d consider the religious tolerance website to be biased, or in what direction it is biased, but I found the information [here](http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba.htm) of interest. YMMV As far as finding a website without _any_ pro or con slant, I doubt it. I’d be more inclined to read both sides, look for less biased sources (hint : like [religioustolerance.org](http://religioustolerance.org) which points out propoganda used by both sides of the debate) and make my own mind up, simply because I don’t think there is a non-biased site in existence… and if there was, how would you know it was the one that was unbiased ? ---
**Author:** ![xcheopis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bc8723/32.png) [@xcheopis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xcheopis)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/23 "2003-03-14T08:47:04Z")
Well, sort of. [This one](http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_online/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HOD/H-5.982.HTM) is from the AMA. Likewise, a [sister site](http://www.ama-assn.org/special/womh/library/readroom/vol_280a/jsc80006.htm) deals with the different types of abortion and has some excellent references at the bottom of the pate. The [ACLU](http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=4998&c=148) is not exactly unbiased but they do go into the politcs surrounding the procedure. Finally, President Clinton addressed this issue and had some [testimonials](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/abortion_veto_4-10.html) from women who had to undergo the procedure. ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/24 "2003-03-14T11:14:41Z")
Thanks for the links, guys. It would appear from [this part of the Religioustolerance.org site](http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm#why) that reliable data on the number of D&X procedures are not available. Still, this part did catch my eye: [quote] **3rd Trimester** : They are also performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:[ul][li]The fetus is dead. [_]The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman’s life in severe danger. [_]The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman’s health and/or disable her. [_]The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed hydrocephalus. [_]In addition, some physicians violate their state Medical Association’s regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.[/ul][/li][/quote] I’d say that last reason is the one we’re aiming at here. Surely, it could be argued that elective D&X procedures should be banned. If a woman is pregnant and wants to have an abortion, there are plenty of far more humane options when she decides to do so earlier in the pregnancy. Also: > [@](#): > > As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester. This means that 10% of all abortions take place after 16 weeks. I’m just using this guideline because that happens to be the cut-off date applied in the Netherlands (just checked with a friend of mine, who is a doctor), although abortions until the 21st week are allowed. **Diogenes** stated: > [@](#): > > Virtually all D and E’s are performed in the 2nd trimester. Only .02% of abortions are performed after 24 weeks… Well, just looking at the [Religioustolerance.org](http://Religioustolerance.org) cite shows me that he must be at least somewhat mistaken. > [@](#): > > D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. > … > D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. Unless Diogenes’ .02% refers to _all_ abortions, in which case I apologise for misunderstanding. But certainly not “virtually all” D&E’s are performed in the second trimester. They tend to happen later: perhaps for medical reasons, as explained, but possibly for non-medical reasons as well. It’s reliable data about the non-medical D&E’s we’re looking for. Unfortunately, such data appears not to exist. In any case, I think there is a good case to be made for outlawing the D&E procedure _unless medical reasons leave no other option_. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/25 "2003-03-14T14:16:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AHunter3 \* > \*\*When momcats have a litter of kittens, they are known to sniff and nudge and otherwise assess the newborns, and sometimes they decide for cat-reasons of their own that this or that one is not destined to be among the living; and she doesn’t clean off the membranes, and pushes it to one side, and nurses the others while that one dies. > \*\* And when cats of either sex catch a mouse or bird, they often carry it indoors where it can’t escape, and then bat it around for an extended period, because they find its reactions interesting, before killing it. …And this bears on ethical treatment of animals in what way? People aren’t cats. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/26 "2003-03-14T14:55:06Z")
**Coldfire** , The .02% _does_ refer to _all_ abortions. Notice that your cite from Religioustolerance specifies _late_ second trimester (after 21st week). Most D&E’s are performed between 18 and 21 weeks. The reason this particular method is used in 2nd trimester is because it is easier on the woman. The head of the fetus is of sufficient size after 18 weeks that it would cause significant discomfort in passing through the pelvis. The fetus is extracted feet first and then fluid is withdrawn from the head with a syringe in order to decrease its size. (The lurid pro-life image is that the fetus is “stabbed in the head with scissors”). Once agian, this procedure is only performed for compelling medical reasons, and it almost never happens past 24 weeks. (Just to clarify, I think that _all_ third trimester abortions are D&E, but that hardly. any abortions are third trimester. So, as I said before. Almost all D&E’s are second trimester) There may be a handful of doctors who violate their own oath of ethics by performing purely elective abortions at very late stages, but they are exceedingly rare. There are far more doctors who abuse their ability to writw prescriptions than who perform off the reservation abortions, but we’re not trying to make it illegal to write prescriptions. The language in the current bill does not allow an exception for the health of the woman, which means that the government is now trying to make medical decisons which could hurt or kill women solely in the service of a largely symbolic and politically pandering ban on a procedure which affects almost no one to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![Janie\_Jones](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/13edae/32.png) [@Janie\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Janie_Jones)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/27 "2003-03-14T15:08:43Z")
I think **AHunter3** ’s point was that biological reproduction, be it feline or human, is a messy business and is sometimes not the perfect procedure that we’d like it to be. Sometimes, things go wrong in the process (trisomy, encephalomalacic fetuses, etc.) that call for difficult and not so pretty decisions to be made. Yet they have to be made. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/28 "2003-03-14T15:34:32Z")
**Janie Jones** : Understood, but my point was, if we start arguing that such-and-such an animal does so-and-so in this instance, we might as well argue likewise in any number of cases, and I don’t think it’s helpful. My own $0.02-worth: The procedure described _sounds_ extremely cruel and unusual, whether you call it “partial-birth abortion” or by a TLA that sounds less horrible. I am heavily on the pro-life side of this fence; but I know that I am not equipped with any argument that is more compelling than any of the others that are being advanced on this subject, and I don’t intend to throw my hat in the ring - other than when I see bad analogies being used. ---
**Author:** ![furlibusea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@furlibusea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furlibusea)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/29 "2003-03-14T15:46:54Z")
I was born a few weeks early, back in the days before abortion was alowed. Conciquently, my mother was in the hospital for an extra couple of weeks. One of the women who shared her room was there to have a dead baby. I don’t know if the fetus was already dead, or if just was not going to be able to live once it was born. My mother describes the situation as horible, this poor women was there watching me getting stronger and better day by day and all the relatives and excitement surrounding a first grandchild, and this poor women just had to wait till it was time to give birth to a dead child. My mother is uncomfortable with abortion, but she says in this instance no one should go through what this women did, and people that insist on making it happen are evil. I have no way to cite this, I am sorry. I would also like to suggest that people realy need to quit thinking of extreemly suicidal as just having a bad day. This is not “gee I don’t want to have a baby after all.” Severe depression can be a fatal illness. It is not a moral failing or a weekness. I have no Idea how many of these procedures are done in these instances, but I have to suspect that the cases where this would be a good solution, or even a viable treatment are extreemly rare. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/30 "2003-03-14T17:22:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*The Supreme Court will strike it down, but what a sleazy, scummy thing for the republicans to try to do. \*\* geez…it was only [two months ago](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=157658&perpage=50&pagenumber=3) that you said… \*\* > [@](#): > > It is a failing of mine that I tend to lose my cool and my reason when it comes to these abortion threads. I am perfectly capable of engaging in cool and rational debates with people who completely disagree with me without blowing my stack or disliking the other person. In fact, it’s the reason I love SDMB. Bullshit doesn’t fly here and it keeps me on my toes. When it comes to abortion, though, it’s like a red flag at a bull. > > \ > > When threads like these pop up, I always try to avoid them for a while because I know I get too upset to think clearly. I post a lot of things just to bait or antagonize the other side, and then later, after I calm down, I realize that I went too far. \*\* Time between OP and your reply less than 30 minutes. :dubious: * * * Getting an accurate read on PBAs is difficult for a variety of reasons (for example…unreporting, or flat out lies in some circumstances) Even Guttmacher admits that > [@](#): > > There are few authoritative data to support claims regarding how many late-term abortions are performed, and little understanding of the complexities involved in securing such data. This Issues in Brief describes how abortion data are obtained, what they consist of and why they have inherent limitations. There was a thread about this a few months ago sparked by [this](http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030114-75792581.htm) The notion that PBAs are primarily done to save the life of the mother is [not](http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html) true. (Yes the web site is pro life…the quotes are from abortion providers though) Even the AMA had previously voted to [ban](http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/05/20/abortion.ama/index.html) the procedure. I had posted this in that earlier thread… > [@](#): > > The September 17, 1996 edition of the Washington Post (unfortunately not online) contained the results of an investigation conducted by staff writers Barbara Vobejda and David M. Brown, M.D., who interviewed several abortionist providers (not those in New Jersey), and concluded: > > “It is possible-- and maybe even likely-- that the majority of these [partial-birth] abortions are performed on normal fetuses, not on fetuses suffering genetic or other developmental abnormalities. Furthermore, in most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy… Instead, the “typical” patients tend to be young, low-income women, often poorly educated or naive, whose reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical.” For more info on lies associated with PBAs…google “Ron Fitzsimmons lies” (Slate, the online site, had an extensive bit about it that appears to not be available now) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/31 "2003-03-14T17:42:46Z")
> [@](#): > > **Beagledave** said: > Time between OP and your reply less than 30 minutes. I’ve also completely avoided probably a half dozen other abortion threads since then. I responded to this one since it involves legislation. There is no such thing as “partial birth abortion,” please use the correct terminology. Do you deny that only .02% of abortions are performed in the third trimester? Do you deny that 90% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester? Do think that that a woman has the right to abort a fetus if her health is endangered? If you object to the D&E procedure _per se_, then what procedure would you replace it with? Do you have a single, verifiable cite (not from a pro-life site) that third trimester abortions are ever performed solely for elective reasons? No one said that D&E’s are only performed to save the life of the mother. It has been stated that they are performed for compelling medical reasons, and they are. Hypothetical question: If a woman is informed at 19 weeks that her fetus is severely deformed and will not survive to term. Furthermore, if she continues to carry the fetus, she could do irreparable damage to her uterus and not be able to have children in the future. This will also cause her great physical pain. Does the woman have the right to terminate the pregnancy or does the government have the right to force her carry a doomed fetus anyway, and to hell with her health and her pain? ---
**Author:** ![Briny\_Deep](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/briny_deep/32/17188_2.png) [@Briny\_Deep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Briny_Deep)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/32 "2003-03-14T17:44:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*The fetus is extracted feet first and then fluid is withdrawn from the head with a syringe in order to decrease its size. (The lurid pro-life image is that the fetus is “stabbed in the head with scissors”). \*\* Like **Malacandra** , I’m on the pro-life side of the fence, but don’t consider myself really equipped to participate in the argument. However: **Diogenes** , I don’t see how your language is better. It’s less lurid, to be sure, but in fact, scissors are sometimes used (according to the religious tolerance site). When I use scissors, or any sharp object, to punch a hole in something, “stabbed” is an appropriate term. Your term “fluid is withdrawn” makes the issue less clear, not more so. I’m just suggesting that if the image of the procedure is distressing to large numbers of people, perhaps there’s a real reason. The tactic of the pro-choice side seems to be, often, to merely weaken the language to give it less meaning, to keep people from reacting badly when they would, in fact, react badly if plain clear language were used. Take your choice of “fluid” anyway. Were you referring only to hydroencephalics, or does “fluid” sometimes mean “brains” - a more descriptive term, and not particularly “lurid”? I believe the use of “fluid” - and I’m not attacking you in particular, **Dio** , but the rhetoric of the pro-choice movement in general - is designed to be vague and neutral; it reminds me of a glass of water, or a gas. Could be anything, really. “Blood” or “Brains” are actually more descriptive, better terms. Not “lurid”. (By the way, I also see your point. Lurid, inflammatory language has been used, to be sure, the other side going nuts with emotional terms designed to freak out the listener. But calling brains “brains”, scissors “scissors”, and stab “stab” is just being clear. If one supports this thing, I think one ought to have the courage to use ordinary plain language when defending it.) ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/33 "2003-03-14T17:49:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Coldfire \* > \*\*No offense, **Diogenes** - but your cite is a _pro_-abortion one. You can’t knock **Heloise** ’s cite for being slanted, and then provide a slanted one yourself. \*\* Just a minor nitpick here, **Coldfire**. I’m sure you porbably realise this anyway, but i thought it bore repeating: pro-choice **does not equal** pro-abortion I’m strongly pro-choice, but i don’t consider myself pro-abortion. That is, i would prefer a world where abortion were not necessary; a world where adequate contraception, appropriate sex education, an absence of sex offenders, and some forethought on the part of those having sex meant that unwanted pregnancies were kept to a minimum. But, unfortunately, we don’t have such a world, and until we do, i support a woman’s right to choose. I fully agree with you that the earlier a woman decides on abortion, the better. Better medically, better psychologically and, as this threead seems to demonstrate, better politically (or at least, less controversial). To a certain extent, i agree with your statement that: > [@](#): > > I think there is a good case to be made for outlawing the D&E procedure unless medical reasons leave no other option. But, in that same post, where you were concerned about elective D&E, the citation that you gave said that third trimester D&E procedures are mainly performed on “women who are suicidally depressed.” In my book, this constitutes a pretty good medical reason. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/34 "2003-03-14T18:03:05Z")
**Masonite** , the fluid is extracted from the skull, itself, not from the brain (not that it matters. It does _not_ typically involve “scissors” no matter what you may have read elsewhere. Maybe the language doesn’t matter much, but no one is trying to argue for _elective_ D&E’s, we jsut want to preserve the right of doctors and patients to use the procedure under extreme circumstances. Ironically, the very rare instances where 2nd trimester D&E’s are performed electively (it virtually never happens in the third trimester, and if it does, those doctors are violating medical ethics) are often cases where a first trimester abortion has been impeded or delayed by other anti-abortion laws such as waiting periods, parental consent for teenagers, etc. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/35 "2003-03-14T18:25:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*I’ve also completely avoided probably a half dozen other abortion threads since then. I responded to this one since it involves legislation. > \*\* WOW. So the reasons that you used to suggest that it’s not a great idea for you to participate in abortion debates, don’t apply to abortion debates that also involve legislation? Ok… :dubious: > [@](#): > > \*\* > There is no such thing as “partial birth abortion,” please use the correct terminology. \*\* Hmmm…reads OP…notes use of term “partial term abortion” by a pro choice poster…notes that YOU, the first person to respond to the OP, did NOT “correct” that poster’s use of the term. Hypocricy much? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Do you deny that only .02% of abortions are performed in the third trimester? \*\* I believe that number of third trimester abortions is relatively small. I belive that arriving at actual numbers is somewhat difficult (due to the reasons outlined by Guttmacher) > [@](#): > > \*\* > Do you deny that 90% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester? \*\* I’ll accept that the vast majority (over 75%) are performed in the first twelve weeks… > [@](#): > > \*\* > Do think that that a woman has the right to abort a fetus if her health is endangered? \*\* In the exceedingly rare instances where the life of the mother hangs in the balance, I could accept abortion. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If you object to the D&E procedure _per se_, then what procedure would you replace it with? \*\* Well …you DO realize that the legislation INCLUDES a life of the mother exception…so I’m not sure what you’re referring to here? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Do you have a single, verifiable cite (not from a pro-life site) that third trimester abortions are ever performed solely for elective reasons? \*\* 1. The Washington Post piece I cited earlier. 2. The American Medical News (paper of the AMA) In 1993, the American Medical News-- the official newspaper of the AMA-- conducted a tape-recorded interview with Dr. Martin Haskell concerning this specific abortion method, in which he said: “And I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.” > [@](#): > > \*\* > Hypothetical question: If a woman is informed at 19 weeks that her fetus is severely deformed and will not survive to term. Furthermore, if she continues to carry the fetus, she could do irreparable damage to her uterus and not be able to have children in the future. This will also cause her great physical pain. > > Does the woman have the right to terminate the pregnancy or does the government have the right to force her carry a doomed fetus anyway, and to hell with her health and her pain? \*\* Before I play the hypothetical game…do you have an instance where a woman is actually informed at 19 weeks that “the fetus is severly deformed and will definitely not survive till term”…and that she will do “irreparable harm to herself” by continuing the pregnancy? ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/36 "2003-03-14T18:28:00Z")
**mhendo** , your clarification on pro-choice vs. pro-abortion is duely noted. I did not mean for it to appear any other way. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mhendo \* > \*\*But, in that same post, where you were concerned about elective D&E, the citation that you gave said that third trimester D&E procedures are mainly performed on “women who are suicidally depressed.” In my book, this constitutes a pretty good medical reason. \*\* I disagree. If a woman is suicidally depressed, but carrying a healthy baby in the third tremester, she should be institiutionalised until the baby is born. After that, the problem becomes two separate ones: a suicidal problem and a baby that needs better care than the mother can give it, but we can’t decide the baby is not going to live just because its mother doesn’t want to live herself. It’s not a win-win situation, and I don’t envy the road the baby has ahead of it, _but it has a right to live_. **Diogenes** , I don’t think anyone here is suggesting D&E’s be outlawed outright - as demonstrated, the procedure can be a viable one in cases of extreme danger to the mother’s health. But as long as there’s uncertainty about the possibility of doctors using the procedure for elective abortions (that, let’s face it, where decided upon far too late), the debate over the procedure is a valid one. I hate to toot the Dutch horn again, but abortion has been legal here since 1981. The surrounding legislation is more mature than the US counterpart, and it could be argued that there’s probably plenty of good reasons for a cut-off date of 21 weeks for elective abortions, from a moral and medical perspective. As stated, I could not find a site that stated the D&E procedure as a standard for abortions in the Netherlands (this doesn’t mean that they don’t occur: I’m sure they do for the medical reasons already discussed). As long as it’s not clearly defined in US law what the limitations of elective abortions are, the debate can and must be held active. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/37 "2003-03-14T19:09:03Z")
> [@](#): > > **Beagledave** said: > In the exceedingly rare instances where the life of the mother hangs in the balance, I could accept abortion. What about the _health_ of the woman. Should a woman be forced to endure, for instance, a ruptured uterus? > [@](#): > > Well …you DO realize that the legislation INCLUDES a life of the mother exception…so I’m not sure what you’re referring to here? It does not include an exception for the _health_ of the mother, so the legislation violates the woman’s civil rights. What I actually meant by the question though was this, the legislation does not forbid late term abortion _per se_ it just forbids the use of the D&E procedure. Since D&E is the safest procedure for the mother, what alternative abortion procedure should now replace D&E’s in late term abortions? > [@](#): > > **Coldfire** said: > Diogenes, I don’t think anyone here is suggesting D&E’s be outlawed outright - as demonstrated, the procedure can be a viable one in cases of extreme danger to the mother’s health. That’s just it, Coldy, it does _not_ include an exception for health, just for 'life," which is often a subjective call by the physician. > [@](#): > > But as long as there’s uncertainty about the possibility of doctors using the procedure for elective abortions (that, let’s face it, where decided upon far too late), the debate over the procedure is a valid one. Ther_is_ no uncertainty in third trimester abortions, and let me reiterate, this bill does not ban late term abortion, it only bans one particular _method_ of abortion…the safest one. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/38 "2003-03-14T19:20:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*What about the _health_ of the woman. Should a woman be forced to endure, for instance, a ruptured uterus? \*\* If you are asking which I would assign a higher priority to …I would assign a higher priority to the life of the fetus over the (as you phrased it) non life threatening ruptured uterus of the woman. Of course you also realize that there are plenty of self identified “pro choice” folks on these boards and elsewhere who would “force the woman to endure a ruptured fetus” in the third trimester…since they oppose 3rd trimester abortions except for the life of the mother? > [@](#): > > \*\* > What I actually meant by the question though was this, the legislation does not forbid late term abortion _per se_ it just forbids the use of the D&E procedure. Since D&E is the safest procedure for the mother, what alternative abortion procedure should now replace D&E’s in late term abortions? \*\* If you’re asking pro life beagledave to come up with an “acceptable” abortion procedure…sorry, no. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/39 "2003-03-14T19:29:11Z")
> [@](#): > > **beagledave** said: > If you’re asking pro life beagledave to come up with an “acceptable” abortion procedure…sorry, no. I understand this, beagle, but the reality is that 2nd term abortions are going to continue and this legislation would now make them less safe? Does that bother you at all? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231/40 "2003-03-14T19:40:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by panmarblic \* > \*\*“immoral”? “heinous”? “a culture of life”? WTF? I have long accepted the fact people will see things differently, and we all want others to see things our way. But I hate how conservatives portray liberal thoughts as somehow wrong or immoral, as if liberals are less human. Look, I respect your opinions, and the least you can do is to respect me. \*\* I am pro-choice. My personal view is that if one is going to kill a fetus, then using an icky method doesn’t matter. However, I credit people on the other side with good-will. After all, partial birth abortion looks a lot like killing a new-born baby. So, I can understand why some people find it heinous and immoral. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-crusaders-strike-again/161231.md?page=3)