Believe it or not, some girls do lie about such things. A girl in my high school told a long and intricate tale about how her parents had forced her to abort. Not a word of it was true.
Not al newborns survive either, and not all two-month-olds survive. By your logic, defining birth to be the acceptable threshold is also arbitrary, and one may as well set 30 days after birth as the defining moment at which the born child deserves protection. In fact, Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton University does make such an argument, as he recognizes that there is nothing about the birth process which magically imbues the fetus with humanity or personhood.
The possibility of non-survival is a piss poor reason to justify kililng anyone.
And as a result of Doe v. Bolton, the term “health” was defined so broadly as to encompass even mere emotional distress. So arguing that the mother’s “health” was in danger effectively proves nothing. Even the Senate Judiciary Committee came to the same conclusion.
Moreover, it is untrue that “partial birth abortion” is not a medical term. This term is used by both Medline and the Harvard Medical School. In fact, the terms preferred by pro-choicers – conveniently sanitized jargon such as “intact dilation and extraction” – are in accurate, for reasons explained here.
JT
Which is precisely why I said:
I am also willing to contend that human rights need not be bestowed on newborns, nor two-month-olds, nor any stage until they have brain function comparable to, say, an adult chimp.
Yes, we all agree, it is all entirely arbitrary.
MDSL
I vote to allow the termination of an entity which has demonstrably similar brain function to the chicken I ate for dinner last night. Furthermore, I will err on the side of caution and vote against allowing termination of newborn babies, or geriatrics for that matter, even though they might essentially be dumb animals.
Poppycock.
The term is used by neither Medline, nor the Harvard Medical School. It IS in Merriam-Webster’s Online Medical Dictionary, which happens to be the engine used by Medline and Aetna InteliHealth. Aetna InteliHealth is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Aetna, Inc., which is not a part of the Harvard Medical School. They do have a relationship. They are the “flagship medical-content partner of InteliHealth” and it should be noted that “content developed specifically by the medical school is included throughout the site and is clearly labeled.”
Guess what? The medical terminology search engine isn’t thusly labeled, but it is clearly labeled as using Merriam Webster as its source.
So what we have is two websites that license an engine from someone else, and said engine does include that term. Feel free to point me to where Medline or the Harvard Medical School claim that it is indeed a medical term.
As for that horribly scanned pdf file you linked to (Are the pro-lifers that damned poor?), it doesn’t show the various medical terms to be inaccurate, as badly as it wants you to believe that. It does show that it is now considered a legal term, and tries to carry that over into the realm of being a medical term. It fails badly.
As for rebuttals to your single source (MW’s dictionary), here are a few who happen to know medical terminology quite well:
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Hell, go read Stenberg v. Carhart if you want the Supreme’s take on the term. They aren’t sure what it means either.
First, thanks for the replies and kind words about my English. I’ve been lurking the boards for a while and since I find the debates here to be of an extremely high quality and intelligence I am also very self conscious and wouldn’t have posted had I not been exhausted to the point of delerium.
I find that several of my questions, or rather points, were largely ignored by the gentlemen (they’re all men, right?) posting against abortion here. I can perhaps clarify if that is needed, the questions are not rethorical (at least not in intent) and I would dearly appreciate an answer since they are quite paradoxal to me. Admittedly I have a hard time understanding certain viewpoints that are seemingly commonplace in the USA, since they from my cultural viewpoint (Sweden) seem very extremist.
Still I do not subscribe to the explanations given about the need for a´nother legal document. They seem very weak to me. Bringing up doctor patient privilidge is irelevant, that can not be waived here and should not. And I find some of th enotions quite offensive. More specifically, the insinuation that having an abortion that late in the pregnancy would be something a woman, any woman, would enter into lightly. I know several women who have had abortions, and for every single one of them it was a very hard decision and an emotional trauma. Terminating a pregnancy is an extremely tough decision and it has severe emotional as well as physical effects. All of them described it as effecting their whole being. Trivialising it like that is disrespectful in the extreme in my opinion, but I don’t think it is intentional so I just ask you to think about it.
I am sure there are examples of women who enter into it with another attitude, maybe the anecdotal reference is true. That does not make any argument though, you can’t take away the right of women just because there might be a chance of them being abused. You obviosuly haven’t taken away the right to buy guns although I bet the chance of that being abused is a lot higher.
Of course that is no accident, just as the amount of homosexuals increased dramatically after it was decriminalised. To me at least it seems obvious that the numbers would go up since there is no longer any reason to hide it. I doubt that the real increase in abortions are as big, it’s just that a hospitalised procedure will show up in the statistics, a successful coat-hanger abortion won’t.
And please look into what is going on in countries that don’t allow abortions. Right now Sweden and organisations in Poland are trying to work out a deal to have women come here and have abortions. The situation there is… horrible to say the least. I don’t think you’d be willing to live with the consequences of it if you knew them. I don’t mean to call you ignorant, I am just saying that I don’t think everyone realise what the effects of such a law look like in real life.
Also I am fairly sure this is indeed a question about equality. I don’t know of any countries at the top of the “equality league” where abortions aren’t legal. It is a fundamental right of women to be able to terminate a pregnancy. As I said, if it was men being pregnant there wouldn’t even be a discussion about it.
What?
This doesn’t even make sense. Look, on one hand you say that anything without the brainpower of a chicken doesn’t deserve any kind of human rights. On the other you say that we shouldn’t terminate newborns or geriatrics.
Why not?
By the arguements that you have provided, we should do so. We can (and maybe should) eat them like chicken. Is it because you find the idea distasteful? Possibly because you have met them and had a personal relationship with them before you decided that they were no better than fried chicken? If I missed something, please feel free to clarify.
What about when higher brain function checks out again? Are you and SentientMeat going to start eating people?
Here is my arguement: I think you are right. If we judge the rights of people on the intelligence that they have exibited then we (the smart people) have every right to deny them rights based on that. This takes us to a place that we don’t want to be in. Mothers terminating grown men on a whim. People eating their grandparents when they go senile. Baby farms where children are kept like veal calves. All of this is unacceptable.
So there must be something else that we should look at in respect to the right to live. That is why I stick to my “potential” arguement. I think that children should be protected even at the fetal stage. As for the geriatric and infirm I think that they should be treated as they wished before they became geriatric or infirm. If a DNR is requested, it should be respected. Same for living wills.
Stoneburg and I are going to disagree on the fact that women have this fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy. I would give them the fundamental right to begin a pregnancy, but not any right to end it except in extreme circumstances for the reasons that I have listed above.
I’m glad you enjoy it here, and I’m sorry it took delerium for you to post. You sounded coherent enough. 
Well, you started your OP with an assertion that is not necessarily true, that Partial Birth Abortions are supposedly a very common procedure. You then go into, what a vast majority of people in the thread, I included, was a rherotical question: Could so many doctors really be that evil?. You question makes a gigantic leap to assume that doctors who perform PBA’s are evil, and, even forgiving that, the answer you clearly want is quite obvious. BUt if you were you addressing this to the minority of pro-life people on this board that actually believe that doctors who perform abortions are evil, they would, of course, reply, Yes. There are. If you were addressing your question to the non-extreme pro-life people, then the answer would be no. You question, which you assert is non-rhetorical, seems to me to be nothing but rhetoric. And some of the Dopers here, yourself included, provided cites as to just how common PBA’s are, so what was your real question?
I’ve thought about it at length and would never assert that obtaining an abortion is done lighthearedly or without thought. Many pro-life people on the board would agree with me. Please don’t lump us all in with the more extreme pro-life people.
And many pro-life people believe that a fetus has rights also, that the determination of the morality or legality of abortions is not simply whether the mother has rights, but also a balancing of those rights with that of the fetus.
Do you have a cite for this? I really haven’t seen a massive increase in homosexuals in Texas since the Lawrence case was decided. Although I will admit I’m amused at the idea of some person in Texas saying: WHEW! Well, I guess I’ll be gay now that the Supreme Court said it’s Constitutional.
A majority of pro-life people on this board, contrary to your unspoken assertions, are not using their position to keep women in their place or enjoy the idea of the pain it would cause many women who seek illegal abortions.
Believe it or not, at one time, abortion was illegal in this country and the effects of that were studied and, I would agree with you, had some very bad effects on women seeking abortions. But, yet again, a majority of pro-life people do not revel in the pain that women seeking illegal abortions would suffer, just as a majority of pro-choice people do not revel in the pain and suffering of the unborn. It just isn’t that simple.
I’ve never seen convincing evidence that abortion litigation is used as a tool to oppress women, especially in the United States. I’ve read a lot of rhetoric, and some of the more extreme pro-life people have very negative views of women as a whole, but you are, once again, painting all pro-life people with a broad brush.
Just so you know, this is such an overused statement that it is a cliche in America.
Now, if you have something you’d like to debate, such as why I believe that outlawing Partial Birth Abortions can, and should, be done properly, we can debate that. So go ahead and add any real questions you may have.
Let me rephrase that part:
It is a fundamental step in the process of equality. You can not have an equal society without giving women the choice of abortion.
I did not mean for it to sound like it was a natural law (even the freedom of speech isn’t one), but it is an equality question.
I’d like it if you’d comment on the other things I said too.
Can you have a competely equal society when only one gender can get pregnant? Of course any law regualting abortion is going to have a disparate impact on women, it’s biologically impossible for it to be otherwise. I am not convinced that the right to an abortion is necessary for women to be equal in society, and I’d like it if you could explain it a bit more for me.
It is not an equality question. Not at all!
I see a fetus as a living person. I don’t have the right to kill a living person. Why should a woman? I don’t care where that person is, it is a person. If it is going to kill the mother, then I think it is permissable. Otherwise, absolutely not.
What would that make women equal to, exactly?
I hope that is a misunderstanding on your part, or I have certainly failed miserably in my communication. I ment to state that “Partial Birth” abortions are:
A) Extremely uncommon
B) Not a medical term but a political one
Same as above. Now I dare not read back and see what I posted… I could not possibly have said this.
I didn’t mean to. I got the sense that some people thought that women were having abortions on a ‘whim’, because they just ‘changed their minds’ etc. That was what it was aimed at. I should have been more specific, my mistake, please accept my apologies.
Yes, I am aware of that. I don’t think it is relevant to the quote you used though.
No I don’t have a cite to support the claim that legalising something will automatically bring about an increase in statistics because it removes one of the reasons to hide it. I was hoping it would be accepted purely because it makes sense. 
I assume they have the best intentions. I was pointing out that they might not realise the effects, and if confronted with them might change their minds.
Now I am not sure if you’re not putting these words in my mouth for some reason or other… as I explained, I don’t think they do it for ‘evil’ purposes, I just think the result is ‘evil’ and that some may not be aware of that.
Thanks for enlightening me, I had no idea. I still believe it to be true though.
I don’t think I will, until I have figured out whether the misunderstandings were intentional or not.
It’s because the right to abortion is the right to the womans own body. Yes, there is a potential new person inside it, the key word being ‘potential’. Let me make up some really extreme example here…
I kidnap you one night and implant an embryo inside you, and at the same time surgically construct your body so that it was the only way to support the development of said embryo into a baby. Then I release you. Now you go to the hospital and ask for it to be removed and they say “Sorry, it’s against the law, you’ll just have to give birth”.
That would of course equal rape in which case most people agree that abortion is ok so… we’ll assume that you arrived home drunk one night, and slipped down the stairs onto my experiment wagon with the same effect. Being horribly drunk you just climb up, go to bed and forget about it. A month later you realise what has happened. Should you be allowed to have an abortion? If no, why?
(Wow, did I really just write that?)
The mother doesn’t see it as a living person. The majority of people who are supposed to decide this don’t see it as a living person. If you’re against abortion, by all means, don’t have one. ← that’s my opinion. When men start telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies… that’s no good.
Actually, Hamlet, are you sure you’re not confusing me with the starter of the topic? That would make more sense.
This is a truly offensive argument and (I think) betrays the subtle misogyny which lies at the root of many anti-choice positions. It’s not about saving “babies.” it’s about punishing women for having sex…especially women who have sex out of wedlock.
FYI, sometimes having an abortion is the responsible thing to do and sometimes having a baby that you can’t properly care for is a spectacularly irresponsible thing to do.
The answer to your last question is yes, but your definition of “responsibility” is fallacious.
I see a chicken as a living person. I don’t have the right to kill a person so why should Colonel Sanders? I don’t care if that person has feathers, it is a person. If it is going to kill Colonel Sanders I think it is permissable. Otherwise, absolutely not.
Are you aware of any laws which which would prioritize the rights of a non-human over those of a human if those rights are in conflict?
A mother doesn’t see her unborn child as a living person? 
Then she is just wrong. We should not make laws based on someone’s wrong-headed opinion. the fact is that the fetus is a living being. Does it look like us? No. Not yet. If it is carried to term it most likely will. Thus, killing it without just cause is the same as killing it at age 30 as far as I see it.
Wow. Well, thank you for your candor in admitting that.
No, we don’t. You people who argue that this threshhold should be based on the chances of survival claim that it is arbitrary, but we do not all agree on that viewpoint. I, for one, see no reason to consider this to be a viable standard. A starving child in many Third World countries has less chance of survival than most unborn children in America; does this mean that Africans should be allowed to kill newborn Third Worlders?
Stoneburg.
Jim B.
Stoneburg.
Jim B.
They’re so similar, you can understand how I would make that mistake. I apologize. No wonder I was putting words in your mouth, they weren’t your words to begin with. Please accept my sincerest apologies.
Your second example is nearly identical to the first, they are both rape. The fact I was drunk when I was raped in no way makes it less of a rape. And I agree that rape presents it’s own set of problems regarding the weighing of the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn.
And I still don’t quite get why legalized abortion is necessary for women to be equal.
.
No! It is not about punishing women for anything! The way that humans work is that the women bear the children. So it is with most animals that bear live young. It has nothing to do with punishment!
Becoming pregnant is sometimes a consequence of sexual intercourse. That is just a fact and not a punishment. If a person can’t handle having children, then they should be very careful about having sex. Failing that, there are adoption services and foster care or even relatives. I don’t think that killing the child is the best method of not having children. Removing responsibility for an action with an unplesant outcome is not acceptable.
Let’s see if I follow your train of thought. I am pro-life. Therefore, I am a misogynist. I also want to punish women for becoming pregnant. Thanks for your imput. You added oh so much to the conversation.
It’s not about wanting to control women. It’s not about punishing women who have sex. It’s about protecting the life of an unborn child. Now, in your mind, protecting an unborn life is the same as punishing a woman, but I vehemently disagree.
Adoption.
I’m sure the chickens around the world are thrilled to have you in their corner.
Human pregnancy and abortion are a unique thing, and almost every metaphor you can come up with, on either side of the debate, will not be perfectly comparable. Just as a unborn life is not a tumor growing inside you, nor is abortion the murder of a completely sentient 33 year old. Many examples used, on both sides, are flawed.
That being said, my right to torture and slowly kill my dog is limited by law.
You’re making the mistake of assuming that “human” status is the only relevant consideration. As Hamlet points out, there are any number of other reasons that we may wish to extend legal protections, whether for fetuses or chickens or persons in persistent vegetative states. Abortion is different from those other circumstances because it also involves the rights of another person–the pregnant woman. Not so with the other situations you mention. Simply put, I believe that the woman’s right to reproductive choice is a sufficiently important consideration that it outweighs any reason for preventing the exercise of that right in favor of the non-human contents of her uterus.