Comments on: Senate approves ban on partial-birth abortions

By: Psycheout

Psycheout — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:17:09 +0000

This is a great day for the pro-life movement. We have Senator Sam Brownback to thank for rejecting the Miers nomination and getting Justice Alito on the court.

By: Atomictumor

Atomictumor — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:27:37 +0000

Did I just get spammed by a campaign blog?

By: Exiled To Canada

Exiled To Canada — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:49:28 +0000

Not sure what the heck that first comment is about. Speaking as one who lived a large portion of her young life in KS, I can say Sam Brownback is a nut case. As for PBAs, if it is needed to save a mother’s life, it should be available. I’m not a big fan of abortions but I’m much less of a fan of the government making health decisions for anyone. I get plenty of that in Canada now and trust me, it sucks. Dr.s should be the ones making this call, not the Supreme Court. We went through a miscarriage recently, and I can’t imagine that any woman who has gotten that far into a pregnancy is going to make that decision on a whim or without it being a life or death situation for herself. I’ve seen women put off chemo for breast cancer so they could carry to term. This is not a procedure that is used without much agony on the part of the parents.

By: Pam

Pam — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:02:39 +0000

Describe a scenario in which the mother’s life would be so at risk that crushing her baby’s skull would be necessary, as opposed to an emergency c-section, to save the mother’s life.

By: VA Bluebelle

VA Bluebelle — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:07:08 +0000

100% agree with everything you wrote. Partial Birth Abortions are a heinous thought for almost everyone, but there should definitely be some loophole to protect the life of the mother if this is the *only* option. In that event, with this new Bush-oriented legislation, instead of just one tragic death (the baby), the government has now MANDATED two!

In her dissent Justice Ginsberg retorted: “Today’s decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.”

Amen, Sister!

By: Exiled To Canada

Exiled To Canada — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:23:50 +0000

Pam, I am not a doctor and I’m guessing you aren’t either, nor is anyone on the S.C. If there are any Dr.s out there who can enlighten us as to when this might be needed to save a woman’s life, please elaborate. It is not for me to say when a procedure should be used because I am not a physician and that’s the point. This legislation makes it criminal for a doctor to make a decision that could save a life. That is not what the legislature is for, they don’t have the medical expertise to make that decision. I sure as hell wouldn’t want my doctor’s hands tied when it comes to my life.

By: Jacket

Jacket — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:26:01 +0000

Joel?

By: toyfoto

toyfoto — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:33:22 +0000

All abortion procedures, if you were to describe them, are deplorable. The DX as it is clinically know has a place according to doctors who had sanctioned it’s use. Non-medical professionals can rant all they like about c-sections and heroic measures to save the lives of women and their doomed children, the reality is no one wants the damaged kids. Few people want high-needs children. Maybe with the protestors start adopting special needs children in droves, when they deal with the daily struggles and the fears of NOT outliving your kids because we only care about fetuses, not living breathing people, then maybe I will change my tune.

The thing is legislators have gotten between a woman, a family and her ability to decide the best course of action with her doctor.

This should be a privacy matter, not a public one.

By: daco

daco — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:17:30 +0000

“…the reality is no one wants the damaged kids. Few people want high-needs children.”

Well there you go. So much for compassion.

By: MountZionRyan

MountZionRyan — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:20:20 +0000

The real problem is that some (like myself) believe life is sacred and life begins at conception. While others believe that the lump of flesh isn’t a person until much later.

If you accept that the unborn is a human being then arbotion is always murder. No matter who you save by the killing.

There just doesn’t seem to be much middle ground on this. At least in my mind.

Saying this:

The thing is legislators have gotten between a woman, a family and her ability to decide the best course of action with her doctor.

Strikes me as a good example of the way we’ve euphemized (is that a word?) the whole abortion issue.

Why does the murder of a child=the best course of action.

By: califdudes

califdudes — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:01:27 +0000

I am almost afraid to weigh in here. What I will say is that my personal belief is against abortion. My reasons for this are “personal” and seem irrelevant to a conversation about the government regulating what a woman and a medical professional deem appropriate care. I have always told my children (when they asked) that I am Anti-abortion, but Pro-Choice. Others choices + my choices = the freedom of choice. I dislike the idea that any government official could A)make a sweeping decision on someones/anyones life without looking at all the facts associated with each individual case and B)think they have any authority as non-medical persons to decide what is/is not medically necessary

By: Atomictumor

Atomictumor — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:21:02 +0000

MountZion, I think the issue exists because its not exactly a woman and a child, its a (for lack of a better word, and not to make this seem cynical) parasitic relationship, where another life is completely dependent on a life to become remotely self sufficient.
I think thats where the line blurs, and while I’ve developed some strong beliefs in the past few months, I don’t think, in the situation, mine would be strong enough to determine which party in this parasitic relationship is most determined to live.
Its a private matter. Use society, shun abortionists, whatever, but keep laws away from it, because this is such an amazingly grey area, it goes beyond ‘thou shall not kill’

By: Denette

Denette — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:42:46 +0000

Abortion is always a hard thing all the way around. I would never, myself, have an abortion and the though of someone else having one makes me sick. On the other hand I don’t think making a woman have a baby is going to fix anything. I believe that baby will probably be abused and in some cases die after birth. I see people who want late term abortions having them anyway just not in a clean medical area and I also see those women being mostly youths who can’t make the best decisions anyway. The only situation *I* can think of where it would save the mother’s life and c-section isn’t nessasary is when the baby is too far down the birth canal to be taken by section and the mother is hemorging. Anyway it goes I hate it. I wish people would stop focusing on the ending result and trying to change that and instead change the lack of sexual education and offer more support to mothers.

By: bunchkin

bunchkin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:41:14 +0000

Most babies come down the birth canal head first. In fact, in PBA, they have to turn the baby around in order to have the feet come out first. They also have to hold the baby to ensure that the head does not come out before they crush the skull, if the head slips out before the child is killed, it is all of the sudden considered a person and all measures have to be taken to save its life. If a womans life is in danger, birth can be induced early. It happens all the time, even if the baby is too young to survive. The point of PBA is to ensure that the baby does NOT survive. And as for not forcing people to have the baby because it is unwanted and will probably be abused, wouldn’t that rational make it ok to euthanize children whose parents no longer want them or abuse them? It’s a slippery slope. As long as a mother relinquishes her rights to the child, there are large numbers of parents waiting to adopt in this country. Part of the reason we have so many children in foster care is that they are in limbo for years, not free to be adopted, but can’t go back to their parents.

By: MountZionRyan

MountZionRyan — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:05:13 +0000

AT said:

I think the issue exists because its not exactly a woman and a child, its a (for lack of a better word, and not to make this seem cynical) parasitic relationship, where another life is completely dependent on a life to become remotely self sufficient.

How is this changed by birth? An infant is no more capable of sulf sufficiency than an unborn child.

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:41:39 +0000

Or, by the same token, does an adult on life support continue to have moral standing, simply because he/she is now dependent on others?

What, exactly, is the difference between an unborn infant and an adult human who is suffering from brain damage and is on life support? What is it about the infant that removes its moral standing? What is it about the adult that provides it with moral standing?

By: daco

daco — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:22:19 +0000

A social security number?

By: MountZionRyan

MountZionRyan — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:18:54 +0000

Oh, a funny guy hunh? Not that it takes much for me to cite The Big Lewbowski, but the above reminds me of this exchange between Mr. Lewbowski and The Dude:
The Big Lebowski: Isn’t that what makes a man?
The Dude: Mmm, sure. That and a pair of testicles.

By: JennC

JennC — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:56:46 +0000

It has been my experience that most people are pro-life. Until something horrible, drastic, unplanned happens.

PBA is wrong and should be banned. And I’m pro-choice. I wasn’t always pro-choice. I used to stand on street corners, outside clinics, plastered my car with bumper stickers.

And then something pretty horrible happened. Now, I’m pro-choice. It really is a subject that unless it happens to you, you probably won’t change your mind. I mean, who wants to really consider not one but two life-changing tragedies happening right after the other??

Just a thought.

By: toyfoto

toyfoto — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:50:37 +0000

I don’t want to use this as a soap box, but I do want to say that I’m pro choice publically and anti-abortion personally. However, there are many, many instances where people who desperately want the child they are having but either don’t think they can raise them because of gross deformity, the fact that they will not live outside the uterus or that continuing the pregnancy puts the life of the mother in severe danger (such as preeclamsia). The DX would be done as determined by a doctor because it is safer for the woman not to have the baby taken out in pieces or to preserve her ability to have children in the future.

You take a fetus at 24-28 weeks and try and save its life, you are looking at a lifetime of really unpleasant things for that child IF he or she survives.

I realize this is an issue that many people will never agree on and that no minds will be changed, but I think we must leave it with doctors and mothers/families to decide for themselves. I really believe we know the full story but I assure you, we don’t.