Partial birth abortions rare and medically necessary or elective and not uncommon?

Great Debates
41

People oppose partial birth abortion because they don’t like abortion. Banning partial birth abortion as opposed to banning a simple D&C is akin to banning the surgical reduction of wrist fractures because casts work just as well and aren’t as icky.

I’ve read somewhere that there are approximately 1 million abortions in the US each year. I have also read in this very thread that there are approximately 5000 partial birth abortions. This frequency is indicative of what I would call a common procedure and in opinion does not warrant the hullaballoo. If such a procedure is risky to a mother, it will be relagated to the history books in the same way that the use of the fleam has been. The medical profession is very good about moving ahead and leaving behind the dreck.

JT - I cannot see where anyone in this thread has dismissed anyone’s sources. Sources have been checked to the best the various posters abilities and some have been found wanting. None have been proven out and out false. This type of checking is not what I call dismissal. Still, you seem a bit piqued that your sources were not found persuasive.

Your sources are technically known as hearsay. Hearsay can be persuasive and is perfectly legit in a debate, but suffers from a lack of credibility because it is difficult to verify. Nurse Carmen referenced a source that indicated that your original source was not what it seemed to be. Her source is also hearsay but does have some references that can be easily checked, if any of us had the inclination. From what I’ve read, your information has not been proven false, but is under a cloud and accordingly, reasonable people can disagree on the topic.

I personally have one additional problem with the source you cited. If a fetus begins drawing breath, it is no longer a fetus, it is a child to which all legal protections, including prohibitions against murder apply. Your sources apparently feel that it is OK to keep evidence of murder under wraps as long as they are able to gather more evidence of wrongdoing. Assuming arguendo that an abortionist did murder a pair of twins, the persons or groups having the inside information should long ago have gone to the police with it. I’m not current with my criminal law these days, but I’m sure that an enterprising DA could find a spot in the local pen for the worthies that have been keeping this little secret to further their own ends. Someone is either making things up or is acting in an immoral and illegal manner. Your choice.

Finally, I want to ask for information regarding the partial birth abortion - fetal organ donation link. In my experience, a hall mark of newborn organs is that they are often too immature to function properly when the child has been delivered normally. Heart problems in infants and hyperbilirubemia are two examples.

It is likely that the organs of a fetus would be too small and too immature to be of use in an organ transplant setting. What you may be thinking of instead is that fetal “tissue” is being used in medical research. The harvesting of tissue does not require bloodflow and in fact, useful tissue can readily be obtained from cadaveric sources. You must keep in mind that organs for donation are transported on ice across large distances without damage. For tissue donation, I do not believe that there is a need for any specific procedure so long as the fetus is accessible to the technician taking the tissue samples.

Ultimately what happens to the aborted fetus is immaterial. Once the decision is made to abort a fetus, its over. How is also immaterial to the extent that the mother is made as safe and as comfortable as possible. Making a surgical technique illegal because one does not believe that the end achieved by that surgical technique is acceptable will achieve nothing but to needlessly endanger the few women who actually do need the procedure. Perhaps if pro-lifers were to support new research and training for doctors so that the doctors could find and learn about new ways of performing abortions that obviate the need for the partial birth procedure, we wouldn’t have to have this conversation so often.

cj

42

I asked for peer-reviewed data.

Irrelevant, since the absolute number says nothing about the frequency. There’s a wee bit more births, and abortions, in the US every year.

So you see, it is obviously not beyond opponents to mislead.

Who said something about a pro-life group? Do you even KNOW what peer-reviewed publications are?

I’d like you to note that I haven’t argued a single time for PBA. I argued against the reliability of the data you presented, and argued against one specific argument, because it lacks both credibility and evidence and is similar to scare tactics quite frequently presented by groups opposing not only PBA but any and all abortion.

43

The number of times it happens has nothing to do with how frequently it happens? WTF are you talking about?

What did you find misleading about the statement that partial-birth abortion is performed thousands of times a year in the US? Are you claiming that it is not performed thousands of times? Those who actually performed the procedure are supplying the estimate - clearly a biased source, but not biased in any way that would lead them to over-estimate. Are you claiming that it happens more often than thousands of times per year?

You did. Right here:

Yes, I am familiar with the concept of peer review.

Do you even KNOW how to read who is posting what?

You haven’t addressed any of my cites or sources.

We now have another reason to be skeptical about statements regarding PBA. Some will lie about it, and others go off half-cocked without knowing even who they are talking to.

Regards,
Shodan

44

As pointed out, this is a classic logical fallacy. I’d ask for my money back from my “critical thinking” professor if he taught me otherwise.

45

1000 out of 2000 is a lot. 1000 out of 10 billion is precious few.

No, I am saying that the absolute number provides no useful information.

Which unfortunately has nothing to do with the claim that

I never demanded corroboration by a pro- anything group.

And I stated the reasons why.

And others will try anything to slander anyone with an opinion they have a gut feeling of not liking, without having any idea whatsoever what that opinion is, or what they themselves are ranting about, or, for that matter, who they are talking to.

You pretty clearly do NOT know what peer-reviewed sources are. Otherwise you wouldn’t waste server space, bandwidth, and my time, with such incoherent rants that have nothing to do with anything said and further continue to misquote people. If you did, you wouldn’t conclude from my asking for peer-reviewed sources to my demanding corroboration by a pro-something or other group.

46

Questioning the credibility of the source of claims made without supporting data is very valid. And even WITH supporting data, it is good to wonder whether it is ALL relevant data. Which is why single sources with an agenda presenting unreviewed conclusions are a bad foundation to build an opinion on.

47

Bullshit.

More bullshit, and a direct lie.

And even more bullshit, from someone who apparently cannot distinguish one posting from another.

Your response is beneath contempt, and not worthy of a detailed refutation. I leave it to the rest of the board to compare what I quoted from your posts, and determine if I altered a word of it.

48

Which is, of course, not the same as “attacking the source of information.” Arguments exist on their own merit (or lack thereof), quite divorced from the persons advancing them. Lack of corroborating evidence or false conclusions are flaws in an argument and are fair game. An otherwise reliable source who advances a faulty argument is still wrong.

49

In case it isn’t clear yet, Bob is referring to statements such as the following:

In other words, the initial objections WERE NOT about lack of corroboration. Rather, they were objections to the use of information from pro-life sources to support (duh!) pro-life arguments. Interestingly enough, I have yet to notice any pro-choicers here demand the same level of rigor from pro-choice sources. This, despite the fact that abortion providers have a far more personal stake in this matter, since they derive their income from this very practice!

Besides, the allegation that this claim is uncorroborated is simply inaccurate. I cited two separate sources which attest to the practice of fetal organ harvesting. In addition, there are the multiple medical testimonies which show partial-birth abortion to be simply unnecessary, and that the vast majority of these operations are not performed for medical reasons. While this does not directly demonstrate that organ harvesting is (at least sometimes) being conducted, it does raise the question of why anyone would perform this operation in the first place. The onus rests on PBA-defenders to explain why this procedure is used, if it is not medically required.

Would further corroboration be in order? I certainly think so… but to say that these claims are UNcorroborated is simply not accurate.

And finally, I will again point out that a double standard is being applied here. Why don’t we see any pro-choicers casting aspersions on on the claims of Planned Parenthood or NARAL, on the grounds that these groups have an agenda as well? Why don’t we see them demanding corroboration and articles from “peer-reviewed scientific journals” in defense of their claims? Unfortunately, Bob Cos and I are accustomed to seeing pro-choicers complain about “bias” when pro-lifers happen to use pro-life sources to support their claims.

50

Well said. I agree completely (which I’m sure will shock everyone :wink: )…

51

Frankly, one side is simply more legitimate than the other. They do not have equal credibility. On the pro-choice side, we have professional health care providers with access to real statistics and real personal experience with the procedures and the reasons for them. On the pro-life side we have a religiously motivated fringe group of zealots. It’s like science vs. creationism.

52

Fine. Then it’s clear you’ll continue to firmly embrace this particular logical fallacy that avoids engaging arguments in favor of attacking sources. Whatever.

53

Damn, like shooting fish in a barrel.

Golly. I sure hope Slate (and the Washington Post, and the Bergen Record) is an acceptable, unbiased source to discount DtC’s silly claim.

54

So, shall we discount Diogenes’ claim that pro-lifers is just a religiously motivated fringe group? Or shall we challenge him to loko through previous threads, where this claim was thoroughly debunked?

What the heck. I have virtuall no time to spare, but I am feeling generous, and I don’t want to let this slide. So, let me drop a few hints. Do a search sometime on Bernard Nathanson, one of the NARAL founders, and how he turned pro-life while still an atheist. While you’re at it, feel free to do a search on “Atheists for Life” and “The Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League.”

55

Drat. I just can’t let this slide, even though I don’t have time for it. As beagledave said, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

Well, Ron Fitzsimmons, head of one of the nation’s foremost pro-choice organizations, did publicly confess to having lied about partial-birth abortions – on multiple counts, no less. So yeah, one side does have more credibilitiy than the other.

And these are people who benefit financially from conducting abortions. Now, what were you saying earlier about “bias”?

Besides, if you’re toing to talk about professional health care providers, then I suggest doing a search on terms such as “pro-life physicians” and “physicians for life.” I’ve worked with numerous pro-life organizations over the past twelve years, and they typically have multiple physicians serving with them as board members, volunteers and/or consultants.

56

I’m talking about the difference between an organization like Planned Parenthood, which a women’s health organization not a political activist group, and groups like National Right to Life which has a purely political agenda.

I think that on the whole Planned parenthood tends to be more honest than National Right to Life.

Also, to be blunt, the pro-choice side has yet to produce any terrorist splinter groups.

57

BTW, impugning a financial incentive to bortion providers is a bit of a canard. Most doctors can make just as much money without performing abortions and without the harrassment and risk of terrorism.

Also, it doesn’t bother me a bit that there are some doctors who won’t perform abortions. they have every right to follow their own consciences on the matter. That does not, however, mean that doctor who do perform them are unethical.

58

You’re fucking kidding me. PP is not a political activist group?

Lets see…barrel of fish? Check.

Metaphorical gun (don’t own a real one)? Check.

Blam

from the front page of their fucking web site…lets see now kids:

Go ahead DtC. Go ahead with a straight face and tell me that this is not political activism.

Good gravy.

:rolleyes:

59

It’s not political activism. It’s self-defense.

The purpose of PP is to provide health care and reproductive servisce to women. The fact that they are forced to defend themselves against political attacks is incidental, it’s not their mission.

60

Cite, please?

With abortion, a doctor can take in $300 for a mere ten minutes of work. In fact, former abortionist Eric Harrah says,

Note that this is for practicing only one day a week. Even by physicians’ standards, that’s an awful lot of money.

Dr. Harrah also says,

which makes the abortion industry quite a bit different from other fields of medicine.

Of course, I fully expect that you’ll impugn his account as being “biased,” on the grounds that he is now pro-life. In response, I challenge you to substantiate your assertion that physicians can easily earn more by practicing in other fields – one which does not reference any “biased” pro-choice sources. Additionally, remember that Harrah is providing first-hand testimony, speaking as an insider to the industry in which he practiced for years.

Besides, if they already have an established abortion practice, then they most certainly have a vested interest in arguing for abortion.