Trying to browbeat vulnerable women into having unwanted babies is a hardly an ethical service.
Well good, we have that settled. For whatever reason, good or bad, Planned Parenthood (as evidenced by their own web site that I linked to twice) engages in political activism.
Ergo, the same suspicions that you apply to statements from other groups because of political activism…would of course apply to PP.
Glad we got that cleared up.
This debate seems to have degenerated into a complete pissing match. One I’m inclined to avoid. But as I have questions unanswered, I’ll post anyway. (If you folks feel that this is a private war, just say so.)
I’m still curious about the fetal organ harvesting issue. Are we still talking about a “$ for organs” type of arrangement similar to the reported Chinese practice of parting out executed criminals, or are we talking about a standard tissue supply arrangement of the type commonly found in all American hospitals wherein useful tissues are recovered from surgeries for testing or the like. I’m of the opinion that the whole “fetal organ harvesting” tag is a bit misleading and was coined to specifically raise the specter of the organ thief of popular urban myth.
What’s more, no one has provided any evidence that the partial birth procedure is at all necessary for harvesting any types of tissues from fetuses. I don’t believe that it is at all necessary for the harvest of tissues (or organs if you prefer) and that the whole organ harvesting argument is nothing but a strawman.
Finally, who cares how a fetus is aborted when the end result is the same?
cj
I guess we’ll just have to disagree as usual. I’m saying that groups like NRL are formed purely for political lobbying purposes. PP actually has a non-political reason for its existence.
It’s not about the fetus, it’s about the safety of the woman. The D&X is the safest way to perform an abortion after the first trimester. Banning the D&X procedure would result in doctors having to perform more intrusive and less safe procedures. The fetuses will be just as dead but the risk to women will be increased.
Even assuming that the NRL is strictly a political organization, do I understand that you’re saying that means that information that comes from them is automatically suspect?
Do you apply the same criteria to all organizations whose primary mission is political?
Do I have you on record as being suspicious of
The National Organization for Women?
The Brady Campaign and other gun control groups?
The Feminist Majority?
Yes. These are all political organizations. You will notice that I have never cited any of them as a source.
No, Diogenes, this is incorrect.
The AMA has stated for the record (in one of my earlier links) that partial birth abortion is never the only appropriate procedure.
Regards,
Shodan
They have stated that it is the safest after the first trimester.
I’m not “vociforously” refusing anything. What I said, and what I meant, is that I don’t automatically trust ANY source with an agenda, whether they agree with me, or not. I put no more faith in, say, a pro-choice site, than one which advocates banning abortion. Both are equally capable of, and prone to, skewing data and slanting results to suit their point of view. I will give more credence to a source who says, “Here’s data. Make of it what you will,” as the CDC does.
This is not to say that I immediately think, “Oh, this is bunk because it comes from a source with an agenda.” No. What I will do is see if I can corroberrate any claim through neutral sources before deciding if I will trust its accuracy, or dismiss it.
Call me a skeptic, but if you tell me the sky is blue, I’ll confirm with NOAA before I put my faith in it.
**
**
As I said, I give equal scrutiny to both sides. Anyone who doesn’t, in my opinion, is too credulous to be trusted.
Shodan said:
Personally, I don’t care who’s doing the lying. In an emotional issue such as this, both sides can be equally guilty.
This debate can only come down to an individual’s personal feelings and point of view-- whether you personally believe that abortion is “right” or “wrong.” No amount of debate will ever change someone’s feelings about a matter, especially when the parties concerned may not be interested in changing their own minds, but those of whom they’re debating.
Actually, the AMA doesn’t oppose support a ban on “partial-birth” (here we go with that term again, which even they refuse to use) abortion. What the AMA does is recommend that D&E be used in place of intact D&X. They only recommend the latter if the alternatives pose a greater risk to the woman. This doesn’t affect late-term abortions in the least, as far as numerically. It’s just a recommendation as to which technique to use.
They also recommend that third trimester abortions not be performed except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. We’ve already seen that the numbers of abortions performed in the third trimester are very very small, and most of the pro-life evidence being bandied about regards second trimester issues, as has been shown in previous posts, even though they are confusing enough (even to advocates) to make one think that doctors are performing third trimester abortions at alarming rates.
Since it’s the AMA you’re quoting, I got it straight from their mouth.
A valid point of view. I would hope, however, that opinions are based on confirmed facts.
Which, in the case of partial birth abortion, is not always the case. Even for those who support the procedure, and some of them have been deliberately deceptive.
I expect the AMA would meet most people’s standards as an objective source of information. They oppose partial birth abortion.
FWIW, here is the corrected link for the stalking case. http://www.all.org/celebrate_life/cl9309.htm
It happened in 1993, and I cannot locate a news source that describes the case going back that far. So this is a pro-life source. The incident was reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, but I cannot locate it in any archive.
So (to answer the OP) is partial birth abortion rare? It happens (according to those who perform the procedure) some thousands of times per year. Is that ‘rare’? It depends, I suppose, on your point of view. Were lynchings rare in the Old South? After all, there were millions of blacks in the US during the first forty years of the century, and only a few hundred were lynched.
Is PBA medically necessary? Here the answer is rather clearly No. The AMA has stated for the record (thanks, beagledave) that "According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. "
Is PBA elective? Again, according to those who perform the procedure, up to a third of the time it is performed on a healthy woman with a healthy fetus.
The pro-choice movement reminds me of what the National Rifle Association used to be like. They are willing to go to almost any lengths to defend what most find indefensible, because of the gnawing fear that even the slightest restriction is a bellwether of draconian restrictions to come. They refuse, therefore, any consideration of compromise, and turn to lies and deceptions to try to deceive others into supporting what they want.
And yet somehow or other, it always seems to be the pro-life side that gets called a bunch of fanatical extremists.
Regards,
Shodan
Here is the substance of the “stalking” link:
(Bolding is mine)
So some pro-choicers were following some anti-abortion zealots who were on their way to stalk two doctors.
Is this the best you can do for pro-choice terrorism, Shodan? You’re usually capable of better than this.
**
Unfortunately, a good portion of opinions aren’t.
**
From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States that we know of. (That number could be low.)
And there’s an incredible difference between abortion and lynching. Lynching is meant to cause terror and pain and intimidate others. An abortion is a medical procedure.
According to that site…not all the lynchings were of blacks, but either way Shodan’s point still stands. As a percentage of total blacks, the numbers of blacks who were lynched is “relatively” small. Pure percentages might not tell the whole story though…whether in terms of lynchings or IDX/PBA.
A point that has nothing to do with the perception of “rareness” being discussed. The question, again, was how “rare” IDX/PBAs were. Shodan’s point (I think) was that “rareness” can be thought of in different ways, not just as a strict percentage…but also in terms of raw numbers.
BTW, still hoping for that cite from DtC that the AMA has taken a position on IDX/PBAs…
From an editorial in the [/url=http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/amn_03/edlt0428.htm]AMA newsletter today
Diogenes, did you even read the article in question? It says that dilation and evacuation is the safest of the common abortion procedures in the second trimester. It says nothing about the safety of intact dilation and extraction.
Here is a description of the dilation and evacuation procedure. As you can see, it bears no resemblance to partial birth abortion or intact D&X.
Here is a CNN piece regarding the AMA’s positition on intact D&X and the alternatives to it:
I must admit that I also got confused about the difference between intact D&X and Dilation and evacuation which involves dismemebering the fetus in utero before removing it. The PBA legislation would not ban this procedure, even according to the NRLC:
[quote]
The term “intact dialation and evacuation” should not be confused with “dialation and evacuation,” which is a procedure commonly used in second-trimester abortions, involving dismemberment of the fetus/baby while still in the uterus. The bill does not apply to “dialation and evacuation” abortions at all.
So I stand slightly corrected. The Intact D&X is only sometimes the safest procedure (and according to the AMA also offers the best chance of saving a woman’s life in some situations. It is unconscionable for congress to insert itself between a patient and a doctor in a life threatening situation). Sometimes the safest option is a D&E and sometimes it’s labor induction. Which of those are most appealing to you? You have to pick one, now, these abortions have to happen somehow. The surgical removal of the fetus id obviously the most risky, so I’m guessing we’ll see a lot of D&E’s. I guess I’m ok with that as long as doctors have the option of a D&X when it’s warranted, and when it’s “warranted” is for a doctor and patient to decide, not the government.