Obama

[jacktruth]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

so now women have absolutely no rights to control what goes on in their body? give me a break...

ps. I'm not touching this issue any further with a billion foot pole.

They actually have a lot of control what goes into thier bodies. Think back to fifth grade when you learned how babies are made.

Babies, however, should have a right to say if they want to be killed or not. Most would probably say no. Unless of course, thier brains are being sucked out of thier skull. Then it will be hard to say much at all, won't it.

If I was in favor of this kind of thing, I wouldn't want to touch this issue with a billion foot pole either.

[jacktruth]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yes, it's clear that the 2008 race has begun, the character attackers have emerged to try and damage the "front runner"....much to their dismay those darn facts seem to get in the way!

Which facts? I'm not blindly following the article. I know that this is written by the far right and could well be distorted. If Obama is pro-life, great! He's up a notch in my book, but showing that he isn't against BAIPA doesn't do much in that area. Where is he on partial birth abortion? If the best he can do is the standard pro-infant death stance of the democratic party, he's already lost my vote. If he is pro-life, I'll consider that above most issues. I'm not a republican. I'm a conservative in most regards, and republicans aren't exactly impressing me for the most part, but at least thier platform is right on this issue.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Except that the baby was "delivered" at 22 weeks, and the mother didn't want to bring it to term because it had Down's Syndrome. And the legislative issue in question had to with an IL Supreme Court case dealing with the definition of a "viable person" in regard to a murder trial. And that Obama believed that the Democrats should support the federal law, the way that law was written in text.

It's always easy to twist an issue like this to suit your own perspective.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1350472/posts

So let's not twist things: What is your perspective?

Do you think there's something wrong with the bill they tried to pass in Illinois? The only discernible difference between it and the federal version was that it contained "general guidelines for doctor assessment (when a child was "born alive") as well as groundwork for civil action if doctors did not follow the guidelines in their medical care." What's wrong with that?

Does the fact that the baby had Down's Syndrome and was born alive at 22 weeks somehow make what happened to him/her less egregious?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by jacktruth

Which facts?

There aren't any. It seems clear that Obama was opposed to the Illinois bill because the abortion lobby wanted him to be. God forbid that we actually humanize aborted babies!

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jacktruth

Which facts? I'm not blindly following the article. I know that this is written by the far right and could well be distorted. If Obama is pro-life, great! He's up a notch in my book, but showing that he isn't against BAIPA doesn't do much in that area. Where is he on partial birth abortion? If the best he can do is the standard pro-infant death stance of the democratic party, he's already lost my vote. If he is pro-life, I'll consider that above most issues. I'm not a republican. I'm a conservative in most regards, and republicans aren't exactly impressing me for the most part, but at least thier platform is right on this issue.

the worldnetdaily article purposely avoided (ney, distorted) the truth, it portrayed obama as single handedly stopping legislation "because of Obama's fanatical support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide".

the fact is obama had valid reasons for his opposition to that specidic bill, and it had nothing to do with his "condoning infanticide".

no, obama is not in favor of taking away a women's right to elect to abort.

the issue of partial birth abortions has become as politicized as any medical term out there. I'd like to hear from those who want to beat that drum how they can reconcile the potential harm to/death of a mother in their desire to dictate to doctors how to do their jobs...

if you are making your detrmination on who to vote for based on if they will outlaw abortion, then no obama clearly isn't your candidate.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the fact is obama had valid reasons for his opposition to that specidic bill, and it had nothing to do with his "condoning infanticide".

Such as?

the issue of partial birth abortions has become as politicized as any medical term out there. I'd like to hear from those who want to beat that drum how they can reconcile the potential harm to/death of a mother in their desire to dictate to doctors how to do their jobs...

This comment makes no sense.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Such as?

the free republic article discusses them.

This comment makes no sense.

yes, it does make no sense to dictate by law that doctors cannot stop a pregnancy where the mother's well being is threatened merely to try and protect the potential life of a fetus.

"partial birth abortion" has taken on a meaning to those opposed to abortions that is not reflective of the medical issues inherent. the reason for its use is typically based on a medical need while the politization of the procedure ignores that need.

[jacktruth]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the free republic article discusses them.



yes, it does make no sense to dictate by law that doctors cannot stop a pregnancy where the mother's well being is threatened merely to try and protect the potential life of a fetus.

"partial birth abortion" has taken on a meaning to those opposed to abortions that is not reflective of the medical issues inherent. the reason for its use is typically based on a medical need while the politization of the procedure ignores that need.

But that "need" results in many times more abortions on demand than abortions for the safety concerns of the mother. I can agree with the problem, but the democratic party generally stands with the abortion-on-demand cry of the far left, not with the abortion-for-safety cry. There are a lot mini-issues surrounding abortion. The democratic party generally sides against the fetus. The republican party sides against the mother-in-crisis.

I'm on the side of republicans because a large majority of abortions are for reasons of convenience, not medical reasons. I believe it is a human, with an inalienable right to life.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jacktruth

But that "need" results in many times more abortions on demand than abortions for the safety concerns of the mother. I can agree with the problem, but the democratic party generally stands with the abortion-on-demand cry of the far left, not with the abortion-for-safety cry. There are a lot mini-issues surrounding abortion. The democratic party generally sides against the fetus. The republican party sides against the mother-in-crisis.

I'm on the side of republicans because a large majority of abortions are for reasons of convenience, not medical reasons. I believe it is a human, with an inalienable right to life.

I agree the majority of late term abortions are elective rather than medical related. it reinforces the need for family planning and availability of contraceptives imho.

It is the few late term procedures that are nedded for medical reasons that I am concerned with. these women should be able to have the abortion. outlawing the late term abortion would potentially harm these women.

yes, the democrat party sees the decision to rest with the woman. the republican party wants to have the decision made by the state.

I'll go with the woman's right to choose rather than the state choosing for them.

[jacktruth]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I agree the majority of late term abortions are elective rather than medical related. it reinforces the need for family planning and availability of contraceptives imho.

It is the few late term procedures that are nedded for medical reasons that I am concerned with. these women should be able to have the abortion. outlawing the late term abortion would potentially harm these women.

yes, the democrat party sees the decision to rest with the woman. the republican party wants to have the decision made by the state.

I'll go with the woman's right to choose rather than the state choosing for them.

I just don't see where it is a choice. A choice for what? To end the life of a human being? That is already chosen by the state. I believe it is called homicide. That is why this debate always ends up with the definition of what is or is a human with rights. The republican party sides with the fetus. The democratic party sides with "it's not a human". That is why it is such a big issue with me--if it's not a human, what is it, and what is a human? I also see the republican party trying to pass comprimized issues such as BAIPA, partial-birth abortion, parental consent laws, information disclosure laws to try to limit on-demand abortion, while the democratic party is the party of no comprimise that seems to settle for nothing less than abortion-on-demand. There are some that even want the goverment to pay so that cost is not a hindrance.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

the free republic article discusses them.

No, it doesn't. It only says that he would vote for passage if the legislation were identical to the federal language. There is no discussion of WHY he believes that.

yes, it does make no sense to dictate by law that doctors cannot stop a pregnancy where the mother's well being is threatened merely to try and protect the potential life of a fetus.

What in the world are you talking about?

"partial birth abortion" has taken on a meaning to those opposed to abortions that is not reflective of the medical issues inherent. the reason for its use is typically based on a medical need while the politization of the procedure ignores that need.

That's flat-out wrong. Cases in which the mother's life are truly at risk are extremely rare.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Who knows if he would be an appealing candidate, or a candidate with whom minority voters would identify. And frankly there's no way that wouldn't be made an issue in a campaign--either explicitly, or more likely implicitly inserted into an opponent's campaign. That's the kind of thing the Clinton camp would do masterfully with targeted voting demographics--"He doesn't really share your experience. He's not REALLY one of you. Bill Clinton is Blacker than he is. "

Here is how it's done. Not the identical issue, but similar--cf Harold Ford, Tennessee

October 25, 2006, 1:09 pm More on the Tennessee Mudslide

By Kate Phillips

A lot of people are scratching their heads over comments made by Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, during an interview with Tim Russert, in which Mr. Mehlman said he could not withdraw a controversial attack ad against Congressman Harold Ford Jr. in the Tennessee Senate race.


We told you about the ad on Monday, and actually there are two ads, but the one found most objectionable, by the Ford campaign, by the NAACP, by editorial boards in the state, is the person on the street commercial that ends with a (white) blonde telling Mr. Ford to call her.
Watch the ad.
Watch the ad.
Well, the Corker campaign has been trying to distance itself from this ad since late last week. It called on national Republicans to pull it, since the R.N.C. paid for the ad through what are known as independent expenditures, not counted as campaign contributions toward the Republican candidate. The party and the candidate are forbidden from coordination on these types of expenditures.
On MSNBC on Tuesday, Mr. Russert asked Mr. Mehlman about the ad. First off, Mr. Mehlman said he did not agree with others that the ad had racist overtones. Second, here’s what he told Mr. Russert:

RUSSERT: Ken Mehlman, the Republican candidate in Tennessee has asked that you take that ad off the air, that it is over the top. Former Republican Senator William Cohen says it’s, quote, “overt racist appeal.”
Will you take that ad down?
MEHLMAN: Tim, I don’t have the authority to take it down or put it up. It’s what called an independent expenditure.
The way that process works under the campaign reform laws is I write a check to an independent individual. And that person’s responsible for spending money in certain states. Tennessee is one of them.
I’ll tell you this, though. After the comments by Mr. Corker and by former Senator Cohen, I looked at the ad. I don’t agree with that characterization of it. But it’s not an ad that I have authority over. I saw it for the first time the same time that they did.

And there’s more:
RUSSERT: The whole idea of having a blond white woman winking at a black congressman, the notion of interracial sex is not in your mind racist?
MEHLMAN: I think that that ad talks about a number of people on the street talking about things that Mr. Ford allegedly has either done or a proposal he has for the future. I think it’s a fair ad.
As I said, we didn’t have anything to do with creating it. I just think those criticisms of it are wrong.

Technically, Mr. Mehlman’s interpretation rings true. From our campaign finance expert, Aron Pilhofer, here’s how this works:

Mr. Mehlman’s words here were no doubt very carefully chosen. And although it may be surprising to some, he is almost certainly correct to say that he had no hand in the ad’s creation or content, and does not personally have the authority to take it down.
Without getting too technical, it would be a violation of campaign finance laws if Mr. Mehlman were involved in development of the ad. But a far murkier legal question is whether Mr. Mehlman would be breaking the law to simply ring up the mysterious independent individual (whoever he or she is) and ask that the ad be taken down now.
And you thought the tax code was confusing.
Mr. Mehlman, by the way, probably isn’t alone. No doubt Howard Dean over at the Democratic National Committee has a similar legal firewall between himself and the party’s independent expenditure operations. He has to.
By the nature of their positions, of course they’re constantly meeting with candidates and planning strategy. Thus, they cannot also participate in their parties’ independent expenditure operations because of their coordination with candidates. Those independent activities would no longer be independent, in other words.
But to be clear, here’s what Mr. Mehlman is not saying: The independent individual to whom Mehlman wrote the check is an employee or agent of the Republican National Committee, and most certainly does have the authority to take the ad down. Chances are this person isn’t living in a sound-proof booth, and no doubt has heard the outcry from members of his own party as well as Democrats over the ad.

And as Aron quickly pointed out, it’s not unprecendented for a party to pull an ad - the R.N.C. did so itself during the 2000 Bush-Gore campaign, taking down a commercial that had quoted Mr. Gore out of context about truth-telling.


The Ford campaign also has complained to broadcast network stations that another ad, using almost cartoonish characters, should be pulled for inaccuracies. Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the R.N.C., told The Memphis Commercial Appeal that the committee stands by both ads. “They’re 100 percent factually accurate, and they highlight in very stark fashion the fact that Harold Ford is not an effective match for voters,” Mr. Diaz said. So they can stand by them, just not disavow them?


Shailagh Murray has a great state-of-play on the Tennessee Senate battle, over at the WashPost.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

No, it doesn't. It only says that he would vote for passage if the legislation were identical to the federal language. There is no discussion of WHY he believes that.

it says that the federal language was acceptable to both dems and repubs so therefore likely to pass, and that the state medical society was on board for the federal language.

That's flat-out wrong. Cases in which the mother's life are truly at risk are extremely rare.

you say "That's flat out wrong" and then say the procedure IS used (albeit rarely) to prevent death to the mother?

pretty contradictory.

I see the term "partial birth abortion", a phrase that is not medical in ANY way and was coined in the mid 90's by an anti-abortion group, as a hook to get the reader emotional. nobody gets a positive vibe by the image of a baby being "partially" born and then terminated, with words like "sucking out their brains" etc connected. it's not a medical term, it's a political term. surprise, it's a medical issue not a political issue.

so tell me, you wish to prohibit the act of a intact dilation and extraction. are you going to tell the woman whose fetus has hydrocephalus that she cannot use this procedure, and that she must have her gut cut open and risk other health issues because of the politicization of the issue?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

So let's not twist things: What is your perspective?

Do you think there's something wrong with the bill they tried to pass in Illinois? The only discernible difference between it and the federal version was that it contained "general guidelines for doctor assessment (when a child was "born alive") as well as groundwork for civil action if doctors did not follow the guidelines in their medical care." What's wrong with that?

Does the fact that the baby had Down's Syndrome and was born alive at 22 weeks somehow make what happened to him/her less egregious?

I didn't write an article that offered my own perspective, so I think I'll keep my perspective out of this. I'm just concerned in the facts being reported accurately.

[jacktruth]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it says that the federal language was acceptable to both dems and repubs so therefore likely to pass, and that the state medical society was on board for the federal language.



you say "That's flat out wrong" and then say the procedure IS used (albeit rarely) to prevent death to the mother?

pretty contradictory.

I see the term "partial birth abortion", a phrase that is not medical in ANY way and was coined in the mid 90's by an anti-abortion group, as a hook to get the reader emotional. nobody gets a positive vibe by the image of a baby being "partially" born and then terminated, with words like "sucking out their brains" etc connected. it's not a medical term, it's a political term. surprise, it's a medical issue not a political issue.

so tell me, you wish to prohibit the act of a intact dilation and extraction. are you going to tell the woman whose fetus has hydrocephalus that she cannot use this procedure, and that she must have her gut cut open and risk other health issues because of the politicization of the issue?

But it is a medical procedure, not a political one. It actually involves, partially giving birth, stabbing scissors into the skull and sucking out the brain. That is how doctors perform the procedure isn't it? I guess if you use medical terminology, it doesn't sound as bad, but it is the same disgusting procedure.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jacktruth

But it is a medical procedure, not a political one. It actually involves, partially giving birth, stabbing scissors into the skull and sucking out the brain. That is how doctors perform the procedure isn't it? I guess if you use medical terminology, it doesn't sound as bad, but it is the same disgusting procedure.

not exactly.
here's how its described at wikipedia:

Intact D&X Surgery
Preliminary procedures are performed over a period of 2-3 days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a suction curette.[12]


Circumstances in which the procedure is performed
IDX, along with dilation and evacuation (D&E), early induction of labor, and rare procedures such as saline abortions, are only used in the late stages of pregnancy. Late-term abortions are uncommon, with abortions at 21 weeks or later accounting for only 1.4% of all abortions in the USA.[13] Intact D&X procedures are used in approximately 15% of late-term abortion cases. This calculates to between 2,500 and 3,000 per year, using data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute for the year 2000. They are typically performed between the twentieth and twenty-fourth week of gestation.[14]

[jacktruth]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

not exactly.
here's how its described at wikipedia:

Intact D&X Surgery
Preliminary procedures are performed over a period of 2-3 days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a suction curette.[12]


Circumstances in which the procedure is performed
IDX, along with dilation and evacuation (D&E), early induction of labor, and rare procedures such as saline abortions, are only used in the late stages of pregnancy. Late-term abortions are uncommon, with abortions at 21 weeks or later accounting for only 1.4% of all abortions in the USA.[13] Intact D&X procedures are used in approximately 15% of late-term abortion cases. This calculates to between 2,500 and 3,000 per year, using data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute for the year 2000. They are typically performed between the twentieth and twenty-fourth week of gestation.[14]

I still don't understand what your point is. The doctor is ending the life of a baby by sucking the brain our of the skull. If that is a human, it's murder.

Incidentally, 1.4% of abortions is about 50 deaths per day. That's about 20 since you got up this morning.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it says that the federal language was acceptable to both dems and repubs so therefore likely to pass, and that the state medical society was on board for the federal language.

Are you being purposefully obtuse? You said that Obama had valid reasons for opposing the Illinois state bill. The article does NOT elaborate on Obama's reasoning. At all. So do you have another source from which to make that statement, or did you just pull it out of your rear end?

you say "That's flat out wrong" and then say the procedure IS used (albeit rarely) to prevent death to the mother?

pretty contradictory.

Huh? You said that "the reason for its use is typically based on a medical need." How is contradictory for me to say that it is rarely (you know, the opposite of typically) used for that purpose?

Most partial-birth abortions are done for the same reason as other abortions.

I see the term "partial birth abortion", a phrase that is not medical in ANY way and was coined in the mid 90's by an anti-abortion group, as a hook to get the reader emotional. nobody gets a positive vibe by the image of a baby being "partially" born and then terminated, with words like "sucking out their brains" etc connected. it's not a medical term, it's a political term. surprise, it's a medical issue not a political issue.

It's a legal term of art which is specifically defined, and it is a medical procedure, even if some of the abortionists give it a more euphemistic label.

so tell me, you wish to prohibit the act of a intact dilation and extraction. are you going to tell the woman whose fetus has hydrocephalus that she cannot use this procedure, and that she must have her gut cut open and risk other health issues because of the politicization of the issue?

The Partial Birth Abortion Act has an exception if the mother's life is endangered.

Also, it's worth noting that your hypothetical (conveniently) is exceptionally rare.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I didn't write an article that offered my own perspective, so I think I'll keep my perspective out of this. I'm just concerned in the facts being reported accurately.

Well, I'm glad you cleared that up. I would hate for us to be under any misconceptions.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Are you being purposefully obtuse? You said that Obama had valid reasons for opposing the Illinois state bill. The article does NOT elaborate on Obama's reasoning. At all. So do you have another source from which to make that statement, or did you just pull it out of your rear end?

it's called inference. If you want the exact reasoning of obama, write him and ask. I'm sure he'll tell you what you want to know.

Huh? You said that "the reason for its use is typically based on a medical need." How is contradictory for me to say that it is rarely (you know, the opposite of typically) used for that purpose?

take a look at what you wrote, you said "flat out wrong". that is incorrect, the medical community says the procedure is used primarily based on medical factors.

Most partial-birth abortions are done for the same reason as other abortions.

and the ones that are not based on that reason...

It's a legal term of art which is specifically defined, and it is a medical procedure, even if some of the abortionists give it a more euphemistic label.

"art"?? there is NO medical term. it is a conjured word that was penned by an anti-abortion politico.

The Partial Birth Abortion Act has an exception if the mother's life is endangered.

Also, it's worth noting that your hypothetical (conveniently) is exceptionally rare.

so the woman's life is not directly threatened, does the doctor not apply the procedure even if it is better for the woman?

I don't care if it happens once a year or once a decade, in my opinion a doctor should have the right to use the procedure if HE sees the need. they should not have to worry if by doing the procedure they may be prosecuted by some publicity hound da that is looking to stir up the conservative electorate.

leave the doctors to practice their profession and keep the politics out of it.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

not exactly.
here's how its described at wikipedia:

Intact D&X Surgery
Preliminary procedures are performed over a period of 2-3 days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a suction curette.[12]


Circumstances in which the procedure is performed
IDX, along with dilation and evacuation (D&E), early induction of labor, and rare procedures such as saline abortions, are only used in the late stages of pregnancy. Late-term abortions are uncommon, with abortions at 21 weeks or later accounting for only 1.4% of all abortions in the USA.[13] Intact D&X procedures are used in approximately 15% of late-term abortion cases. This calculates to between 2,500 and 3,000 per year, using data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute for the year 2000. They are typically performed between the twentieth and twenty-fourth week of gestation.[14]

Mavdog, that's scary.
2500 to 3000 babies a year have this done to them?
"The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed, which causes the skull to collapse"

That's disgusting. It's horrible. I can't believe we do that to so many babies. It's barbaric.
For a benchmark, how many people think that what's described above is not as bad as "waterboarding" or making a man wear panties on his head? How many people don't have a problem with the facts above also protest that too many American soldiers have died in Iraq?

[Mavdog]

ul, there's a lot of "disgusting" things out there.

I don't characterize it as "scary". I would agree that it is regrettable. yet I also do not wish to exert control over a woman's uterus either. next thing we know there will be laws on other reproductive issues as well, like there were prohibiting contraceptives.

yes, too many soldiers have died in iraq. yes, too many iraqis have died as well. yes, too many abortions are done. yes, too many pregnancies occur because the man or woman don't have access to contraceptives. yes, there are too many kids (esp of color) in our orphanages and too few people to adopt.

it's just messy out there.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Well, I'm glad you cleared that up. I would hate for us to be under any misconceptions.

Is it your stance that we can't discuss the question of what Obama does or does not believe, or did or did not do, without prejudice from our own viewpoints?

[dude1394]

In a day when c-sections are done for cosmetic reasons, I do not see how partial birth abortions can be excused. None, nope, nada

In the case described above, a 5 minute c-section would have done the exact same thing....except....the mother would have to deal with a living human being instead of a murdered human being.

I see no excuses for the procedure to be honest except convenience.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it's called inference. If you want the exact reasoning of obama, write him and ask. I'm sure he'll tell you what you want to know.

Why are you getting pissy with me? You were the one who said you knew what Obama's reasoning was. Don't get mad at me because I demonstrated that you didn't.

take a look at what you wrote, you said "flat out wrong". that is incorrect, the medical community says the procedure is used primarily based on medical factors.

Actually, from what I've read, it's exactly the opposite. And when you use the term "medical factors", that's awfully vague and could include things which pose no threat to the health of the mother.

and the ones that are not based on that reason...

Personally? I'm still opposed to the procedure, but the law provides for an exception when the mother's life is endangered, so in that instance the law would allow the abortion to take place.

"art"?? there is NO medical term. it is a conjured word that was penned by an anti-abortion politico.

Sorry. I shouldn't have used legal jargon with you. When a term is defined legally, it is referred to as a "term of art."

I don't see what your point is about the term "partial birth abortion." The procedure exists, and everybody knows what the term means. Laypeople say "heart attack", and everybody knows they're referring to a myocardial infarction, even if they don't use the proper medical term.

so the woman's life is not directly threatened, does the doctor not apply the procedure even if it is better for the woman?

Right.

I don't care if it happens once a year or once a decade, in my opinion a doctor should have the right to use the procedure if HE sees the need. they should not have to worry if by doing the procedure they may be prosecuted by some publicity hound da that is looking to stir up the conservative electorate.

So if a prosecutor enforced the law, it would be because he's looking to stir up the conservative electorate? Hmmm.

leave the doctors to practice their profession and keep the politics out of it.

I don't care about the politics of it; I care about the sanctity of human life.

Doctors can practice their profession to their hearts' content, so long as it doesn't kill a human being.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

ul, there's a lot of "disgusting" things out there.

yeah . . . and baby killing is about as bad as it gets.

I don't characterize it as "scary". I would agree that it is regrettable. yet I also do not wish to exert control over a woman's uterus either. next thing we know there will be laws on other reproductive issues as well, like there were prohibiting contraceptives.

yes, too many soldiers have died in iraq. yes, too many iraqis have died as well. yes, too many abortions are done. yes, too many pregnancies occur because the man or woman don't have access to contraceptives. yes, there are too many kids (esp of color) in our orphanages and too few people to adopt.

it's just messy out there.

2 questions:
1)Out of the "too many" list above, why do you choose to object to those things you object to?
and 2) would you would have said the same of any other treatment of people as property, like slave auctions or wife beating? (Why baby killing isn't a human rights issue is just beyond me.)

yes, too many pregnancies occur because the man or woman don't have access to contraceptives.

very few pregnancies occur with couples who don't have access to the "don't do it" method!

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Is it your stance that we can't discuss the question of what Obama does or does not believe, or did or did not do, without prejudice from our own viewpoints?

Sure, we can discuss things objectively. You are right that the article was misleading in the sense that it didn't mention that Obama supported the federal version. The rest of what you pointed out (such as the fact that the baby had Down's Syndrome and was 22 weeks old) was irrelevant and seemed to me to be some sort of justification for partial-birth abortion.

[kg_veteran]

Why baby killing isn't a human rights issue is just beyond me.

No kidding.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Why are you getting pissy with me? You were the one who said you knew what Obama's reasoning was. Don't get mad at me because I demonstrated that you didn't.

I said he had "valid reasons". the article contained a couple. did you demonstrate they weren't?

Actually, from what I've read, it's exactly the opposite. And when you use the term "medical factors", that's awfully vague and could include things which pose no threat to the health of the mother.

from the numbers above, it's about 8 a day? (2500 to 3000/365).
I'm not a doctor. I don't know what is or isn't a threat to the mother. let the medical side determine that definition.

Personally? I'm still opposed to the procedure, but the law provides for an exception when the mother's life is endangered, so in that instance the law would allow the abortion to take place.

then the only item we disagree on is who determines when it's needed. you want to restrict the definition to when the mother will otherwise die, I would allow for the medical team to decide when it's in her best interests.

I don't see what your point is about the term "partial birth abortion." The procedure exists, and everybody knows what the term means. Laypeople say "heart attack", and everybody knows they're referring to a myocardial infarction, even if they don't use the proper medical term.

the phrase conjures a vision of the actual birth of a child, as if the birth was interrupted by a doctor and the delivered baby was aborted. it was "partially" birthed and then aborted. not accurate at all.

So if a prosecutor enforced the law, it would be because he's looking to stir up the conservative electorate? Hmmm.

enforcing some laws before an election? nah, never happens.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by dude1394

In the case described above, a 5 minute c-section would have done the exact same thing....except....the mother would have to deal with a living human being instead of a murdered human being.

I see no excuses for the procedure to be honest except convenience.

Excellent point.

Mavdog, why wouldn't a c-section work if the mother's health is involved?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The rest of what you pointed out (such as the fact that the baby had Down's Syndrome and was 22 weeks old) was irrelevant and seemed to me to be some sort of justification for partial-birth abortion.

If that's the case (that it's irrelevant), then so were the gory details from the original article. The gory details don't do much to advance the philosophical debate. They do stir the emotions, though.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

yeah . . . and baby killing is about as bad as it gets.

2 questions:
1)Out of the "too many" list above, why do you choose to object to those things you object to?
and 2) would you would have said the same of any other treatment of people as property, like slave auctions or wife beating? (Why baby killing isn't a human rights issue is just beyond me.)

very few pregnancies occur with couples who don't have access to the "don't do it" method!

we have a different order in our respective bad list.

1) they are all issues in this thread,
2) I don't know what I would have said. would I have been the owner or the slave? (killing babies IS a human rights issue, killing a fetus isn't)

the sad part is those things you mention go on today. there are still slaves, and women are still beaten.

abstinence is a great policy for those who don't want to conceive. but it's natural to have sex. people will have sex. sex doesn't negate the women's right to control their body.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

I said he had "valid reasons". the article contained a couple. did you demonstrate they weren't?

No, I don't think they are valid, but that's beside the point. In your rush to defend Obama, you suddenly gained the ability to read his mind.

from the numbers above, it's about 8 a day? (2500 to 3000/365).
I'm not a doctor. I don't know what is or isn't a threat to the mother. let the medical side determine that definition.

That is the law.

then the only item we disagree on is who determines when it's needed. you want to restrict the definition to when the mother will otherwise die, I would allow for the medical team to decide when it's in her best interests.

I thought we were discussing what the law is, not what my view is.

Personally, I tend to agree with dude.

the phrase conjures a vision of the actual birth of a child, as if the birth was interrupted by a doctor and the delivered baby was aborted. it was "partially" birthed and then aborted. not accurate at all.

I think the vision conjured is pretty accurate, myself.

enforcing some laws before an election? nah, never happens.

I admit that could happen, but it's fairly cynical of you to automatically assume that such would be the case.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If that's the case (that it's irrelevant), then so were the gory details from the original article. The gory details don't do much to advance the philosophical debate. They do stir the emotions, though.

Are we talking about the philosophical debate about abortion in general, or this specific type of abortion procedure?

i don't know how you have a philosophical debate about partial birth abortion without discussing what the procedure entails, and those are the gory details.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Are we talking about the philosophical debate about abortion in general, or this specific type of abortion procedure?

i don't know how you have a philosophical debate about partial birth abortion without discussing what the procedure entails, and those are the gory details.

I guess since we can have a quaking Michael J. Fox doing commercials against politicians for not funding the stem cell research that HE wants the right should be able to show the actual sucking of the brains out of a baby to show what pro-abortionists are advocating, right?

[kg_veteran]

dude - I think you might have a point.

Seriously, though, there is something odd about "pro-choice" advocates not wanting to provide women with as much information as possible with which to make their "choice". For example, the Planned Parenthood location here locally performs abortions, but do you think they show the women an ultrasound of their child beforehand? Of course not. And why not? Thankfully, a local crisis pregancy center which is an excellent alternative to Planned Parenthood DOES provide that information, giving women full information before they make their "choice".

Why doesn't Planned Parenthood want women to have full information before making their "choice"?

[Dirkadirkastan]

Hey Mavdog, your mom wanted to abort you but she couldn't afford it.

[Ninkobei]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

dude - I think you might have a point.

Seriously, though, there is something odd about "pro-choice" advocates not wanting to provide women with as much information as possible with which to make their "choice". For example, the Planned Parenthood location here locally performs abortions, but do you think they show the women an ultrasound of their child beforehand? Of course not. And why not? Thankfully, a local crisis pregancy center which is an excellent alternative to Planned Parenthood DOES provide that information, giving women full information before they make their "choice".

Why doesn't Planned Parenthood want women to have full information before making their "choice"?

so, is it wrong for a person to want to feel better about doing an act that they already will feel guilty about? Why not just go up to every woman who ever has had an abortion and shove a dead fetus in their face? Why? WHY? because that would be cruel and unusual punishment. Our whole entire life revolves around feeling better about mistakes we have made. How would you feel if someone followed you around all day reminding you constantly about every mistake you have ever made? empathy man, empathy!

We do not shove corpses in the faces of our retired military personnel. I'm sure they feel equally, if not more, guilty as the women who choose to have an abortion. I forget the exact number, but bombs have killed somewhere around 2% of the civilians in Iraq. 2%! Thats freaking unheard of! Now sure, a lot of those bombings were done by Terrorists, but certainly they arent the only ones responsible. But never in a million years would I shove that in a veteran's face, if only for the fact its downright unpolite.

now I'm sure you can tear my argument to shreds, but this side of the argument needs to have its say.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

so, is it wrong for a person to want to feel better about doing an act that they already will feel guilty about? Why not just go up to every woman who ever has had an abortion and shove a dead fetus in their face? Why? WHY? because that would be cruel and unusual punishment. Our whole entire life revolves around feeling better about mistakes we have made. How would you feel if someone followed you around all day reminding you constantly about every mistake you have ever made? empathy man, empathy!

We do not shove corpses in the faces of our retired military personnel. I'm sure they feel equally, if not more, guilty as the women who choose to have an abortion. I forget the exact number, but bombs have killed somewhere around 2% of the civilians in Iraq. 2%! Thats freaking unheard of! Now sure, a lot of those bombings were done by Terrorists, but certainly they arent the only ones responsible. But never in a million years would I shove that in a veteran's face, if only for the fact its downright unpolite.

now I'm sure you can tear my argument to shreds, but this side of the argument needs to have its say.

I actually think you are sorta agreeing with me.. I think the Michael J. Fox advertisements where he is using his disability for political points is beyond the pale.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

so, is it wrong for a person to want to feel better about doing an act that they already will feel guilty about?

Are we talking about before or after an abortion?

If we're talking about before an abortion has taken place, I want the woman to know exactly what she is agreeing to do before she does it. That, IMO, is the only logical position to take, whether you are for or against the right to abort.

Unless, of course, you are simply pro-abortion and not pro-choice.

Why not just go up to every woman who ever has had an abortion and shove a dead fetus in their face? Why? WHY? because that would be cruel and unusual punishment.

Don't put words in my mouth. I believe that women who have had abortions suffer not only physically but emotionally and psychologically as well. I believe they should be given grace, even if they decide to abort their child. However, I want them to have all of the information possible before they make their decision.

BTW, your military analogy really doesn't hold much water, and you've got your death toll WAY off.
But, that's a discussion for another thread.