Probably because the state, despite its overwhelming interest in life, isn’t willing to pay for the procedure or the years of medical care that will come after it.
But not a medical one. Funny, that.
“Partial birth abortion” is nothing but a political term. Not a medical term. The procedure that was outlawed does exist; or rather it did until it was outlawed in an attempt to hurt and kill as many women as they could.
Well let me throw “thats a bunch of crap” right back at you. She can deliver immediately. I believe that we established early on that C-Sections had a very low (I believe lower than late term abortions) mortality rate. I think people around here need to stop and try to get a handle on some of the facts.
I generally don’t give a shit about choice during the third trimester in the case of healthy pregnancies but they are also forgetting that at the stage of pregnancy I am talking about, you can induce or have a C-Section.
They also neglect to realize that the law recognizes a huge difference between a death caused by inaction versus a death caused by action.
Did you skip all those posts where I talk about someone dying because of something you DON"T do and someone dying because of something you do?
I can let your baby crawl off a cliff, I can’t shove them off that cliff. Remember that?
Have you heard of Obama and universal health care? We’re getting there slowly but surely we will get there.
WTF? You said “there is not such thing as a partial birth abortion” as if I was using a made up word. It has a legal definition and every obstetrician in the country knows and understand that definition. Go ahead and ask your obstetrician what it means, I bet he knows. Funny that.
So in other words you’re okay with the starve it to death thing now?
As noted, with the exception of suicide none of these have to do with bodily control. You can have your kidney extracted - you just can’t sell it. Same with sex. And drugs you just can’t possess - in your body or out of it.
So yeah. Your body is really yours.
But you want it to require them to stay pregnant.
This is kind of like saying “I didn’t require him to wander onto my lawn, but now that he’s here I can lock him up and keep him as a pet.” There may be some situations where getting yourself into a situation makes it okay to legally require you to stay in the situation, but it isn’t assumed that this is one of those cases.
And your point is? The debate is about whether such laws are a good idea. The fact that they are already in place in some places is neither here nor there.
And now it is a legal term with a legal definition. So lets stop with the silly “haha, you used a word that doesn’t exist” gotcha. It doesn’t really advance the debate in either direction.
You forget the special duty of care that attaches after birth.
nvm. no need to get snarky I guess.
Have you heard that the very people who oppose abortion generally oppose universal healthcare? It’s a true fact, look it up.
No I didn’t. But it IS a made up word (all words are, after all). It was made up for political purposes by the anti-abortion lobby. And yes, any obstetrician knows what it means, which is that anti-abortionists are disingenuous fucks.
The one I don’t recognize? Try to keep up, indeed.
Nonsense. Using it advances the debate alright, towards the anti-choice side. That’s why the term was invented. You might as well refer to non-whites as “mud people” and claim that you aren’t catering to racists.
Yeah I know. What do you want me to say. Those guys are idiots.
A lot of them are assholes that don’t actually give a shit about anything other than being holier than thou.
WTF? You said “there is not such thing as a partial birth abortion” as if I was using a made up word. It has a legal definition and every obstetrician in the country knows and understand that definition. Go ahead and ask your obstetrician what it means, I bet he knows. Funny that.
[/QUOTE]
No I didn’t. But it IS a made up word (all words are, after all). It was made up for political purposes by the anti-abortion lobby. And yes, any obstetrician knows what it means, which is that anti-abortionists are disingenuous fucks.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not going to defend the partial birth abortion ban. It wasn’t the point of my bringing it up in the first place. If you recall the ONLY reason I brought it up was to point out to some fellow that there is no federal restriction on abortion (other than the ban on abortion that anti-abortionist disingenuous fucks call partial birth abortion). My biggest concern with the partial birth abortion ban is that is that “snipping the vertabrae and sucking out the brains” while gross, seems more humane than the “tear the fetus limb from limb and pull it out in little pieces” method.
Considering that the fetus in question is typically dead or brainless “humane” isn’t usually a consideration. And in any case, the health and safety of the woman should be the only real consideration.
What? Huh? The duty of care isn’t something I made up. You have a duty of care towards your children you can’t starve them to death if you can help it.
Seriously, try to keep up. There are a lot of idea flying around here. The only law we are hypothetically ignoring for the time being are the law on abortion. We aren’t assuming that all laws have disappeared.
Fine whatever, its not really geermane to the debate. I brought it up merely to demonstrate that the federal government doesn’t have any laws restricting abortion with the exception of the p-rtial b-rth ab-rtionn b-n (happy? geez).
Yeah, that is kind of what we are debating. A bunch of you say its the only consideration and I say you’re wrong.
80%, assuming that somebody coughs up for careful medical attention, right? They don’t just cut the cord, wipe it off, drop it in a crib, and roll it to the viewing room.
So what happens to the woman who walks in and says “Phew! I finally fought my way through the crowd of pro-lifers at the door. Took me four months to get half a block. I conceived precisly 26 weeks and one day ago. So, abort me now?” Presumably the doctor does a quick C-section and…what? Drops the shriveled infant a crib? The mother’s arms? (“What the hell? I asked for an abortion! I’m not paying for this!”) The pro-lifers outside? Send a bill to the government? Or just let it die on the table due to lack of special care? What?
And about the 20% of babies that die (remember, MoD says only 80% live) - do we immediately declare that the doctor did it in purpose and jail him? If not, what do you do if only 40% survive afterwards, and the doctor blames it the fact nobody’s paying for incubators?
Oh and “You forget the special duty of care that attaches after birth.”? Hell no is this not an answer to this. If you are going to force women to get c-sections instead of abortions, you are not going to then slap them with thousands of dollars in medical fees prior to allowing them to give the child up. In fact I would say that your position should morally require you to ensure an avenue for the woman to dismiss all obligations of any kind for the resulting baby. You wanted it born, so you pay for it. (It would only be fair to lock up and double-blind all records of the event, too, so mother and child could never find one another again. She’s free of supporting the child, but can’t go looking for it later.)
I see your numbers and agree, somewhat. Question is, what is it like? Because it’s not like you can just parcel-post these month-6 fetuses to the nearest adoption agency either.
Fair enough.
Suppose I don’t care that you don’t care about the woman’s right to choose anymore. What then?
Okay. What if it dies? And all the other stuff I asked at the start of this post.
I think it’s more that you care more about defending your position than I do.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
I said “Birth always includes the risk of complications and health problems.” Those complications are not limited to death.
Yes, we know. You’re now requiring women to have invasive surgery to give birth to a premature baby, possibly leading to health problems for her and very likely causing problems for the child. How very humane!
It’s not relevant here.
Aren’t you from Canada, where, technically, there are no laws against abortion right up until birth? If so, how are the clinics these days? Full of raging parties hosted by whores and savages?
I have a duty to children I consented to give birth to. I categorically deny any responsibility for children I’m forced to bear.
And after all, failing to feed them is a passive act, which you insist is perfectly okay. Allowing death by failing to act is either morally equivalent to actually killing, or it’s not. Pick one.
Based on some of your posts, I was under the impression that the 80% number would surprise you. I guess not.
I thought I had made clear that I think that the government should pay for all this stuff. Tax people and pay for it. If its important enough to restrict what a woman may do with her own body then it is important enough to tax people for.
I am pretty sure that doctors all do their own sonograms to determine gestation. I think all prenatal and delivery care should be paid for by the government using taxpayer dollars.
You have brought up a few practical and financial concerns. Unlike those pro-lifers outside the clinic, I have no problem with the government doing what it can. If the doctor tries his best and the baby dies then that’s a shame.
It is MY turn to make a categorical statement. I don’t think there is a single doctor out there that will kill a premature baby that has a chance for a normal healthy life, either with his birth parents or in an adoptive family. Remember we are talking about a thousand cases a year, a lot but not so large that the system will not be able to absorb it.
Yes its called giving it up for adoption.
The CONTEXT of my response was the question of whether or not the mother could allow the baby to starve to death.
Yes that is how I imagine adoption would work. The fetus becomes a ward of the state and hopefully it gets adopted.
I’m not sure I understand you.
Well I have given you the basis for why I no longer care about the woman’s right to choose at that point. What is your reason for dismissing the argument. We have a viable fetus at 6 months, there is a relatively good chance that it will survive. Doesn’t any of this make you shift your position on elective third trimester abortions of healthy pregnancies at all?
I was pretty much out of ammo on about page three of this thread and I’ve been playing defense the entire time since. I know my underlying argument standing alone doesn’t persuade you but does the defense against your attacks on my argument sway you at all that perhaps the “choice is absolute” posture is a bit too simple?
Then it dies. Even if it would have lived if it was allowed to complete gestation in the womb, Diana G has convinced me that we cannot force a woman to continue to carry a baby no matter how much we think it is the right thing to do so we induce an early delivery and give hope for the best.
I dunno. I thought I had provided cites for the mortality risk for a late term abortion versus live birth. I can’t remember right now but the mortality rate for either was very low but I am pretty sure that C-sections had a lower mortality rate than late term abortions. So we aren’t really subjecting the mother to a more risky procedure are we?
So do late term abortions. Show me some stats saying that third trimester abortions are more dangerous than C-sections or vaginal childbirth.
Once again show me some stats that back up what you are saying. You keep saying that third trimester abortions are better for the woman than giving live birth. Prove it. I think its about time someone from your side of the argument started digging up evidence that what you say isn’t all simply fantasy. I have already said that I wouldn’t force a woman who would die or suffer physical disability from giving birth could get an abortion (I don’t know how big that universe is) so how many more women would suffer because they had to give live birth rather than an abortion?
Of course it is.