That does it...we're all fucked

Great Debates
81

If the numbers I used in my argument were either false or in dispute, I am sure Ms Padawer would have noted it in the article.

The only numbers that were in dispute were the numbers of intact D&E abortions performed each year. Nobody in the article disputed the number of third-term abortions performed annually, nor the number of abortions performed annually by Dr. McMahon, for which he provided Congress with ample documentation.

My only error was extrapolating the total number of elective third-term abortions from Dr. McMahon’s numbers alone, when the article clearly stated 600 third-term abortions were performed annually. If medically indicated abortions made up 85% of those, as they did in McMahon’s case, then the total number of elective third-term abortions performed annually rises to a grand total of 90. That’s .006% of all abortions performed annually in the United States.

82

For all those debating on the term “viable.”

A recent study showed premature survival at 26 weeks gestation to be 84%. I can find exact study names if you want it, but it was widely reported because OB/Gyns thought it was much less. As far as a 26 week old pregnancy, however, the fetus is really poorly adapted for life outside the womb. Without medical technology, there would be no chance of survival, as the lungs and skin and many other organs are poorly formed. I have no idea about long term prognosis, but I do know that these infants are at high risk for mental retardation and so forth.
[semi-hijack]
I understand that the medical profession is driven to use “any means necessary” to save a life, but I really have to wonder if this aggressive intervention in neonatology to save 24 week deliveries to produce 50% survival of severely debilitated children is a good thing. Especially at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is a factor we need to consider in today’s health care world. [/semi-hijack]

As far as I stand as a medical professional to be, I believe any law passed which limits procedures which could be used as legitimate tools to save a life is a bad thing. To take it to a ridiculous extreme, lets say you, your wife, or daughter comes into the doctor’s office with pain in the belly which turns out to be an ectopic pregnancy. More radical segments of the population would have you believe that those 32 cells or so clogged in the Fallopian tube have every bit of a right to life as the woman whose life they are threatening. This is why I believe in abortion rights – intact extraction and delivery can be used in some cases to save a woman’s life. I don’t want a future in which I cannot cut out an ectopic pregnancy because I would be prosecuted for murder.

As for my last post, I am just really curious where you guys stand on the issue of congenital abnormalities, which can usually only be diagnosed into the second trimester. I would much rather abort even a late term pregnancy if CVS/amnio/ultrasound/AFP showed gross anomalies rather than bringing it into a pain-filled, debilitated, shortened life.

83

I’m sorry, Southern. I am a bit thick. What did you mean by the Devil’s advocate remark?

Trust me, I am not playing Devils advocate here. I am four square for abortion on demand…hell, I would even support free abortions, even if it meant using tax dollars. That is the one government subsidie I would support.

84

I am surprised that nobody mentioned that the term “partial birth abortion” was not something the medical community every used, even colloquially, for this proceedure. It was invented in the war of vocabulary that allows people to be both pro-life and for capitol punishment.

Now, this proceedure is hardly ever employed. Feel free to check the stats - abortions performed even in the second tri-mester are rare, and the third is only in extreme cases.

So, why is the right making up gross sounding terminology and making a big issue about a rare proceedure which is only used in very extreme cases anyway?

Because they want a complete and total ban of abortions, and this is what they call a first step towards achieving this goal.

Now, lest you complain about “slippery slopes,” I can bring a ton of citations here - including from several prominent Presidential candidates - who say exactly that same thing.

They want them all to be illegal. They consider this merely a good starting point. I guess if you consider how heinous the proceedure is, it would be, but if you consider the lives of the living, it is th WORST starting point.

So, as you might expect, it’s just a political smokescreen that fortunately the court was able to see through.

I hope we are always so fortunate.

Yer putz,
Satan :wally

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, three weeks, 14 hours, 43 minutes and 28 seconds.
3304 cigarettes not smoked, saving $413.07.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 11 hours, 20 minutes.

85

DAMN, Mr. Zambezi! A tip of the pint glass to you on this one.

86

You’d think that I’d have learned by now this if I’m going to address several people in one post I’ll have to again respond to each of them. But I’m going to commit this feau pax again, and then follow only one conversation.

sigh…

Mr. Z - After reading your stated position and your pseudo-endorsement of infanticide, I found irony in your asking for a definition of “viable”. It appeared to me that you were invoking conversation rather than actually looking for a definition – hence the reference to “devil’s advocate”.

olentzero - The topic at hand is “partial birth” and “third term” abortions. The statistics that you generate and/or quote are not relevent. It’s kind of like saying that .0003% (3.0-E7 percent) people in the U.S. die each year due to capital punishment. Since it’s statistically insignificant to the total population, it’s not worth arguing about and therefore capital punishment should be allowed and/or endorsed.

edwino - I don’t know about the others that are trying to post from the “anti” side of the argument, but as I’ve stated several times, the only claim that I’ve made in this thread is to condemn late term abortions for the sole purpose of birth control. If Mom-to-be has a tubal pregnancy, then of course we do what we have to to save mom. If Mom-to-be decides during the 8th month that she really doesn’t want the kid, tough noogies.

87

I don’t see how you can say it’s not relevant, SouthernStyle. The statistic I quoted is about the number of third-term abortions performed for non-medical reasons, which is one of the subjects at hand.

You want to outlaw third-term abortions for non-medical reasons. As I said, the number of such abortions annually is insignificant in comparison to the total number of abortions performed. But the whole argument goes deeper than that.

Abortion opponents want to use that kind of legislation as a wedge to crack open a woman’s right to an abortion and push through legislation of a wider scope. They play up this otherwise insignificant aspect of the abortion debate because they don’t want it to stop there. Even if they did, I don’t find it an acceptable compromise to limit legislation to this small section of the populace because, small as it may be, such a law would still infringe on a woman’s basic right to choose.

88

The statement “xx.xxxxx percent of all abortions are third term D&Es” doesn’t matter to the discussion at hand.

You’re trying to lump third term partial birth abortions into the general discussion debate while at the same time criticizing the anti-abortionists for trying to affect anti-abortion legislation by trying to lump partial birth abortion in with general abortion.

In simpler terms, you use the same “logic” as the other side to avoid talking about a specific issue while they use a specific issue as an example of their overall “logic”.

Hard numbers, not statistics are meaningful here.

89

Southern, I was not just trying to make a point, I was really asking for a discussion on what “viable” means, how we define it and where to place the point it starts.

My pseudo endorsement of infantacide was not so pseudo. Given my criterion for viability, infantacide is logical.

You know, you liberals can be so nice when I am on your side, it almost makes me want to swing left…well, not really, but it sure is nice to hear compliments instead of scathing rebukes.

90

Hey Mr. Z. I know this is slightly off topic. But, what’s your opinion of people who kill their children right after they are born? I think it’s horrible and a tradgety. But, at the same time, if they were given proper education and access to abortion and if teen pregnancy wasn’t so stigmatized it wouldn’t happen

91

And who does this, exactly? Do you seriously believe a woman would undergo this horrendous procedure frivolously? “La la la - I’ve carried this baby for 8 months now and I’ve decided I just don’t want it! Hello? Abortion Clinic?”
Show me. I want to see these freaks of human nature.

And show me the doctors who, when confronted with a very pregnant girl demanding an abortion, say, “Sure - we can take care of that! No problem! We’ll just yank the kid most of the way out and crush its skull. Simple, we do it all the time! Do you have insurance?”
Show me this legion of inhuman healers.

Satan is absolutely right. This is an attempt by the Anti-Abortionists to get a foot in the legal door. They took a rarely used medical procedure that is repugnant and now they’re trying to make you believe that this is going on all the time - right under your very noses! And it must be stopped! Nonsense. Balderdash. Bushwah.

Why are the Anti-Abortionists doing this? Because every life is sacred? Hah!! They’re doing it because they believe they have the moral right to tell the rest of us what to do. They’re doing it for the power.

I think any woman who believes that someone, anyone, else is entitled to make decisions for her about her health and well-being is out of her tiny little mind. I’ve never been pregnant - by CHOICE not chance - but if it did happen, I sure as hell don’t want some idiot in Congress deciding what medical procedures I may or may not be “allowed” to undergo.

If we women permit that, we truly are all fucked.

92

My wife worked for a juvenile detention center. It was amazing how many girls were in the third trimester and either didn’t know they were pregnant, or denied it completely. (she could give you some damn good reasons for free abortion and increased sex ed).

Were I the ruler of the US, I would make this a misdermeanor with mandatory reproductive education and community service in a reproductive health clinic. These poor girls are not criminals. They are ill educated, terrified and desperate.

I know, but what of the child? In my view the damage is done, and it is tragic, but there is no sense in locking up the motehr.

In colorado, a mother gets full immunity if she abandons her child at a fire station. A great idea.

93

I like you more and more everyday Mr. Z.

People don’t seem to realize that it is possible to be in the third trimester and not realize it.

I will say this about you. You are pretty consistant in your convictions. Your position is not an easy one to take.

I tell you you’re one step away from becoming a commie. :slight_smile:

94

scratch, you can call me a nogoodnik, you can call me a knuckledraggin, insensitive, wild eyed right wing looney, you can even call me late to dinner, but you can’t ever, ever call me a commie :open_mouth:

Of course, you do realie that I would fund the free abortion clinics by eliminating welfare, don’t you :smiley:

95

lol. :smiley: Well Mr. Z, we have to make cuts somewhere. But, with enough abortions we can drasticly reduce the ammount of welfare that is given out. See everybody wins.

96

Oh my God! Now you sound like a budget balancin’ REE-freakin-Publican.

But you are right. To tie into the raceism thread, I think that this would go a loooong way to break the cycle of poverty. Solutions, not handouts, that’s my new motto.

97

Solutions AND Handounts. That’s my motto. :smiley:

98

All right, SouthernStyle, first you say third-term abortions are the topic at hand and then you say it’s not. In one sentence, please tell me what the topic at hand is and I will do my damnedest to stick to it.

99

What, exactly, does this mean?

A woman retains the “right to choose” before she gets pregnant, correct? Since the cause of pregnancy is well known, and since pregnancy is preventable, I would submit that your ‘choice’ of words does not apply. Unless, of course, you are referring to a woman’s “right to choose” infanticide. In that case, perhaps you, as a living example, are the best argument for abortion.

100

I guess this lie has been repeated enough that I’m pissing into the wind to even challenge it.

Believe me, the majority of people who wish to protect unborn children are not on a power kick. You may be basing your opinion on the fact that proposed legislation, by definition, must go through politicians. Politicians always seem to be about pandering and getting re-elected. Thus, the motives can appear to be dirty.

But don’t you dare assign such motives to the vast majority of people who hold a pro-life/anti-abortion position. Am I on a power kick? Are my mom and stepdad? Is my sister? Was my father? (Who was agnostic by the way; but, as a physician, was against abortion as well). Why can’t someone genuinely think that protecting an unborn child is an important moral issue without being driven by power or moral arrogance? Important enough to (gasp!) even speak out at times, vote, write a letter to the newspaper, maybe even join a rally or protest. (And I’m not talking about the confrontational minority. They’re going about it the wrong way, but I don’t think even they have power as their major focus).

For every person you see on a power kick, there are ten more in homes and churches praying for children born and unborn, for mothers and young girls, and for the overall state of the nation. If you look closely enough you will see that those are tears in their eyes, not visions of power and oppression.