Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Abortion On The Docket

The Supreme Court Will Look at late term abortions.

This law was struck down not once, but three times in three different circuits.

Since O'Connor was the tie breaking vote in the last time this issue came up, it is a safe bet that this medical option is now lost.


Tags

13 comments:

Cal Williams said...

This is good news.

John said...

Unfortunatly no it isn't.

If there is just one medical case where this should be used, and is not because this law, the law is wrong.

All it takes is one case, and we all know that that one case will occure

JFH said...

From the article (my comment in the brackets:

The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester[read almost ALWAYS in the 3rd], in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.

Geez, John can you really defend that? The only health risk to the mother is to prevent a caesarian section which heath risks are incredibly low.

Lynne said...

I can't believe I'm agreeing with jfh about anything, but on this point I do. You'd think a woman would decide before 6 months that she does or does not want a child. Yes, I know the 'slippery slope' argument. I want a woman/girl to have the choice... up to a point.
Where exactly that point is, I don't know but it certainly must be before 4 months. I had to make that decision once, and did not go beyond 2 weeks.
Now, if the anti-abortion people would free up some birth control pills and pass out condoms and stop pretending that teens aren't going to have sex....

John said...

John can you really defend that?

Yes, quite easy actually.

Just go back and research why this type of surgery was developed.

when you do you will see why it still should be an option.

There are a number of medical reasons why this was developed and is used, and why it still should be avlb.

Cal Williams said...

A frontal lobotomy was also developed for a good reason, but it's use has largely died out. The bottom line is, the child's head is crushed and the brain is sucked out of their head. I can't imagine any good reason for that. The practice is barbaric an needs to stop.

It amazes me how anyone can be open to the idea of murdering an innocent preborn child via this or any other means.

John said...

murdering an innocent preborn child

An absurd statement designed only to inflame. How can a child be 'pre-born'? The states are contradictory.



Back to the real issue.

The D&X procedure was designed to address one type of failing pregnancy, hydrocephalus. It presents late in the term, so action is limited to late term action. In it's most sever form a fetus may have over a gallon of cerebrospinal fluid in the skull. The skull it self may be up to 20 inches around (an adults is 7-8 inches). The fetus may make it to term but will die very quickly, there is no chance of survival in these cases.

The woman can not give birth, it will kill her. The only options are a C-section or a D&X. zin most cases patients are offered both, and there is good reason to opt for D&X.

For patients considering another pregnancy a C-Section can be a problem best avoided. In addition when not considering future pregnancies, the C-Section has more troubling complication and mortality and morbidity numbers than the D&X.

Other cases where this is a preferred option are when the fetus is dead. Other fetal abnormalities, discovered late in term, that indicate nonviability or cases where the patient is to small to carry to term and deliver (cases of very young women mostly).

So, we now see why the doctor might want to do this, it is far better for the patient than the other options (that do include bringing to term and dying in the effort to deliver). What is very telling is the way those opposed to patient choice focus on the technique, dwelling on the details of the procedure, and not the reasons why it exists.

For those that don't know it is just simple ignorance. For those that do know, and make the choice to present the morbid, without explanation it is dishonest


And back to the greater issue. There is no agreement to when life begins. Some hold that it starts at conception, others at birth. Science can not agree on a time, religion can not agree.

We each are forced to make our own determination. If you feel that life begins at conception or quickening, then great, don't impose your will on others.

If you don't like abortion, don't get one, but don't impose you will on others.

Cal Williams said...

"don't impose your will on others"

This is the ultimate irony. The one being aborted is having someone else's will imposed on them. If given a say in the matter, the baby would say, I want to live.

John said...

The one being aborted is having someone else's will imposed on them

The trouble with that argument Cal is there is no agreement in either the scientific of religious field that the fetus being aborted is EVEN a one yet.

You can't have a will if you do not yet exist as an independent individule.

That is where you argument fails. You have made the personal determination about when you feel life begins. Others have come to another conclusion.

Why is yours better?

Cal Williams said...

"Why is yours better?"

I could ask you the same question. You have decided when you think life and the will begins, at birth.

The context of this discussion is "late term" abortions. While I agree with your comment that there is no agreement as to when life begins, there is concensus that life begins before the third trimester (see Lynn's comment). The old "viability" argument.

Since we do not know the exact moment, why not error on the safe side, the earliest time?

John said...

I could ask you the same question. You have decided when you think life and the will begins, at birth.

You are making a false asumption, based upon your prejudices. my personal opinion is that ensouloment is at the quickening.

But note, I also know that this is my OPINION. It is the standard I will live by, but since is it opinion and not fact, I will not force anyone else to live with my choice.


there is concensus that life begins before the third trimester (see Lynn's comment). The old "viability" argument.

2 points here; there is a minimal ammount of coscensus that at some point in the thrid trimester there is life, but no concensus where that point is, in addition if we are this late in term, a D&X is used almost exclusivlly in cases of fetal nonviability, but is it still an abortion.

Since we do not know the exact moment, why not error on the safe side, the earliest time?

Because that is again oposing your point of view, your opinion on others. An opinion that lacks any scientific basis or agreement, any religious agreement (From the christian perspective you can argue that there is some basis for any time from conception to birth as the point of life) and one that others may not agree with.

again, if you don't approve of abortion, don't have one.


Cal, thanks for your comments. I do respect and in many ways hold your opinions. I just see that lacking proof we can not force others to our individule POV.

JFH said...

I wouldn't be surprised if the law gets overruled again, but for "non-liberal" reasons. Creating a federal law in this case really stretches the commerce clause to it's limits. Shouldn't this be a state issue?

Anonymous said...

runescape money runescape gold tibia item tibia gold runescape accounts tibia money runescape gp buy runescape gold tibia gold tibia item buy runescape money runescape items tibia money