NationStates Jolt Archive

I've always been pro-choice.

It does break my heart, however, to read stories of abortion survivors. Up until now, I've always figured they were rare exceptions for botched abortions. This article says the number is more like 1 in 30.

It also says many women have aborted Down's syndrome babies. This is an abuse of the system IMO. People know going into the deal they might get a damaged child. Aborting one with severe disabilities (like a brain growing outside their skull) is one thing, but Down's syndrome people live very happy lives.

This really bothered me:
The death of the baby is a result of the trauma of the early birth, rather than the tablets itself, meaning, in rare occasions, some babies may survive the process.

From 22 weeks, the tablets should be preceded by a lethal injection into the baby's heart to ensure the baby is dead before the procedure goes any further.

Lethal injection to stop their heart?

I've always been of the opinion that abortions should be carried out no questions asked until the fetus was viable (ie could live outside the woman). It just seems to me that these fetuses are viable if a lethal injection must be administered to them.

Thoughts?

Edit: I forgot the link. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=449598&in_page_id=1770) Sorry.

Do you have a link to that article? Thanks.:)

Life is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel. Of course, if fewer men thought with their dicks, there would probably be fewer abortions :eek:

I don't like the abortion on demand culture that we may be heading to...

Some kind of link would be nice....

It also says many women have aborted Down's syndrome babies. This is an abuse of the system IMO. People know going into the deal they might get a damaged child. Aborting one with severe disabilities (like a brain growing outside their skull) is one thing, but Down's syndrome people live very happy lives.

With all due respect, have you raised, or have you grown up with, a child with Down's syndrome or a similar disability? If not then I'm afraid you're really not qualified to comment.

Do you have a link to that article? Thanks.:)

Oops. Fixed.

abortion is always a tragedy.

im not willing to force anyone to bear a child that they dont want to have. im not willing to tell a couple that they have to have a child with downs syndrome. yeah that abortion is horrible, made worse by being done when the couple wanted a child. they are the ones who most want the child, most want not to have their child suffer and most know what they can and cant handle. its better to have the decision be theirs.

It also says many women have aborted Down's syndrome babies. This is an abuse of the system IMO. People know going into the deal they might get a damaged child. Aborting one with severe disabilities (like a brain growing outside their skull) is one thing, but Down's syndrome people live very happy lives.

why should people be required to unnecessarily take on extra financial, emotional, and moral responsibilities due to one-off fuck ups during gametic meiosis?

It just seems to me that these fetuses are viable if a lethal injection must be administered to them.

viable for a couple minutes, any way.

Oops. Fixed.
Ta.

EDIT: My first reaction is It's the Daily Mail. It's like quoting Fox about abortion.

With all due respect, have you raised, or have you grown up with, a child with Down's syndrome or a similar disability? If not then I'm afraid you're really not qualified to comment.

That means no men should comment on abortion, no woman who hasn't had kids should comment on abortion.

I qualified that statement as my opinion, it doesn't mean you have to share it. I've worked extensively with special needs children. That's why I have the opinion I have.

It also says many women have aborted Down's syndrome babies. This is an abuse of the system IMO. People know going into the deal they might get a damaged child. Aborting one with severe disabilities (like a brain growing outside their skull) is one thing, but Down's syndrome people live very happy lives.


It's not an abuse of the system. This is exactly the type of thing that the system is there for.

If people aren't financially or emotionally able to deal with raising a downs syndrome child - and who knows better than the mother in question - then this is obviously the best option.

More should be done to remove the stigma of making this prudent choice.

Its the mothers choice, I say. If she wants to keep a baby with Down´s, ok. If she doesnt, she has the right to an abortion.

And I´m pro abortion, and also pro adoption. If someone doesnt want a child with down, and dont want to carry another, she should be able to adopt one.

It's the Daily Mail. The figures are most likely all false.

why should people be required to unnecessarily take on extra financial, emotional, and moral responsibilities due to one-off fuck ups during gametic meiosis?
It's a known risk. Everyone in the world hopes for a healthy baby. Babies often are born with defects. I just think that falls under the "assumed risk" catagory.


viable for a couple minutes, any way.
Average of 6 hours unless a lethal injection is administered according to the article.

Life is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel. Of course, if fewer men thought with their dicks, there would probably be fewer abortions :eek:

Because one only requires a penis to make a baby.
I believe a pair of spread legs are also required in the process, or perhaps a raised hind end like a rutting cat.

I've always been pro-choice.

It does break my heart, however, to read stories of abortion survivors. Up until now, I've always figured they were rare exceptions for botched abortions. This article says the number is more like 1 in 30.

It also says many women have aborted Down's syndrome babies. This is an abuse of the system IMO. People know going into the deal they might get a damaged child. Aborting one with severe disabilities (like a brain growing outside their skull) is one thing, but Down's syndrome people live very happy lives.

This really bothered me:


Lethal injection to stop their heart?

I've always been of the opinion that abortions should be carried out no questions asked until the fetus was viable (ie could live outside the woman). It just seems to me that these fetuses are viable if a lethal injection must be administered to them.

Thoughts?

Edit: I forgot the link. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=449598&in_page_id=1770) Sorry.

My thoughts.
No. I have no advice beyond follow your own thoughts.
This is a very personal issue, with deep moral implications no matter what your opinion.

It's not an abuse of the system. This is exactly the type of thing that the system is there for.

If people aren't financially or emotionally able to deal with raising a downs syndrome child - and who knows better than the mother in question - then this is obviously the best option.

More should be done to remove the stigma of making this prudent choice.

If a doctor is administering a lethal injection to stop a heart it's moving away from abortion and into another catagory entirely. It also puts doctors into an ethical dellima. How can they uphold the hypocratic oath if they are knowingly stopping someone's heart with a lethal injection.

At the very least, the means need to be changed. Mistakes really can't happen with this procedure.

The article is flat-out lying. Far more than 29/30 of abortions take place before the embyro is even remotely viable, so the 1/30 statistic is false. And the lethal injection bit? Utter bullshit. By the time mentioned in the article, the fetus is not removed intact.

The article is flat-out lying. Far more than 29/30 of abortions take place before the embyro is even remotely viable, so the 1/30 statistic is false. And the lethal injection bit? Utter bullshit. By the time mentioned in the article, the fetus is not removed intact.

This is talking about 2nd and 3rd term abortions with a very specific procedure. Instead of a surgical abortion (ie D&E), this is a medical abortion (pills). I'm also guessing (just guessing mind you) the injection is done like an amnio-centisis (sp) (ie through the stomach of the mom).

It's a known risk. Everyone in the world hopes for a healthy baby. Babies often are born with defects. I just think that falls under the "assumed risk" catagory.

are ≠ should be. turns out that now we have a way of minimizing that risk even further, and i can't see any reason why we shouldn't use it. hell, we should also allow infanticide in certain circumstances.

Average of 6 hours unless a lethal injection is administered according to the article.

so...they should be left to die slowly then?

are ≠ should be. turns out that now we have a way of minimizing that risk even further, and i can't see any reason why we shouldn't use it. hell, we should also allow infanticide in certain circumstances.


What ever happened to human rights?

are ≠ should be. turns out that now we have a way of minimizing that risk even further, and i can't see any reason why we shouldn't use it. hell, we should also allow infanticide in certain circumstances.


Now we are talking.

I've long held that position myself.

What ever happened to human rights?

fetuses don't get them, as they aints peoples.

and the certain limited allowances for infanticide are to deal with mothers that just refused to believe how debilitating or deadly some condition would be back when they should have gotten the abortion, or for things that happen during birth. to some extent we already allow this, but do it in a passive way that creates needless suffering and doesn't catch all those that it would be better to let die.

are ≠ should be. turns out that now we have a way of minimizing that risk even further, and i can't see any reason why we shouldn't use it. hell, we should also allow infanticide in certain circumstances.
I really hope that's sarcasm.


so...they should be left to die slowly then?
No. It's better for a precedure to be developed where this never ever happens. Or if it does, very rarely.

fetuses don't get them, as they aints peoples.


I was only refering to your infantcide comment


and the certain limited allowances for infanticide are to deal with mothers that just refused to believe how debilitating or deadly some condition would be back when they should have gotten the abortion, or for things that happen during birth. to some extent we already allow this, but do it in a passive way that creates needless suffering and doesn't catch all those that it would be better to let die.

The only thing is, I seem to remember you being almost deontologically in favour of human rights of the innocent in every circumstance, infantcide is a direct violation of that.

I really hope that's sarcasm.

why would it be? i can think of no plausible ethical justifications for keeping an infant alive in tremendous pain while also knowing that this pain will stay with them until they die, as we know they will, in a few months or years.

It also says many women have aborted Down's syndrome babies. This is an abuse of the system IMO. People know going into the deal they might get a damaged child. Aborting one with severe disabilities (like a brain growing outside their skull) is one thing, but Down's syndrome people live very happy lives.

Ah, so since you go into life knowing you could get cancer, why should we bother to cut out tumors, eh? :rolleyes:

I've always been pro-choice.

It does break my heart, however, to read stories of abortion survivors. Up until now, I've always figured they were rare exceptions for botched abortions. This article says the number is more like 1 in 30.

It also says many women have aborted Down's syndrome babies. This is an abuse of the system IMO. People know going into the deal they might get a damaged child. Aborting one with severe disabilities (like a brain growing outside their skull) is one thing, but Down's syndrome people live very happy lives.

This really bothered me:


Lethal injection to stop their heart?

I've always been of the opinion that abortions should be carried out no questions asked until the fetus was viable (ie could live outside the woman). It just seems to me that these fetuses are viable if a lethal injection must be administered to them.

Thoughts?

Edit: I forgot the link. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=449598&in_page_id=1770) Sorry.


Um. Did you even bother to read the article? Try it again slowly -- it doesn't say what you think it says. (Setting aside the fact that it is probably not accurate to begin with.)


One in 30 babies aborted for medical reasons is born alive, a study has found.

Not 1 in 30 abortions, but 1 in 30 (about 3%) of those abortions that were for medical reasons only.

Abortions are allowed to be carried out if the pregnancy is shown to have an adverse effect on the mental health and wellbeing of the mother up until the 24th week of pregnancy.

Beyond this point, the procedure is only sanctioned if the baby has a severe disability or if the mother's life is at risk.


Thus, we are only talking about situations where the baby has a severe disability or the mother's life is at risk.

They lived for an average of 80 minutes - although in some cases foetuses survived for over six hours.

Surviving outside the womb for 80 minutes is not viability.

why would it be? i can think of no plausible ethical justifications for keeping an infant alive in tremendous pain while also knowing that this pain will stay with them until they die, as we know they will, in a few months or years.

Down's Syndrome people are in pain?

Anyway, infanticide is not the same as abortion. They really are two different topics.

Ah, so since you go into life knowing you could get cancer, why should we bother to cut out tumors, eh? :rolleyes:

That's not the same at all. That's like saying, "since you just got diagnosed with terminal cancer, let's just off you now." Then not giving that person a choice or a say in it.

Um. Did you even bother to read the article? Try it again slowly -- it doesn't say what you think it says. (Setting aside the fact that it is probably not accurate to begin with.)

Not 1 in 30 abortions, but 1 in 30 (about 3%) of those abortions that were for medical reasons only.

Thus, we are only talking about situations where the baby has a severe disability or the mother's life is at risk.

Surviving outside the womb for 80 minutes is not viability.

In addition, these numbers are only good for abortions carried out by a specific procedure. And, while I can't speak for Britain, I know it's not a procedure used often (if at all) in the US for late-term abortions.

Down's Syndrome people are in pain?

no. my example was to get you to agree with limited infanticide in principle. we can argue over the actual limitations once that has been accomplished.

It's a known risk. Everyone in the world hopes for a healthy baby. Babies often are born with defects. I just think that falls under the "assumed risk" catagory.
My family has a bit of a history of spina bifida. This means that I'm going to be having myself checked when I'm pregnant and aborting the fucker if it has it.

It also puts doctors into an ethical dellima. How can they uphold the hypocratic oath if they are knowingly stopping someone's heart with a lethal injection.
Because it's not a someone. It's a fetus.

But yes, it shouldn't be made to suffer. A lethal injection of some sort should do it.

no. my example was to get you to agree with limited infanticide in principle. we can argue over the actual limitations once that has been accomplished.

Well,since infanticide isn't the topic of this thread, let's save it for another debate.

My family has a bit of a history of spina bifida. This means that I'm going to be having myself checked when I'm pregnant and aborting the fucker if it has it.

Damnit, there goes my good karma. I laughed when I read this.

Because it's not a someone. It's a fetus.

But yes, it shouldn't be made to suffer. A lethal injection of some sort should do it.

It is a someone after it's left the woman's uterus. D&E's work just dandy. This medical procedure specifically is a problem.

Um. Did you even bother to read the article? Try it again slowly -- it doesn't say what you think it says. (Setting aside the fact that it is probably not accurate to begin with.)
It was based on a study in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, surely it's verifiable.



Not 1 in 30 abortions, but 1 in 30 (about 3%) of those abortions that were for medical reasons only.

I worte that wrong. It's 1 in 30 of late term medical abortions.


Thus, we are only talking about situations where the baby has a severe disability or the mother's life is at risk.
Not in the case of the 20-24 week fetii. Those are second term and have a different set of lstandards.


Surviving outside the womb for 80 minutes is not viability.
6 hours is.

Here's the question in my mind: If late second term fetuses are viable, then why don't those abortions fall under the same laws as third term abortions?

Regardless, this is a bad procedure. It raises ethical problems and political problems. Surgical abortions work just fine. There's virtually zero chance of a fetus surviving. This is a bad medical practice.

Note: This is the third time I've written this thanks to jolt. I apologise for anything I left out.

In my opinion, abortion should not be legal in any circumstances except:
some rape and incest cases
When the life of the mother is in jeopardy

I realize that I will be criticized for my opinion, but I believe that God has a hand in every birth. If he choses to have a child born with some disease or condition, than we have to accept it, even if we don't understand the reasoning.
If the mother's life is in danger than an abortion would be a personal choice for that family- whether they would chose to abort their child to potentially save the mother or not.

I think that when a child is conceived between two poeple who do not want a child, abortion should not be a legal option at any term in the pregnancy. Granted, one or both of the parents made a mistake. There will be serious consequences to that mistake and they have a problem. However, how is that problem going to be solved? Are they going to kill the mother, who got pregnant? The father who impregnanted the woman? No, they are going to kill the innocent party, the child, who has no way to defend himself.

The Bible says that Christians are supposed to defend the defenseless so, regardless of whether you agree or not, that is why I hold these beliefs.

It is a someone after it's left the woman's uterus. D&E's work just dandy. This medical procedure specifically is a problem.
I don't think it's someone if it's an attempted abortion.

Of course, I also believe in euthanasia... so I see nothing wrong with giving it a helping hand going through death's door if all it will know is pain.

But yeah, doing a D&E or a D&X would be fine and dandy. No way that fucker's going to be "born" alive after one of those, huh?

In my opinion, abortion should not be legal in any circumstances except:
some rape and incest cases
When the life of the mother is in jeopardy

I realize that I will be criticized for my opinion, but I believe that God has a hand in every birth. If he choses to have a child born with some disease or condition, than we have to accept it, even if we don't understand the reasoning.
If the mother's life is in danger than an abortion would be a personal choice for that family- whether they would chose to abort their child to potentially save the mother or not.

I think that when a child is conceived between two poeple who do not want a child, abortion should not be a legal option at any term in the pregnancy. Granted, one or both of the parents made a mistake. There will be serious consequences to that mistake and they have a problem. However, how is that problem going to be solved? Are they going to kill the mother, who got pregnant? The father who impregnanted the woman? No, they are going to kill the innocent party, the child, who has no way to defend himself.

The Bible says that Christians are supposed to defend the defenseless so, regardless of whether you agree or not, that is why I hold these beliefs.

*shrug* We shouldn't base our laws off of what a 2000 year old book says.

Personally, I hope that you will never have children, if you are going to refer to your unborn child that way.

It also says many women have aborted Down's syndrome babies. This is an abuse of the system IMO. People know going into the deal they might get a damaged child. Aborting one with severe disabilities (like a brain growing outside their skull) is one thing, but Down's syndrome people live very happy lives.

A good thing about abortion is that you never have to worry if the fetus would have lead a happy life because it is rendered an irrelevant question.

Not in the case of the 20-24 week fetii.

The Latin plural of "fetus" is not "fetii". The plural is "fetūs" (the macron indicating a long vowel). "I" is a second declension type of ending, while "fetus" is a fourth declension noun.

Please, if you've not even a rudimentary understanding of Latin declensions refrain from inventing horrid mock Latin plurals such as "fetii, virii, penii", all of which are abomination.

My family has a bit of a history of spina bifida. This means that I'm going to be having myself checked when I'm pregnant and aborting the fucker if it has it.

I very much hope that you reconsider your views regarding human dignity.

The Latin plural of "fetus" is not "fetii". The plural is "fetūs" (the macron indicating a long vowel). "I" is a second declension type of ending, while "fetus" is a fourth declension noun.

Please, if you've not even a rudimentary understanding of Latin declensions refrain from inventing horrid mock Latin plurals such as "fetii, virii, penii", all of which are abomination.

Heh, gotta love Latin.

What's the plural form of Metropolis?

In my opinion, abortion should not be legal in any circumstances except:
some rape and incest cases
When the life of the mother is in jeopardy

I realize that I will be criticized for my opinion, but I believe that God has a hand in every birth. If he choses to have a child born with some disease or condition, than we have to accept it, even if we don't understand the reasoning.
Wait, so god has a hand in every birth except those due to rape and incest?

I think somebody just wants to punish women with babies.

The Bible says that Christians are supposed to defend the defenseless so, regardless of whether you agree or not, that is why I hold these beliefs.
The Bible also advocates a different punishment for inducing a miscarriage and murder.

Put two and two together to figure out why.

In my opinion, abortion should not be legal in any circumstances except:
some rape and incest cases

given your other statements, explain to me how these can coherently be exceptions

Well,since infanticide isn't the topic of this thread, let's save it for another debate.

and yet...
It is a someone after it's left the woman's uterus. D&E's work just dandy. This medical procedure specifically is a problem.

Heh, gotta love Latin.

What's the plural form of Metropolis?

"Polis" is not Latin, but Greek. Its plural is "poleis".

I very much hope that you reconsider your views regarding human dignity.
Umm... what is wrong with my views on human dignity?

I mean, I'm sorry, but first of all, I'm not going to have 14 kids. I'm going to have one or two and maybe adopt one. I'm not going to devote that sort of resources to raising a kid who will need to wear diapers for their entire lives.
Secondly, a fetus isn't a human being. It has potential to become one, but it isn't.
Third, who the fuck are you to tell me how to live my life or what views I should hold?!

Personally, I hope that you will never have children, if you are going to refer to your unborn child that way.
It's not an "unborn child" it's a fetus. Thanks.

And believe me, I'll make a better parent than you will.

I very much hope that you reconsider your views regarding human dignity.

You don't know what spinal bifada is, do you?

Not in the case of the 20-24 week fetii. Those are second term and have a different set of lstandards.

They do have a different set of standards. However, the article was clear that it was talking only about procedures carried out due to fetal defects. Even those carried out for the mother's health are left out.

6 hours is.

Is it? If it could only survive 6 hours, should that really be seen as viability?


I mean, I'm sorry, but first of all, I'm not going to have 14 kids. I'm going to have one or two and maybe adopt one. I'm not going to devote that sort of resources to raising a kid who will need to wear diapers for their entire lives.

Only severe cases of spina bifida result in paralysis and a need to "wear diapers for their entire lives." Most cases result in a person who can live a perfectly normal life - although they may need to be more careful to keep from injuring a specific portion of the back.

"Polis" is not Latin, but Greek. Its plural is "poleis".

I'd be impressed, but from what I've seen this is fairly standard "Fass".

But it's actually metropolem, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't think it's someone if it's an attempted abortion.

Of course, I also believe in euthanasia... so I see nothing wrong with giving it a helping hand going through death's door if all it will know is pain.

But yeah, doing a D&E or a D&X would be fine and dandy. No way that fucker's going to be "born" alive after one of those, huh?
I know it how it sounds. I just think it brings about all sorts of unneeded problems. Ethically, because then the "when is a fetus a baby" debate must be raised in the medical community. I think you can also see the problems politically if "babies" are surviving the procedure, even if it's only for a few minutes.

A good thing about abortion is that you never have to worry if the fetus would have lead a happy life because it is rendered an irrelevant question.
True enough. That's certainly the other side of the coin.
The Latin plural of "fetus" is not "fetii". The plural is "fetūs" (the macron indicating a long vowel). "I" is a second declension type of ending, while "fetus" is a fourth declension noun.

Please, if you've not even a rudimentary understanding of Latin declensions refrain from inventing horrid mock Latin plurals such as "fetii, virii, penii", all of which are abomination.
Sorry, after my third rewrite I was trying to interject some humour.
and yet...
There's a world of difference between intentional killing of babies and the accidental by-product of a crappy procedure.
They do have a different set of standards. However, the article was clear that it was talking only about procedures carried out due to fetal defects. Even those carried out for the mother's health are left out.
Abortions are allowed to be carried out if the pregnancy is shown to have an adverse effect on the mental health and wellbeing of the mother up until the 24th week of pregnancy.
That's very different than the standards for third term abortions.
Beyond this point, the procedure is only sanctioned if the baby has a severe disability or if the mother's life is at risk.


Is it? If it could only survive 6 hours, should that really be seen as viability?

And how do you know whether or not it was given all the medical care a premie in the same circumstances was given? It went through a horribly traumatic (phyically) procedure, of course morbidity is going to be higher.

You don't know what spinal bifada is, do you?
I'm going to guess not.

I wouldn't know what it is if I hadn't had an uncle with it or hadn't met another guy with it.

a fetus isn't a human being. It has potential to become one, but it isn't.

How can you judge exactly what is and isn't human? Whats the difference between a fetus a week away from being born, and a baby born a week premature?

You can't just say, oh it's in the womb so therefore it isn't human. There is no logical basis for this. The issue is much more complex.

Only severe cases of spina bifida result in paralysis and a need to "wear diapers for their entire lives." Most cases result in a person who can live a perfectly normal life - although they may need to be more careful to keep from injuring a specific portion of the back.
Yes, but prenatal tests can give an indication of the severity and in the instance of a severe case, once again, the fucker is aborted.

Of course, when I plan on reproducing, I will be taking all precautions, vitamin supplements et c to prevent such a thing from happening in the first place because I really would rather not have to deal with it at all than have to go through an abortion.

the fucker....


I don't see the need to refer to the fetus as "the fucker". You wouldn't call someone mentally handicapped a "fucker".

How can you judge exactly what is and isn't human? Whats the difference between a fetus a week away from being born, and a baby born a week premature?

You can't just say, oh it's in the womb so therefore it isn't human. There is no logical basis for this. The issue is much more complex.
Oh, I do love the week prior to birth comparison, as though abortions occur at this time to fetuses that are likely to actually survive.

I tend to draw the line at the point when it starts preforming stimulus response as an organism, around 20 weeks or so if memory serves.

Why not? It's not like its feelings will be hurt. (the fetus, not the mentally handicapped individual)


Oh, ok i'll call mentally handicap people fuckers for now on, because they don't know I called them that so it's alright :rolleyes:


Besides, if you and those who tend to pick your side (anti-choicers) get to call it a "baby" or "unborn child" then I can call it "a fucker".

I'm pro choice.

I don't see the need to refer to the fetus as "the fucker". You wouldn't call someone mentally handicapped a "fucker".
Why not? It's not like its feelings will be hurt. (the fetus, not the mentally handicapped individual)

Besides, if you and those who tend to pick your side (anti-choicers) get to call it a "baby" or "unborn child" then I can call it "a fucker".

Life is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel. Of course, if fewer men thought with their dicks, there would probably be fewer abortions :eek:

You can hardly blame men exclusively for unwanted pregnancies.

Personally I only support abortion in cases of rape, incest, where the mother's life is in danger and where it is unlikely that the child will survive. Funnily enough, it is not due to my religious beliefs, but more about my beliefs about responsibility and choice - if you made the decision to have sex, then obviously you made the decision to take on the consequences. If you don't want kids, then the solution is simple

Don't have sex

Also, about the six hours viability thing, is this outside of one of those things they put premature babies in in a hospital (I don't have the name for it now); or not? If it is outside one of those things, then I am willing to say that when placed in one of these things, it would survive for much longer.

I support abortions at pretty much any point during pregnancy. I do this because I view humans as being social creatures. Without social contact I believe we essentially aren't fully human. A foetus has no social relationships with anyone except the expecting parents. But if the expecting parents can't/won't give the love an attention to this prospective child then all it really is at that point is a lump cells, and is no more human than... a cat, or a cow, or a chicken.

Doesn't mean I think women should wait until the third trimester before making the final decision on whether they want to keep the baby. On the contrary such decisions should be made earlier before the procedure becomes a more dangerous procedure for the woman.

With all due respect, have you raised, or have you grown up with, a child with Down's syndrome or a similar disability? If not then I'm afraid you're really not qualified to comment.This is true. My aunt's never been back to work since she had her first child who had Down's Syndrome. She's now 30 and has only recently moved to a nearby home for people with Down's syndrome - which is being paid for by a recent promotion by my uncle.

Oh, ok i'll call mentally handicap people fuckers for now on, because they don't know I called them that so it's alright :rolleyes:
Except that the mentally handicapped are capable of feeling emotional pain, but an aborted fetus is not.

I'm pro choice.
I apologize for lumping you in with nutjobs.

That's very different than the standards for third term abortions.

And it's still irrelevant to the study quoted in your article.

Researchers looked at the outcome of 3,189 abortions performed on seriously handicapped foetuses at 20 hospitals between 1995 and 2004.

It is very clear that these abortions were carried out do to fetal defects.

And how do you know whether or not it was given all the medical care a premie in the same circumstances was given? It went through a horribly traumatic (phyically) procedure, of course morbidity is going to be higher.

In most places (although I'm not familiar with Britain), if the fetus is still alive after an abortion procedure, all necessary medical attention must be given to keep it alive.


Yes, but prenatal tests can give an indication of the severity and in the instance of a severe case, once again, the fucker is aborted.

I could see that.

Of course, when I plan on reproducing, I will be taking all precautions, vitamin supplements et c to prevent such a thing from happening in the first place because I really would rather not have to deal with it at all than have to go through an abortion.

Yes, folic acid in particular is a wonderful thing when it comes to preventing neural tube defects. Of course, it doesn't hurt to take vitamins that include the recommended amount of folic acid even before you are not actually planning on pregnancy.

Oh, I do love the week prior to birth comparison, as though abortions occur at this time to fetuses that are likely to actually survive.

I tend to draw the line at the point when it starts preforming stimulus response as an organism, around 20 weeks or so if memory serves.

Stimulus response as an organism is more like 10-12 weeks. You may be thinking of higher order brain function, which begins somewhere in the range of 20-22 weeks. Approximately 20 weeks is also the point at which researchers estimate that the fetus might feel pain.

Lethal injection to stop their heart?

I've always been of the opinion that abortions should be carried out no questions asked until the fetus was viable (ie could live outside the woman). It just seems to me that these fetuses are viable if a lethal injection must be administered to them.

Thoughts?

I don't know about human fetuses, but I do work with chicken embryos and I can tell you that a chicken embryo has a heartbeat long before it is independently viable. We sacrifice embryos by decapitation rather than allowing them to slowly expire after being removed from their egg shell, because it is far more merciful. It could take as long as 3 hours for a pre-viable chicken embryo to die on its own. Personally, I don't have the stomach for that. (But I'm a wussy scientist.)

The stage at which I work with embryos is roughly equivalent to the middle of the beginning and middle of the second trimester in human gestation, just to give you a rough idea of the development.

Yes, folic acid in particular is a wonderful thing when it comes to preventing neural tube defects. Of course, it doesn't hurt to take vitamins that include the recommended amount of folic acid even before you are not actually planning on pregnancy.
Yes, this is probably true, however given my limited food budget, I can't really guarantee that I end up with all my vitamins all the time. For me to be planning for a kid, I'd have to be in much better financial shape than I'm in currently, thus able to eat properly et c.

And it's still irrelevant to the study quoted in your article.

Researchers looked at the outcome of 3,189 abortions performed on seriously handicapped foetuses at 20 hospitals between 1995 and 2004.

It is very clear that these abortions were carried out do to fetal defects.
They might have only studied the seriuosly handicapped, but it doesn't mean there were no other abortions done between the 20-24 week mark. They stated the laws for second term abortions. It just leads me to wonder whether or not abortion laws need to change. Not to make it illegal, mind you. If a fetus is viable at 20 weeks, an abortion at that time should fall under the same laws as a 3rd term abortion.


In most places (although I'm not familiar with Britain), if the fetus is still alive after an abortion procedure, all necessary medical attention must be given to keep it alive.
There's a difference between doing your medical duty and extraordinary efforts. At least in the US. It's really a question of whether an aborted fetus would get extraordinary efforts to save it. And I'm not saying either way. It's just a question that comes to mind.

Still, the fetus has survived something terribly traumatic. The mortality rate will be much higher just because of that.

You can hardly blame men exclusively for unwanted pregnancies.
The statement in that post read, "Of course, if fewer men thought with their dicks, there would probably be fewer abortions."

This statement is, obviously, 100% true. If men took greater care in ensuring thorough contraceptive measures, there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies and (thus) fewer women seeking abortions.

Does this mean that men bear all (or even most) of the blame for unwanted pregnancy? Of course not. Try not to be too touchy on this point. I know this topic is highly charged, but not everything is an attack on the menfolks. :D

I don't know about human fetuses, but I do work with chicken embryos and I can tell you that a chicken embryo has a heartbeat long before it is independently viable. We sacrifice embryos by decapitation rather than allowing them to slowly expire after being removed from their egg shell, because it is far more merciful. It could take as long as 3 hours for a pre-viable chicken embryo to die on its own. Personally, I don't have the stomach for that. (But I'm a wussy scientist.)

The stage at which I work with embryos is roughly equivalent to the middle of the beginning and middle of the second trimester in human gestation, just to give you a rough idea of the development.

That's interesting. It kind of goes along with why I'm sqeamish about this procedure.

Like I said, I'm not really turning pro-life or anything like that. I just don't think I like this procedure very much. Especially when there's a reasonable alternative (D&E for one).

Viability also plays into my idea of what's ethical and what isn't when it comes to abortions..

An unviable fetus is a mass of cells. Nothing more IMO. I support abortions 100% and without question at that stage.

Once they're viable, I think stricter standards should apply. Namely, is the woman's health (not just life) going to be harmed? Is this a case where the woman just found out? I think some questions need to be asked at this point. Late term abortions aren't catagorically evil, but they shouldn't be doled out on demand.

I don't like the abortion on demand culture that we may be heading to...

I agree with you insofar as it allows people to eschew all personal responsibility for their actions, however, economically, abortion by necessity would be an excellent idea.

(I'm well aware I've just changed the issue, but I'm bored)

I don't see the need to refer to the fetus as "the fucker". You wouldn't call someone mentally handicapped a "fucker".

No. I'd call them stupid.

No. I'd call them stupid.
hahah

We have a winner.

That's interesting. It kind of goes along with why I'm sqeamish about this procedure.

Doing the work I do has taught me something very valuable about myself:

I am morally okay with a lot of things that I find really, really yucky.

That may sound very simplistic, but it's honestly taken me quite a while to sort it out. See, I have this gut reaction to killing things. I really really really don't like doing it. I have this very viceral reaction of NOT RIGHT when I kill something. Rats, chickens, turtles, frogs, any animal I've killed, for any project, I've had the same reaction. I really really really don't like it. It's not just gross, it's kind of gut-twisting.

I actually questioned whether to abandon my career path because of this. I had to figure out how much my "gut" reaction was linked to my conscious morality. After a whole lot of thinking, I've concluded that I am morally okay with using embryos in my research, even though my "gut" will probably never be okay with it.

I think this is something each person has to work out for themselves, though. It's a balance between trusting your instincts and carefully examining your assumptions and your gut reactions. Sometimes your gut is right, but sometimes it is misleading, and you have to figure out where the balance point is for you.


Like I said, I'm not really turning pro-life or anything like that. I just don't think I like this procedure very much. Especially when there's a reasonable alternative (D&E for one).

IDE isn't going to be available in the USA any more. :(


Viability also plays into my idea of what's ethical and what isn't when it comes to abortions..

An unviable fetus is a mass of cells. Nothing more IMO. I support abortions 100% and without question at that stage.

Once they're viable, I think stricter standards should apply. Namely, is the woman's health (not just life) going to be harmed? Is this a case where the woman just found out? I think some questions need to be asked at this point.

The problem is, "viable" isn't black and white. At a certain point in development, there will begin to be a tiny chance that a fetus may be able to survive independently. Statistically speaking, it is almost certainly NOT going to survive, but there is a tiny, tiny, tiny chance. Over time, this chance grows. And grows, and grows, until you reach a point where the fetus is more likely to survive than to perish.

But where in all of this do you decide that it is "viable"?


Late term abortions aren't catagorically evil, but they shouldn't be doled out on demand.
Well, I guess we gotta agree to disagree on that one. I think a woman should be allowed to end her body's participation in a pregnancy at any time, and for any reason. Whether or not a fetus dies as a result is irrelevant (to me).

hahah

We have a winner.
I second that. It was quite funny.

Doing the work I do has taught me something very valuable about myself:

I am morally okay with a lot of things that I find really, really yucky.

That may sound very simplistic, but it's honestly taken me quite a while to sort it out. See, I have this gut reaction to killing things. I really really really don't like doing it. I have this very viceral reaction of NOT RIGHT when I kill something. Rats, chickens, turtles, frogs, any animal I've killed, for any project, I've had the same reaction. I really really really don't like it. It's not just gross, it's kind of gut-twisting.

I actually questioned whether to abandon my career path because of this. I had to figure out how much my "gut" reaction was linked to my conscious morality. After a whole lot of thinking, I've concluded that I am morally okay with using embryos in my research, even though my "gut" will probably never be okay with it.

I think this is something each person has to work out for themselves, though. It's a balance between trusting your instincts and carefully examining your assumptions and your gut reactions. Sometimes your gut is right, but sometimes it is misleading, and you have to figure out where the balance point is for you.
That's certainly a good point. I just think the most humane procedure should be used in this case.


IDE isn't going to be available in the USA any more. :(
That remains to be seen. Purportedly the D&X is the only one that should be specifically outlawed. I know the wording was vague and used non-medical terms. I'm sure it will end up in the Supreme Court all over again when doctors get in trouble for performing D&E's. Hopefully they'll make a more reasonable decision at that point.

The problem is, "viable" isn't black and white. At a certain point in development, there will begin to be a tiny chance that a fetus may be able to survive independently. Statistically speaking, it is almost certainly NOT going to survive, but there is a tiny, tiny, tiny chance. Over time, this chance grows. And grows, and grows, until you reach a point where the fetus is more likely to survive than to perish.
That's definately true. Some fetuses might surivive at 15 weeks, others not until 30. It's hard to put a legal definition on something like that. I think it's up to the medical professionals like OBGYN's who study growth and development to make educated decisions. Those might change as new data is discovered.

But where in all of this do you decide that it is "viable"?
Me specifically? I don't know. Honestly. I rely on the research of the OBGYN's that do that kind of research to give me information.

Well, I guess we gotta agree to disagree on that one. I think a woman should be allowed to end her body's participation in a pregnancy at any time, and for any reason. Whether or not a fetus dies as a result is irrelevant (to me).
Yeah. I don't think that's a bad thing though. This isn't a black and white issue, it's several shades of gray.

I dunno. I dug up two studies in JAMA about late term abortions. Both articles conclusions emphasised compassion.

Compassion can't be legislated. We get into trouble when we try.

With all due respect, have you raised, or have you grown up with, a child with Down's syndrome or a similar disability? If not then I'm afraid you're really not qualified to comment.

Agreed. I helped bury my nephew just over a year ago. He had Spinal Muscular Atrophy, and he lived to be five and a half. He required constant, around the clock care, and the stress nearly ended my in-laws' marriage, because they were intimately involved in caring for him. Who the hell am I to tell a woman that she has to go through that? If it were my girlfriend, and she said she couldn't handle it, I'd go with her to the clinic. I don't know that I could handle it either. That's an incredible burden.

Agreed. I helped bury my nephew just over a year ago. He had Spinal Muscular Atrophy, and he lived to be five and a half. He required constant, around the clock care, and the stress nearly ended my in-laws' marriage, because they were intimately involved in caring for him. Who the hell am I to tell a woman that she has to go through that? If it were my girlfriend, and she said she couldn't handle it, I'd go with her to the clinic. I don't know that I could handle it either. That's an incredible burden.

QFT. I am disabled, quite seriously disabled, and I will not condemn any woman who feels that it too much to handle. It is a lot to handle, as I know form first hand experience. My parents didn't handle it well, and I have suffered for that my entire life.

That may sound very simplistic, but it's honestly taken me quite a while to sort it out. See, I have this gut reaction to killing things. I really really really don't like doing it. I have this very viceral reaction of NOT RIGHT when I kill something. Rats, chickens, turtles, frogs, any animal I've killed, for any project, I've had the same reaction. I really really really don't like it. It's not just gross, it's kind of gut-twisting.

I actually questioned whether to abandon my career path because of this. I had to figure out how much my "gut" reaction was linked to my conscious morality. After a whole lot of thinking, I've concluded that I am morally okay with using embryos in my research, even though my "gut" will probably never be okay with it.

I work with rats and mice on a pretty regular basis (fun with primary cultures) and it's the same way. Personally, I'd be worried if I didn't get that gut-wrenching feeling when I have to sacrifice an animal. And I'd be downright terrified of anyone who not only was perfectly ok with it, but enjoyed it. And I'm glad for the ethical restrictions that keep anyone out there who doesn't get that feeeling from doing unnecessary sacrifice of animals, or from doing it in anything but the most humane ways.


That's certainly a good point. I just think the most humane procedure should be used in this case.

Depending on what you mean by "humane", the procedure recently outlawed in the US and termed as "never medically necessary" (intact D&E or D&X) can be seen as the most humane. It involves a very quick death for the fetus, and allows the fetus to be removed from the womb completely or mostly intact.

That remains to be seen. Purportedly the D&X is the only one that should be specifically outlawed. I know the wording was vague and used non-medical terms. I'm sure it will end up in the Supreme Court all over again when doctors get in trouble for performing D&E's. Hopefully they'll make a more reasonable decision at that point.

A more reasonable decision would be not to outlaw a safe procedure because it sounds icky.

I think this will end up in the courts again after one of two things happens. Either a doctor will find D&X to be medically necessary for a woman, perform one, and then be sentenced with jailtime for doing so. If she appeals, the courts will (hopefully) reexamine the idea that Congress, rather than actual medical professionals can determine medical necessity.

But I think another case is much more likely. I think what will actually happen is that a young woman who was trying very hard to have a child - maybe even one who had sought out fertility treatments to do so - will suffer from medical complications that require her to have a late-term abortion. Because of this law, doctors will choose D&E over D&X, even though the latter would be better for her case. This woman will then either die or be rendered infertile. Assuming she has enough money (or is enough of a sympathetic victim to get money from other organizations), this ruling will have to be revisited. After all, she won't be able to sue the doctors for malpractice. According to the law, D&X is never medically necessary.

I don't see the need to refer to the fetus as "the fucker". You wouldn't call someone mentally handicapped a "fucker".

Isn't that because the medical term to use in that situation is "retarded?"

To the people who say a fetus is not human, it is. So are the disabled, criminals, and politicians. On the other hand, that doesn't mean any of them are people or entitled to special rights.

What ever happened to human rights?

I think that it could be argued that not being forced to live out a short existence of uncomprehended suffering should be a human right.

I also think that, unless you create a concrete basis for what is considered "human rights", the entire notion becomes arbitrary.

Anyway, infanticide is not the same as abortion. They really are two different topics.

Only when abortion is considered a right of the mother over the right of the fetus or child, when it is an issue of establishing the rights of a human, it is merely a matter of somewhat arbitrary cut-off points on the developmental timeline.

This is a little off topic but I wonder...

If a woman is in total control of her pregnancy, should a man have to pay her child support? I mean, she could have just not had the baby right? So how is the man responsible?

This is a little off topic but I wonder...

If a woman is in total control of her pregnancy, should a man have to pay her child support? I mean, she could have just not had the baby right? So how is the man responsible?You forget that there's one little part of the whole pregnancy thing where she's not in total control. That's conception. His responsibility begins there. He may be relieved of this responsibility by later events, but you can't just say he's not on the hook because he has no control over the females body during gestation. After all he does have the option of taking precautions to reduce or eliminate the risk of the pregnancy in the first place. If he fails to take these precautions, well sorry sport if fatherhood follows.

must resist threadjack

must resist threadjack

I have to concur with some of the points made by the fetuses whom were over five months could have lived and I think when it is that late there should be harder to get an abortion, save for health reasons or future medical reasons that they would encounter when the fetus was born, which is saying after 5 months the status of the parent in terms of finicial should no longer be concerned as then there is adoption services.

If a woman is in total control of her pregnancy, should a man have to pay her child support?

A non-custodial parent pays child support that is owed to the child, not to the other parent. It goes to the custodial parent only because that parent is the one responsible for the care of the child.

I mean, she could have just not had the baby right? So how is the man responsible?

She could have, but she didn't. And now there is a child, and that child is entitled to support.

I have to concur with some of the points made by the fetuses whom were over five months

:eek: :confused: :p

I have to concur with some of the points made by the fetuses whom were over five months could have lived and I think when it is that late there should be harder to get an abortion, save for health reasons or future medical reasons that they would encounter when the fetus was born, which is saying after 5 months the status of the parent in terms of finicial should no longer be concerned as then there is adoption services.

Nearly all elective abortions are carried out by 13 weeks. The vast majority of abortions in the second (or, sometimes, early third) trimester are because of health issues.

:
Nearly all elective abortions are carried out by 13 weeks. The vast majority of abortions in the second (or, sometimes, early third) trimester are because of health issues.Shush! Such logic and truth are not allowed in 'right to life' debates. Abortion is ebil! EBIL!

And now there is a child, and that child is entitled to support.

From that person responsible for its existence.

Science has rendered sex irrelevant to birth, it is neither a cause or necessity.

From that person responsible for its existence.

Science has rendered sex irrelevant to birth, it is neither a cause or necessity.And in cases where it's not applicable, support wouldn't be either. However it is in the vast majority of cases and in those cases both parents are responsible for the childs existence and responsible to support that child.

From that person responsible for its existence.

Science has rendered sex irrelevant to birth, it is neither a cause or necessity.

Less relevant, not irrelevant.

Less relevant, not irrelevant.

Does sex necessarily result in birth?

Does birth require sex?

From that person responsible for its existence.
psst. It takes two to tango.

Yeah, having sex isn't necessary for reproduction, but it is one way (the most popular, I'm sure) to go about it. So, the non-custodial party who is partly responsable for the conception and subsequent production of a child, owes that child money since the other party is providing everything else.

And in cases where it's not applicable, support wouldn't be either. However it is in the vast majority of cases and in those cases both parents are responsible for the childs existence and responsible to support that child.

In any situation where abortion/birth is a free and informed choice to be made by the woman alone, sex is no longer responsible for creating the child, only the mother's choice to bring the pregnancy to term is responsible for the child.

psst. It takes two to tango.

And one to have a child.

So, the non-custodial party who is partly responsable for the conception and subsequent production of a child, owes that child money since the other party is providing everything else.

Conception does not result in the production of the child.

In any situation where abortion/birth is a free and informed choice to be made by the woman alone, sex is no longer responsible for creating the child, only the mother's choice to bring the pregnancy to term is responsible for the child.
:rolleyes: Uh.. She wouldn't have a choice to make if not for the fathers little input... You're trying to say the subsequent choice negates the first. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

:rolleyes: Uh.. She wouldn't have a choice to make if not for the fathers little input... You're trying to say the subsequent choice negates the first. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

The man is at all times responsible for the pregnancy, I never denied that.

A woman could put a monetary value upon the emotional distress caused by whichever termination of the pregnancy she opted for and sue for it.

But because the choice of the woman, and not the pregnancy, is responsible for the existence of the child, the man who only contributes to the pregnancy and not to the choice, is not responsible for the existence of the child.

A non-custodial parent pays child support that is owed to the child, not to the other parent. It goes to the custodial parent only because that parent is the one responsible for the care of the child.



She could have, but she didn't. And now there is a child, and that child is entitled to support.

This is where I totally think the current abortion law is fucked up.

I am totally for a woman being able to choose an abortion on the grounds that she is either financially or emotionally unable to be a parent. It is a wise and prudent law.

However, the same freedom should be extended to men to a lesser degree. At the very least, if you are going to tie a man down financially for the next two decades he should have a say in the matter.

What I propose, is that if the man is not notified, or is not in favor of the pregnancy coming to term, then he should have no financial or familial obligations in respect of the child.

The man is at all times responsible for the pregnancy, I never denied that.

A woman could put a monetary value upon the emotional distress caused by whichever termination of the pregnancy she opted for and sue for it.

But because the choice of the woman, and not the pregnancy is responsible for the existence of the child, the man who only contributes to the pregnancy and not to the choice, is not responsible for the existence of the child.The logical extension of pregnancy is childbirth. True this cycle can be interupted, but it does not change the logical extension. Because one party does not choose to interupt the logical extension does not obsolve the other responsible party from their obligation.

Again, subsequent choices do not negate the original choice.

My family has a bit of a history of spina bifida. This means that I'm going to be having myself checked when I'm pregnant and aborting the fucker if it has it.

Damnit, there goes my good karma. I laughed when I read this.

"Fucker", eh? Well, I've been called worse.

They do have a different set of standards. However, the article was clear that it was talking only about procedures carried out due to fetal defects. Even those carried out for the mother's health are left out.



Is it? If it could only survive 6 hours, should that really be seen as viability?



Only severe cases of spina bifida result in paralysis and a need to "wear diapers for their entire lives." Most cases result in a person who can live a perfectly normal life - although they may need to be more careful to keep from injuring a specific portion of the back.

You don't know what spinal bifada is, do you?

Actually, Dempublicents is right. Not all those with spina bifida are paralyzed.

I'm going to guess not.

I wouldn't know what it is if I hadn't had an uncle with it or hadn't met another guy with it.

I probably wouldn't know what it was if I didn't have it.

I don't see the need to refer to the fetus as "the fucker". You wouldn't call someone mentally handicapped a "fucker".

No, that's just for us with spina bifida. The retarded are more correctly called SOBs.

Isn't that because the medical term to use in that situation is "retarded?"

To the people who say a fetus is not human, it is. So are the disabled, criminals, and politicians. On the other hand, that doesn't mean any of them are people or entitled to special rights.

Define "special rights". Are you saying that I shouldn't be allowed access to things that enable me to live independently?

snip


Define "special rights". Are you saying that I shouldn't be allowed access to things that enable me to live independently?

Not at the cost of someone elses body no

Edit: Without their approval that is

The logical extension of pregnancy is childbirth.

Then we can also assume that abortion is the logical extension of pregnancy, thereby the nonexistence of a child is the logical extension of a pregnancy.

That, of course is wrong, because the logical extension of a pregnancy is the abortion or childbirth decision.

Not at the cost of someone elses body no

Edit: Without their approval that is

Why would my right to access public property, transportation, etc. cost someone else's body?

Why would my right to access public property, transportation, etc. cost someone else's body?

They would not but other requirements may...

They would not but other requirements may...

Such as?

Then we can also assume that abortion is the logical extension of pregnancy, thereby the nonexistence of a child is the logical extension of a pregnancy.

That, of course is wrong, because the logical extension of a pregnancy is the abortion or childbirth decision. Uh, we can assume no such thing. Abortion is not a logical extension of pregnancy. Abortion is an intervention into that logical extension. Nice try.

Uh, we can assume no such thing. Abortion is not a logical extension of pregnancy. Abortion is an intervention into that logical extension. Nice try.

If a woman who has no desire to have a child and no qualms about abortion gets pregnant, how in the world could childbirth be considered the logical extension of her pregnancy?

pro-choice ftw! because (1) you can't rely on birth control, (2) overpopulation, (3) no abortions for stupid horny teenagers = more lives wasted on premature parenthood.

i don't see how people can become so emotional over someone else's unborn baby, something that has only a purely technical claim to being a "life form" and has no value in society yet, let alone in the mother's pov (assuming she wants an abortion)

No, that's just for us with spina bifida. The retarded are more correctly called SOBs.
No, the hypothetically aborted fetus is a fucker. Not people with spina bifida. Please, pay attention.

If a woman who has no desire to have a child and no qualms about abortion gets pregnant, how in the world could childbirth be considered the logical extension of her pregnancy?For the simple reason that without another action to change the situation childbirth will result. You get the key? Another action is required to alter the outcome. If the woman in your scenario agrees to this action then your guy is off the hook, if she doesn't he's still responsible for his original choice.

For the simple reason that without another action to change the situation childbirth will result. You get the key? Another action is required to alter the outcome.

"Another action" is the logical extension. She MUST act, whether she is bringing about the child, or if she is aborting it (I would guess that the abortion actually takes significantly less action than childbirth), and how she acts is dependent on her desires. Therefore the outcome, the "logical extension" is not a result of her situation, but a result of her desires.

You are pretty much begging the question: the logical extension of pregnancy is childbirth because the logical extension of pregnancy is childbirth.

A woman is pregnant

She does not want a child

She will act to satisfy her wants

If she has an abortion she will not have a child

Logical extension: She will have a have an abortion

"Another action" is the logical extension. She MUST act, whether she is bringing about the child, or if she is aborting it (I would guess that the abortion actually takes significantly less action than childbirth), and how she acts is dependent on her desires. Therefore the outcome, the "logical extension" is not a result of her situation, but a result of her desires.

You are pretty much begging the question: the logical extension of pregnancy is childbirth because the logical extension of pregnancy is childbirth.

A woman is pregnant

She does not want a child

She will act to satisfy her wants

If she has an abortion she will not have a child

Logical extension: She will have a have an abortion:rolleyes: I'm done. I'm tired and it's not my job to educate you on the obvious fallicies in your logic (such as confusing an outcome with an action). Believe what you want. Good luck on selling that arguement to the judge setting your support payments if you ever knock someone up.

:rolleyes: I'm done. I'm tired and it's not my job to educate you on the obvious fallicies in your logic (such as confusing an outcome with an action).

Why would you think that an action could not be an outcome?

If I am hungry and a sandwich is sitting in front of me, what would the most probable "outcome" be?

Your "logical extension" would seem to be me sitting next to a sandwich for all eternity, because "another action" would have to occur to change this.

Good luck on selling that arguement to the judge setting your support payments if you ever knock someone up.

The law is not always "right".

Depending on what you mean by "humane", the procedure recently outlawed in the US and termed as "never medically necessary" (intact D&E or D&X) can be seen as the most humane. It involves a very quick death for the fetus, and allows the fetus to be removed from the womb completely or mostly intact.
England still has the option of those procedures as far as I know.


A more reasonable decision would be not to outlaw a safe procedure because it sounds icky.
True enough, but it's already happened. It's kind of hard to keep something legal when the AMA says there's no need to perform a procedure.

I think this will end up in the courts again after one of two things happens. Either a doctor will find D&X to be medically necessary for a woman, perform one, and then be sentenced with jailtime for doing so. If she appeals, the courts will (hopefully) reexamine the idea that Congress, rather than actual medical professionals can determine medical necessity.

But I think another case is much more likely. I think what will actually happen is that a young woman who was trying very hard to have a child - maybe even one who had sought out fertility treatments to do so - will suffer from medical complications that require her to have a late-term abortion. Because of this law, doctors will choose D&E over D&X, even though the latter would be better for her case. This woman will then either die or be rendered infertile. Assuming she has enough money (or is enough of a sympathetic victim to get money from other organizations), this ruling will have to be revisited. After all, she won't be able to sue the doctors for malpractice. According to the law, D&X is never medically necessary.
Hopefully that won't happen. It sure would change the laws in a hurry though.

England still has the option of those procedures as far as I know.

As far as I know, this is true. So why are they using the one described in the article? That's what I'd like to know.

True enough, but it's already happened. It's kind of hard to keep something legal when the AMA says there's no need to perform a procedure.

The AMA has said no such thing. In fact, every major medical organization that spoke in reference to the bill at all spoke against it, pointing out that intact D&E can be the safest procedure for the woman. Numerous cases in which it would be the preferred procedure were listed.

It was CONGRESS who declared that the procedure is never medically necessary and SCOTUS who upheld that assertion, despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Of course, last time I checked, neither are medical organizations and the majority of the members of both have no medical background.

Hopefully that won't happen. It sure would change the laws in a hurry though.

Other than Congress just deciding to get rid of the law (fat chance), those are the only situations in which it can be changed. The recent SCOTUS decision essentially says, "Someone has to be harmed by this law before it can be challenged again."

As far as I know, this is true. So why are they using the one described in the article? That's what I'd like to know.
I'm curious myself.



The AMA has said no such thing. In fact, every major medical organization that spoke in reference to the bill at all spoke against it, pointing out that intact D&E can be the safest procedure for the woman. Numerous cases in which it would be the preferred procedure were listed.
Every article I found in JAMA stated that the was never medically necessary. I went looking for justification to my argument, and that's what I found instead. I posted the conclusions in the other thread since you have to sign up for a membership to view the articles and said anyone could TG me and I'd forward them the full text. I felt it was important to post those articles even though they didn't agree with my feelings because it's from a respected medical body.

It was CONGRESS who declared that the procedure is never medically necessary and SCOTUS who upheld that assertion, despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Of course, last time I checked, neither are medical organizations and the majority of the members of both have no medical background.
All the articles in JAMA stated the need for compassion when dealing with their patient. Compassion isn't something that can be legistlated. It should be up to the medical organisations to govern themselves.

Other than Congress just deciding to get rid of the law (fat chance), those are the only situations in which it can be changed. The recent SCOTUS decision essentially says, "Someone has to be harmed by this law before it can be challenged again."
I know that's the reality. I can't help but hope for some common sense to interject before that happens.

Every article I found in JAMA stated that the was never medically necessary. I went looking for justification to my argument, and that's what I found instead. I posted the conclusions in the other thread since you have to sign up for a membership to view the articles and said anyone could TG me and I'd forward them the full text. I felt it was important to post those articles even though they didn't agree with my feelings because it's from a respected medical body.

Do you still have the information on the articles? I'd be interested to see them. It could be that you misinterpreted them. After all, late-term abortions are rarely to never performed for anything other than medical reasons.

Here, from JAMA:
There exist no credible studies on intact D&X that evaluate or attest to its safety. The procedure is not recognized in medical textbooks nor is it taught in medical schools or in obstetrics and gynecology residencies. Intact D&X poses serious medical risks to the mother. Patients who undergo an intact D&X are at risk for the potential complications associated with any surgical midtrimester termination, including hemorrhage, infection, and uterine perforation. However, intact D&X places these patients at increased risk of 2 additional complications. First, the risk of uterine rupture may be increased. An integral part of the D&X procedure is an internal podalic version, during which the physician instrumentally reaches into the uterus, grasps the fetus' feet, and pulls the feet down into the cervix, thus converting the lie to a footling breech. The internal version carries risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus. According to Williams Obstetrics, "there are very few, if any, indications for internal podalic version other than for delivery of a second twin."10

The second potential complication of intact D&X is the risk of iatrogenic laceration and secondary hemorrhage. Following internal version and partial breech extraction, scissors are forced into the base of the fetal skull while it is lodged in the birth canal. This blind procedure risks maternal injury from laceration of the uterus or cervix by the scissors and could result in severe bleeding and the threat of shock or even maternal death. These risks have not been adequately quantified.

None of these risks are medically necessary because other procedures are available to physicians who deem it necessary to perform an abortion late in pregnancy. As ACOG policy states clearly, intact D&X is never the only procedure available. Some clinicians have considered intact D&X necessary when hydrocephalus is present. However, a hydrocephalic fetus could be aborted by first draining the excess fluid from the fetal skull through ultrasound-guided cephalocentesis. Some physicians who perform abortions have been concerned that a ban on late abortions would affect their ability to provide other abortion services. Because of the proposed changes in federal legislation, it is clear that only intact D&X would be banned.

Bolded mine

Do you still have the information on the articles? I'd be interested to see them. It could be that you misinterpreted them. After all, late-term abortions are rarely to never performed for anything other than medical reasons.

I posted one. I'll be glad to email you the full text of any. Bear in mind the AMA is in no way saying late-term abortions are not medically necessary, just that the D&X never is.

Edit: I should mention, I'm posting the full conclusions and only the conclusions. There's no abstract available for most of these articles. But TG me with an email if you want to read them in full.

Here's a reposting of the conclusion re: late term abortions (not the D&X, it wasn't mentioned once in this article).
s noted by Macklin,27 "The three leading principles of bioethics—respect for persons, beneficence and justice—together provide an ethical mandate for guaranteeing to women throughout the world a legal right to safe abortion." This mandate is especially important for the immature, disadvantaged, and often seriously ill women requesting late abortions in the United States. Regardless of political views on abortion, the scientific evidence is clear and incontrovertible: legal abortion, including late abortion, has been a resounding public health success.

Early abortion is safer, simpler, and less controversial than late abortion. Improving sex education, promoting access to safe and effective contraception, and removing economic and geographic barriers to early abortion can help to reduce the number of late abortions. This is a goal around which there should be broad consensus. Nevertheless, as experience has revealed,3 the need for late abortion will not disappear. Hence, our continuing responsibility as physicians and as a society is to ensure that these procedures are as safe, comfortable, and compassionate as possible. Women deserve no less from their physicians.
Mostly this article delt with intact D&E's. It didn't say one way or the other about D&X's.

Here, from JAMA:


Bolded mine

Please provide a link.

Some of what you bolded is patently untrue. For example, intact D&E is taught at many respected medical schools. More importantly, ACOG (American College of Gynecologists) testified before Congress and submitted briefs before the Supreme Court saying that intact D&E was sometimes medically necessary and/or the safest option. So that is at least 2 major factual errors.

I don't believe what you are citing is an official AMA position on the issue, rather it is merely a paper or article printed in JAMA. There is a big difference as to the source.

Here are ACOG sources (http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr09-22-06.cfm):

The intact variant of D&E offers significant safety advantages over the non-intact method, including a reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection. These safety advantages are widely recognized by experts in the field of women's health, authoritative medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, and the nation's leading medical schools. ACOG has thus concluded that an intact D&E "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the woman, and only the doctor in consultation with the patient, based on the woman's particular circumstances can make that decision." [ACOG Statement of Policy on Abortion (reaffirmed 2004)]

ACOG objects to the 2003 federal ban because it exposes women to serious, unnecessary health risks and does not include any exception to protect women's health.

Please provide a link.

Some of what you bolded is patently untrue. For example, intact D&E is taught at many respected medical schools. More importantly, ACOG (American College of Gynecologists) testified before Congress and submitted briefs before the Supreme Court saying that intact D&E was sometimes medically necessary. So that is at least 2 major factual errors.

I don't believe what you are citing is an official AMA position on the issue, rather it is merely a paper or article printed in JAMA. There is a big difference as to the source.

It's from JAMA, you need a membership to access it. Go here (http://jama.ama-assn.org/) and sign up for an account. Then go here. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/744?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=late+term+abortion&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT)

Please provide a link.

Some of what you bolded is patently untrue. For example, intact D&E is taught at many respected medical schools. More importantly, ACOG (American College of Gynecologists) testified before Congress and submitted briefs before the Supreme Court saying that intact D&E was sometimes medically necessary. So that is at least 2 major factual errors.

I don't believe what you are citing is an official AMA position on the issue, rather it is merely a paper or article printed in JAMA. There is a big difference as to the source.

D&X is what they have a problem with, not intact D&E.

Here's the author info. If all else fails you can probably email him direct.
Reprints: M. LeRoy Sprang, MD, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, 1000 Central St, Suite 700, Evanston, IL 60201 (e-mail: mneerhof@nwu.edu).

Here's the title of the article:
Rationale for Banning Abortions Late in Pregnancy
M. LeRoy Sprang, MD; Mark G. Neerhof, DO
JAMA. 1998;280:744-747.

It's from JAMA, you need a membership to access it. Go here (http://jama.ama-assn.org/) and sign up for an account. Then go here. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/744?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=late+term+abortion&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT)

That's OK. That was an article by 2 doctors, it was not an official statement by the AMA. Just the opinion of the 2 authors. It has been roundly criticized elsewher and, as I said, is factually inaccuarte -- most critically about ACOG policy.

D&X is what they have a problem with, not intact D&E.

Um. You are confused. "D&X" and "intact D&E" refer to the same procedure.

EDIT: Your confusion is somewhat understandable. There is no such thing as "partial-birth abortion." Instead that is a label that some have attached to a wide range of abortion procedures. The closest recognized procedure is known alternatively as "intact D&E" or "D&X."

Here, from JAMA:

Bolded mine

Edit: From the very first JAMA article to come up on a search for "intact dilation and extraction":

"A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life of or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision."

In other words, they could use other procedures, but this can be the best one in a particular circumstance, and should thus be open.

You are looking for something to say, "This is the only procedure we could possibly use." You aren't going to find that. What you will find are statements that it is the best and safest procedure in certain situations. Sure, they could do another one, but the risks are then higher.

D&X is what they have a problem with, not intact D&E.

Two names for the same procedure.

I posted one. I'll be glad to email you the full text of any.

No need. I can reach them myself.

Bear in mind the AMA is in no way saying late-term abortions are not medically necessary, just that the D&X never is.

No, they aren't saying that. First of all, the AMA itself does not take credit for all statements in articles in JAMA. If you want an official AMA position, you'll have to look for that.

Second of all, nothing you have posted or linked to has stated that D&X (also known as intact D&E) is never medically necessary. What it says is that this is never the only procedure available.

That's OK. That was an article by 2 doctors, it was not an official statement by the AMA. Just the opinion of the 2 authors. It has been roundly criticized elsewher and, as I said, is factually inaccuarte -- most critically about ACOG policy.

One doctor. And I have yet to find an article that is for D&X they say over and over that intact D&E is the preferred method for late term abortions. Keep in mind, this is a peer review publication. I haven't found a retort that says D&Xs are a good thing.

Here's an article about late term abortions. I'm quoting the part where they talk about the different ways to perform it:
Epidemiology and Techniques of Late Abortion


For decades, late induced abortions have been uncommon in the United States. From 1972 through 1992, the proportion of all induced abortions that were performed at 21 or more weeks' gestation ranged from 0.8% to 1.7%.3 The upper gestational age limit varies by state. However, the claim that many women have elective abortions in the third trimester lacks support. Most reports of abortions at 25 or more weeks' gestation are due to reporting errors or to fetal demise. Between 1979 and 1980, only 3 cases of approximately 70000 reported induced abortions in Georgia took place at 25 weeks or more. Two procedures were performed for fetal anencephaly, and insufficient information was available for the third.5 This is believed to be the only published article on this procedure.

Dilation and evacuation (D&E) is the most frequent method used for late abortion in the United States. In 1992, D&E accounted for 86% of all abortions at 21 or more weeks' gestation, whereas labor induction accounted for 14%.3 Hysterotomy or hysterectomy were rare (0.1%). Hysterotomy should play no role in contemporary abortion practice. Hysterectomy is appropriate only when existing pathological findings, such as carcinoma in situ of the cervix, would warrant the operation.

Dilation and evacuation involves outpatient preoperative dilation of the cervix by osmotic dilators, such as laminaria, over 1 or more days. The evacuation then occurs on an outpatient basis under local or general anesthesia. The operation is begun by draining the amniotic fluid with a suction cannula. The physician then evacuates the uterus with special grasping forceps. Ultrasound to confirm gestational age is routine before D&E. Use of ultrasound guidance during the procedure appears to reduce the risk of uterine perforation when resident physicians are learning the procedure.

Intact dilation and extraction (intact D&E), a variant of D&E, involves wide cervical dilation by osmotic dilators, internal podalic version, then total breech extraction. The skull is collapsed (cephalocentesis) to allow a smaller diameter to pass through the cervix, thus reducing risk of cervical injury. Although no data exist on the frequency of this operation,3 only a small number of physicians nationwide perform this procedure. It may be especially useful in the presence of fetal anomalies, such as hydrocephalus.

Unlike D&E, labor-induction abortion usually requires hospitalization. Physicians induce labor with uterotonic agents, hypertonic solutions, osmotic cervical dilators, or a combination of these. Uterotonic agents include prostaglandins, given as vaginal suppositories (prostaglandin E2), intramuscular injections (15-methyl-prostaglandin F2), or medication taken orally or vaginally (misoprostol). High-dose intravenous oxytocin appears to offer similar efficacy as vaginal prostaglandin E2 with fewer gastrointestinal side effects. Alternatively, some physicians use hypertonic solutions, such as 200 mL of 20% saline solution, injected into the amniotic cavity to induce labor. As augmenting agents, osmotic dilators shorten the induction-to-abortion times and reduce the risk of cervical injury. Narcotics or, less commonly, epidural anesthesia are given for pain.6
No mention of a D&X. This article, like the last is pro-late term abortions. Source. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/747?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=late+term+abortion&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT)

With all due respect, have you raised, or have you grown up with, a child with Down's syndrome or a similar disability? If not then I'm afraid you're really not qualified to comment.

I usually never post in these sorts of things, but are you suggesting one must have raised or grown up with a Down's syndrome child (or "other disability") before making a value judgement as to the worthiness of their life? I really don't many on either side of the abortion debate that would agree with that tenent.

Here, from JAMA:

Bolded mine

Edit: From the very first JAMA article to come up on a search for "intact dilation and extraction":

"A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life of or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision."

anet E. Gans Epner; Harry S. Jonas; Daniel L. Seckinger
Late-term Abortion
JAMA, Aug 1998; 280: 724 - 729.


In other words, they could use other procedures, but this can be the best one in a particular circumstance, and should thus be open.

You are looking for something to say, "This is the only procedure we could possibly use." You aren't going to find that. What you will find are statements that it is the best and safest procedure in certain situations. Sure, they could do another one, but the risks are then higher.

D&X is what they have a problem with, not intact D&E.

Two names for the same procedure.

I posted one. I'll be glad to email you the full text of any.

No need. I can reach them myself.

Bear in mind the AMA is in no way saying late-term abortions are not medically necessary, just that the D&X never is.

No, they aren't saying that. First of all, the AMA itself does not take credit for all statements in articles in JAMA. If you want an official AMA position, you'll have to look for that.

Or, I'll just link to it here. http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.982.HTM

It is basically as stated in the article quoted above.

Second of all, nothing you have posted or linked to has stated that D&X (also known as intact D&E) is never medically necessary. What it says is that this is never the only procedure available.

Here's an article about late term abortions. I'm quoting the part where they talk about the different ways to perform it:

No mention of a D&X. This article, like the last is pro-late term abortions. Source. (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/747?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=late+term+abortion&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT)

You are fundamentally confused.

If you read the recent Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380), No. 05-380 (U.S. April 18, 2007) you will find that it refers to a ban on intact D&E.

Here is a quote from the majority opinion explaining:

The abortion procedure that was the impetus for the numerous bans on "partial-birth abortion," including the Act, is a variation of this standard D&E. See M. Haskell, Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion (1992), 1 Appellant's App. in No. 04-3379 (CA8), p. 109 (hereinafter Dilation and Extraction). The medical community has not reached unanimity on the appropriate name for this D&E variation. It has been referred to as "intact D&E," "dilation and extraction" (D&X), and "intact D&X." Nat. Abortion Federation, supra, at 440, n. 2; see also F. Cunningham et al., Williams Obstetrics 243 (22d ed. 2005) (identifying the procedure as D&X); Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology 567 (J. Scott, R. Gibbs, B. Karlan, & A. Haney eds. 9th ed. 2003) (identifying the procedure as intact D&X); M. Paul, E. Lichtenberg, L. Borgatta, D. Grimes, & P. Stubblefield, A Clinician's Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion 136 (1999) (identifying the procedure as intact D&E). For discussion purposes this D&E variation will be referred to as intact D&E. The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes. There are no comprehensive statistics indicating what percentage of all D&Es are performed in this manner.

so snaf, are you (somewhat) oppposed to the idea of late term abortion or of only certain abortion types?

Edit: From the very first JAMA article to come up on a search for "intact dilation and extraction":

"A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life of or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision."

In other words, they could use other procedures, but this can be the best one in a particular circumstance, and should thus be open.

You are looking for something to say, "This is the only procedure we could possibly use." You aren't going to find that. What you will find are statements that it is the best and safest procedure in certain situations. Sure, they could do another one, but the risks are then higher.
No, they are saying there are reasonable alternatives to the D&X.


Two names for the same procedure.

Not exactly.The fetus isn't delivered breech, and they use ultrasound to find the head and suck it's brains out in-utero (sorry for being gross).


No, they aren't saying that. First of all, the AMA itself does not take credit for all statements in articles in JAMA. If you want an official AMA position, you'll have to look for that.

Second of all, nothing you have posted or linked to has stated that D&X (also known as intact D&E) is never medically necessary. What it says is that this is never the only procedure available.
It says there are better procedures. Medical professionals regard this journal in quite high regard. Any one of them can submit a rebuttal. They do quite frequently.

Now, can we please stop this threadjack and get back to the topic at hand?

You are fundamentally confused.

If you read the recent Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380), No. 05-380 (U.S. April 18, 2007) you will find that it refers to a ban on intact D&E.

Here is a quote from the majority opinion explaining:

The abortion procedure that was the impetus for the numerous bans on "partial-birth abortion," including the Act, is a variation of this standard D&E. See M. Haskell, Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion (1992), 1 Appellant's App. in No. 04-3379 (CA8), p. 109 (hereinafter Dilation and Extraction). The medical community has not reached unanimity on the appropriate name for this D&E variation. It has been referred to as "intact D&E," "dilation and extraction" (D&X), and "intact D&X." Nat. Abortion Federation, supra, at 440, n. 2; see also F. Cunningham et al., Williams Obstetrics 243 (22d ed. 2005) (identifying the procedure as D&X); Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology 567 (J. Scott, R. Gibbs, B. Karlan, & A. Haney eds. 9th ed. 2003) (identifying the procedure as intact D&X); M. Paul, E. Lichtenberg, L. Borgatta, D. Grimes, & P. Stubblefield, A Clinician's Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion 136 (1999) (identifying the procedure as intact D&E). For discussion purposes this D&E variation will be referred to as intact D&E. The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes. There are no comprehensive statistics indicating what percentage of all D&Es are performed in this manner.

All the lit I've found on it makes mention of two important differences. The puncture of the skull happens in utero with the aid of ultra-shound and the fetus isn't delivered breech.

But we are getting off topic here. This is a thread about medically induced late term abortions.

All the lit I've found on it makes mention of two important differences. The puncture of the skull happens in utero with the aid of ultra-shound and the fetus isn't delivered breech.

*sigh*

That is one of the alleged differences between "D&E" and "intact D&E" (aka D&X)

Your whole analysis is premised on a misunderstanding of the medical terms you are throwing around. I gave you the citation and the critical quote from the recent Supreme Court opinion saying that "intact D&E" is what was being banned. Please read that quote again. WTF more do you want?

But we are getting off topic here. This is a thread about medically induced late term abortions.

This is relevant to your topic, which otherwise fizzled long ago.

Late-term abortions only occur in the rarest of circumstances and are never merely elective.

One doctor. And I have yet to find an article that is for D&X they say over and over that intact D&E is the preferred method for late term abortions. Keep in mind, this is a peer review publication. I haven't found a retort that says D&Xs are a good thing.

When a peer reviewed article expresses an opinion, it is still an opinion.

Once again, "intact dilation and extraction" or "intact D&E" is the exact same procedure as "D&X".

Meanwhile, you have not found any articles that say that intact D&E is the preferred procedure. You have found articles that say that about D&E - dilation and evacuation.

You may be a bit over your head here. You aren't familiar enough with the terminology and the procedures to determine what is actually being said.

No, they are saying there are reasonable alternatives to the D&X.

I'll quote it again, since you seem to have missed it.

"A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life of or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision."

There are other procedures, but, in some cases, this one can be the best or most appropriate.

Not exactly.The fetus isn't delivered breech, and they use ultrasound to find the head and suck it's brains out in-utero (sorry for being gross).

Yes, exactly. Regardless of how the brain tissue is removed, the terms D&X and intact D&E have been used interchangeably in the literature. Currently, the law bans both of them, making it clear that they are used interchangeably.

It says there are better procedures. Medical professionals regard this journal in quite high regard. Any one of them can submit a rebuttal. They do quite frequently.

One article says that. In the opinion of two doctors, that is the case. Every other article (from what I can tell) to come up in a search on it states that it can be the best procedure for a given situation and that the doctor should determine the best procedure to use. It would seem that these two doctors are very much in the minority on this. That doesn't, of course, mean that their opinions cannot get published - it just means that they are of a minority opinion.

Now, can we please stop this threadjack and get back to the topic at hand?

I'd rather not leave anyone looking at the thread with misinformation.

so snaf, are you (somewhat) oppposed to the idea of late term abortion or of only certain abortion types?

I'm opposed to the medical late term abortion described in the article. Keep in mind this is England where
a: this procedure is legal
b: D&Es ect are also legal.
This procedure causes undue suffering; intead of death happening within a few moments, it can take up to several hours. This is a mistake that cannot happen. Having fetuses survive is also bad. This is bad politically as well as ethically. How much does it help the pro-life camp to have several "abortions" testifying before congress?

I also think that if viability happens (commonly) around 20-24 weeks, then the rules that apply to third term abortions should also hold for those abortions. Presumeably that's why there's the difference in laws in that country.

I understand viability can't be pegged to an exact moment, but I think it's important to strive to be more exact.

*sigh*

That is one of the alleged differences between "D&E" and "intact D&E" (aka D&X)

Your whole analysis is premised on a misunderstanding of the medical terms you are throwing around. I gave you the citation and the critical quote from the recent Supreme Court opinion saying that "intact D&E" is what was being banned. Please read that quote again. WTF more do you want?
So are we talking about that supreme court case or the most recent one? I thought the common consensus was the Supreme Court didn't know fuck- all about medical terms.


This is relevant to your topic, which otherwise fizzled long ago.
No, this is turning into a discussion of late-term surgical abortions. Since we already have a thread on that, that discussion should stay in that context. Or alternately, if the fetus is viable in the 20-24 week range should the 3rd term abortion laws in England apply to that stage of pregnancy as well?
If no one wants to discuss that, then this thread can die. I wanted this to be a different discussion from every other abortion thread and different that the other one currently on the first page.
Late-term abortions only occur in the rarest of circumstances and are never merely elective.
And when have I said they weren't.

I've always been pro life, partly for religious reasons (being a born again Christian myself) but mostly for logical purposes. The problem is that people will often talk about the fetus being "a ball of blood" or "a collection of cells" but the fact of the matter is that, medically speeking, there is no agreed upon definition of when the child is more than the sum of its parts. Therfore any definition that is created (when the heart begins to beat, when the first brainwaves are detectable, when it can live outside the body etc) is entirely artifical. We don't have the right to impose completely artifical definitions of what does and does not count as human life. If we do that, all sorts of horrors could be unleashed.

So are we talking about that supreme court case or the most recent one? I thought the common consensus was the Supreme Court didn't know fuck- all about medical terms.

You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you?

Gonzales v. Carhart was the most recent case.

Part of the issue in the case was whether or not the Partial Birth Abortion Ban sufficiently defined the procedure to keep the law from being vague and overbroad. The majority said it did, because that procedure was "intact D&E."

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists obviously know a bit more about the medical terms than you do, yet you reject both their definitions and that of the U.S. Supreme Court.

You're off debating in fantasy cuckoo-land.

I'm opposed to the medical late term abortion described in the article. Keep in mind this is England where
a: this procedure is legal
b: D&Es ect are also legal.
This procedure causes undue suffering; intead of death happening within a few moments, it can take up to several hours. This is a mistake that cannot happen. Having fetuses survive is also bad. This is bad politically as well as ethically. How much does it help the pro-life camp to have several "abortions" testifying before congress?

I also think that if viability happens (commonly) around 20-24 weeks, then the rules that apply to third term abortions should also hold for those abortions. Presumeably that's why there's the difference in laws in that country.

I understand viability can't be pegged to an exact moment, but I think it's important to strive to be more exact.


you mean the article you sited in your OP where they induce labor and let the fetus die?

are you OK with it if they do that lethal injection in utero thing?

are you OK with the idea that its not "on demand" (in the majority of countries and states) but only done for medical reasons?

When a peer reviewed article expresses an opinion, it is still an opinion.
An opinion with scientific backing. It's not like reading an op-ed column. Articles get rejected if they don't have sound research. And other doctors can and do refute findings. Why not link to an article rebutting one I've posted.

Once again, "intact dilation and extraction" or "intact D&E" is the exact same procedure as "D&X".

Meanwhile, you have not found any articles that say that intact D&E is the preferred procedure. You have found articles that say that about D&E - dilation and evacuation.

You may be a bit over your head here. You aren't familiar enough with the terminology and the procedures to determine what is actually being said.



I'll quote it again, since you seem to have missed it.

"A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life of or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision."

There are other procedures, but, in some cases, this one can be the best or most appropriate.
I've already posted articles on that debate on that thread. I'm sick of having to find them over and over. Especially when this isn't the topic at hand.



Yes, exactly. Regardless of how the brain tissue is removed, the terms D&X and intact D&E have been used interchangeably in the literature. Currently, the law bans both of them, making it clear that they are used interchangeably.
We are talking about law in England where it's currently legal.


One article says that. In the opinion of two doctors, that is the case. Every other article (from what I can tell) to come up in a search on it states that it can be the best procedure for a given situation and that the doctor should determine the best procedure to use. It would seem that these two doctors are very much in the minority on this. That doesn't, of course, mean that their opinions cannot get published - it just means that they are of a minority opinion.
And no doctor has written a rebuttal.


I'd rather not leave anyone looking at the thread with misinformation.
Well, none of this would have happened if my thread hadn't been hijacked to begin with. I'll erase mine if you erase yours.

An opinion with scientific backing.

Not really. They basically say, "Hey, there are risks to this procedure, too!" Yeah, there are risks to every procedure. And those risks must be weighed by the woman and her doctor.

It's not like reading an op-ed column.

Not exactly, no. But when opinions, rather than data, are expressed in journal articles, to those of us who often read journal articles, it is pretty similar.

Articles get rejected if they don't have sound research. And other doctors can and do refute findings. Why not link to an article rebutting one I've posted.

That's what you're missing. There were no findings here. This was not a research conclusion. There was a statement of the risks involved in the procedure and then an opinion that one should not put the woman through those risks.

Meanwhile, pretty much every other article that comes up on the subject (including the one I cited) is clear that there are reasons for this procedure, and that the doctor should make the call on which procedure to use.

And no doctor has written a rebuttal.

How do you rebut an opinion? The risks listed, while a bit exaggerated to make it sound really bad, are there. It is the opinion of these doctors that these risks are not necessary. It is the opinion of most doctors that they can be - especially when other risks associated with the general D&E procedure outweigh them. There are plenty of articles (including in JAMA) that point this out.

I'm beginning to wonder why you are so stuck on this one article, when numerous other ones, as well as the AMA policy, are at odds with it.

Well, none of this would have happened if my thread hadn't been hijacked to begin with. I'll erase mine if you erase yours.

I wouldn't call it a hijack. Just an evolution to a related topic.

It is also quite relevant in that, just like in the case of intact D&E (or D&X), most of this thread has been people who are not medical professionals railing against a medical procedure. I'm not familiar with the procedure in question, and it does present significant ethical problems in my mind. But there may be a clear reason that it is medically indicated, in which case all the ickiness in the world won't make me suggest that it shouldn't be used.

You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you?

Gonzales v. Carhart was the most recent case.

Part of the issue in the case was whether or not the Partial Birth Abortion Ban sufficiently defined the procedure to keep the law from being vague and overbroad. The majority said it did, because that procedure was "intact D&E."

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists obviously know a bit more about the medical terms than you do, yet you reject both their definitions and that of the U.S. Supreme Court.

You're off debating in fantasy cuckoo-land.

My bad, I thought it was Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood. I'm jsut ever hoping this could be steered back on topic. Have I mentioned I don't appreciate the threadjack when there's already a thread about this current topic?

you mean the article you sited in your OP where they induce labor and let the fetus die?
Yes, I think that's causing undue suffering.

are you OK with it if they do that lethal injection in utero thing?
I'd really prefer they do a D&E. A lethal injection is better than not. If this really has advantages for the woman over a D&E I'd be for it so long as they always did the lethal injection.

are you OK with the idea that its not "on demand" (in the majority of countries and states) but only done for medical reasons?
In my ideal world this is how abortions would work:
1st week to 20th week- On demand, no questions.
20th week and on- Done for medical reasons or if the child has a serious birth defect. Or If extenuating circumstances exist with the approval from some sort of swift and impartial appeals process.

Not really. They basically say, "Hey, there are risks to this procedure, too!" Yeah, there are risks to every procedure. And those risks must be weighed by the woman and her doctor.



Not exactly, no. But when opinions, rather than data, are expressed in journal articles, to those of us who often read journal articles, it is pretty similar.



That's what you're missing. There were no findings here. This was not a research conclusion. There was a statement of the risks involved in the procedure and then an opinion that one should not put the woman through those risks.

Meanwhile, pretty much every other article that comes up on the subject (including the one I cited) is clear that there are reasons for this procedure, and that the doctor should make the call on which procedure to use.



How do you rebut an opinion? The risks listed, while a bit exaggerated to make it sound really bad, are there. It is the opinion of these doctors that these risks are not necessary. It is the opinion of most doctors that they can be - especially when other risks associated with the general D&E procedure outweigh them. There are plenty of articles (including in JAMA) that point this out.

I'm beginning to wonder why you are so stuck on this one article, when numerous other ones, as well as the AMA policy, are at odds with it.



I wouldn't call it a hijack. Just an evolution to a related topic.

It is also quite relevant in that, just like in the case of intact D&E (or D&X), most of this thread has been people who are not medical professionals railing against a medical procedure. I'm not familiar with the procedure in question, and it does present significant ethical problems in my mind. But there may be a clear reason that it is medically indicated, in which case all the ickiness in the world won't make me suggest that it shouldn't be used.
It is a threadjack. This is being discussed ad naseum in the other thread. If people have no interest in the topic at hand, that's fine. But I really think it should be kept along the lines of this medical abortion or whether or not the laws should be changed as far as what can legally be performed at what stage of the fetus's development.

Yes, I think that's causing undue suffering.


I'd really prefer they do a D&E. A lethal injection is better than not. If this really has advantages for the woman over a D&E I'd be for it so long as they always did the lethal injection.


In my ideal world this is how abortions would work:
1st week to 20th week- On demand, no questions.
20th week and on- Done for medical reasons or if the child has a serious birth defect. Or If extenuating circumstances exist with the approval from some sort of swift and impartial appeals process.

i think so too. i dont see any reason to let a fetus slowly die.

i also think there should be some necessity for an abortion that occurs after 20-24 weeks (im not a stickler on the number, someone else can decide) but few abortions occur that late that dont have a compelling reason--medical, not knowing that she is pregnant, a minor in denial. the later the abortion, the more the need to have a compelling reason. (which is only natural since only a crazy woman would have a late term abortion for no good reason. its an expensive and horrible procedure)

i do however see a reason to have a woman deliver a more or less intact fetus after a late term abortion.

on her decision, of course.

if you have been wanting a child, were thrilled to find that you are pregnant, then find out that the fetus has a devastating condition that requires you to abort, you might really want to have a "baby" to mourn. in some cases you can have a funeral for it. i would not deny anyone that bit of comfort.

i think so too. i dont see any reason to let a fetus slowly die.

i also think there should be some necessity for an abortion that occurs after 20-24 weeks (im not a stickler on the number, someone else can decide) but few abortions occur that late that dont have a compelling reason--medical, not knowing that she is pregnant, a minor in denial. the later the abortion, the more the need to have a compelling reason. (which is only natural since only a crazy woman would have a late term abortion for no good reason. its an expensive and horrible procedure)
Exactly. I think it's pro-life propaganda that women would just decide at six months "I'm done carrying this fetus, I don't care to deliver it. I would rather endure this risky and expenisive procedure."

i do however see a reason to have a woman deliver a more or less intact fetus after a late term abortion.

on her decision, of course.

if you have been wanting a child, were thrilled to find that you are pregnant, then find out that the fetus has a devastating condition that requires you to abort, you might really want to have a "baby" to mourn. in some cases you can have a funeral for it. i would not deny anyone that bit of comfort.
That's a good point. I think I personally wouldn't want a face to put with my future baby. Some women need that, and I might very well change my mind if I ever had to make that decision.

I've always been of the opinion that abortions should be carried out no questions asked until the fetus was viable (ie could live outside the woman). It just seems to me that these fetuses are viable if a lethal injection must be administered to them.



How is it that you define viable?

Certainly the ability to live outside of the womb is important, but in the proper conditions (i.e. womblike conditions) then even an embryo could conceivably live and develop outside of the womb. Consequently I think it would aid you to further clarify your definition of viability.

How is it that you define viable?

Certainly the ability to live outside of the womb is important, but in the proper conditions (i.e. womblike conditions) then even an embryo could conceivably live and develop outside of the womb. Consequently I think it would aid you to further clarify your definition of viability.

The medical world as a whole has a hard time defining viablility of a fetus, I can't pretend to know something they don't. Firstly, there isn't an exact moment. If you look at the article it says there's a difference in abortion law between the second and third term in England. I'm just wondering why not ammend the law to read after 20 weeks if that's when ::most:: fetuses become viable.


Personally, I think a fetus is viable when it can survive the birth process and survive outside with a moderate amount of medical intervention (like an incubator to keep them warm and a feeding tube). Technically, not all premies (IMO) are viable. That said, tt doesn't mean we still shouldn't try to save them. Any fetus that's born alive (ie with a heartbeat) should have every effort available used to sustain them.

Within the confines of the law, which do (at least at this point) need exact gestational ages, I think the best effort should be made by the medical community to put a date and a definition on viability. And that the definition should change if medical opinion changes based on new evidence.

(which is only natural since only a crazy woman would have a late term abortion for no good reason. its an expensive and horrible procedure)

Not to mention that it the risks associated with abortion are increased at later time points.

i do however see a reason to have a woman deliver a more or less intact fetus after a late term abortion.

on her decision, of course.

if you have been wanting a child, were thrilled to find that you are pregnant, then find out that the fetus has a devastating condition that requires you to abort, you might really want to have a "baby" to mourn. in some cases you can have a funeral for it. i would not deny anyone that bit of comfort.

This is true. There are also more pertinent medical reasons - such as the risks associated with leaving fetal tissue in the uterus and the need for multiple passes with surgical equipment.

That's what I'm wondering about this procedure. Perhaps, inducing delivery rather than using surgical intervention at all could be indicated in cases where surgery itself would be particularly dangerous. I'm not familiar with this procedure, so I can't say for sure, but that would be my guess.

If a late-term abortion must be carried out, we must be concerned first and foremost with the risks of a given procedure to the mother - the patient in this case. Only if two procedures are equivalent in that regard should the "ickiness" of the procedure or even the pain associated with the fetus be considered as an important factor.

The medical world as a whole has a hard time defining viablility of a fetus, I can't pretend to know something they don't. Firstly, there isn't an exact moment. If you look at the article it says there's a difference in abortion law between the second and third term in England. I'm just wondering why not ammend the law to read after 20 weeks if that's when ::most:: fetuses become viable.

The earliest delivery that resulted in a living infant was recent - and I believe it was at about 21 weeks. This birth was planned and the hospital was prepared to take extraordinary measures to keep the newborn alive.

The trimester markings are somewhat arbitrary, but are based in the relevant data on viability and birth. Personally, I'd prefer it if we had clearer tests for developmental timepoints that were convenient enough to use as a matter of course before an abortion procedure, but I don't think we really have anything on that yet.

One of the biggest problems is that we can't really get a lot of data on human development in utero. We can get quite a bit of data in animal models and try and correlate it to human development, but we obviously can't ethically go in and take human embryos/fetuses at specific timepoints and check for developmental markers. So it will likely be a long time before we really have the kind of data we need to construct such tests.

With all due respect, have you raised, or have you grown up with, a child with Down's syndrome or a similar disability? If not then I'm afraid you're really not qualified to comment.

I mean no offense, but a remark like that smacks of justifying the removal of "imperfect" people.

I know someone with Down's Syndrome. His parents were told that he'd never get beyond a mental age of about 10 or so. In fact, he's gone well beyond that and has exceeded everyone's assumptions. He's a happy guy, fun to be around, and as good hearted as the day is long.

I'll have words with anyone who'd presume to suggest he'd have been better off aborted.

Personally, I think a fetus is viable when it can survive the birth process and survive outside with a moderate amount of medical intervention (like an incubator to keep them warm and a feeding tube). Technically, not all premies (IMO) are viable.

Sounds about right. And that's pretty much the consensus in the medical community, from what I've seen.

That said, tt doesn't mean we still shouldn't try to save them. Any fetus that's born alive (ie with a heartbeat) should have every effort available used to sustain them.

One note: a heartbeat does not mean that something is alive. You can take a heart completely out of a body and, as long as it has the right electrolyte balance and the proper nutrients, it will keep right on beating. Medically, death is defined by the loss of brain activity, not by the loss of a heartbeat.

The earliest delivery that resulted in a living infant was recent - and I believe it was at about 21 weeks. This birth was planned and the hospital was prepared to take extraordinary measures to keep the newborn alive.

The trimester markings are somewhat arbitrary, but are based in the relevant data on viability and birth. Personally, I'd prefer it if we had clearer tests for developmental timepoints that were convenient enough to use as a matter of course before an abortion procedure, but I don't think we really have anything on that yet.

One of the biggest problems is that we can't really get a lot of data on human development in utero. We can get quite a bit of data in animal models and try and correlate it to human development, but we obviously can't ethically go in and take human embryos/fetuses at specific timepoints and check for developmental markers. So it will likely be a long time before we really have the kind of data we need to construct such tests.

It will be nice when such a test is invented. Then there could be two distinct sets of laws dealing with abortion: non-viable and viable fetuses.

I think it's important to constantly evaluate the data as it becomes available in regards to viability. Presumably, that's why there's different laws regarding abortions in different trimesters. If consensus on the general viability of a fetus at a stage of development changes, then the laws should reflect that.

Sounds about right. And that's pretty much the consensus in the medical community, from what I've seen.
Always nice when the medical community and I are in agreement.:)

One note: a heartbeat does not mean that something is alive. You can take a heart completely out of a body and, as long as it has the right electrolyte balance and the proper nutrients, it will keep right on beating. Medically, death is defined by the loss of brain activity, not by the loss of a heartbeat.
I forgot about brain activity. [insert joke here]

I guess I was looking at it from the assumption the brain was working on some level, but the lungs and heart might not be able to sustain it for very long outside the womb.

The medical world as a whole has a hard time defining viablility of a fetus, I can't pretend to know something they don't. Firstly, there isn't an exact moment. If you look at the article it says there's a difference in abortion law between the second and third term in England. I'm just wondering why not ammend the law to read after 20 weeks if that's when ::most:: fetuses become viable.


Personally, I think a fetus is viable when it can survive the birth process and survive outside with a moderate amount of medical intervention (like an incubator to keep them warm and a feeding tube). Technically, not all premies (IMO) are viable. That said, tt doesn't mean we still shouldn't try to save them. Any fetus that's born alive (ie with a heartbeat) should have every effort available used to sustain them.

Within the confines of the law, which do (at least at this point) need exact gestational ages, I think the best effort should be made by the medical community to put a date and a definition on viability. And that the definition should change if medical opinion changes based on new evidence.

Well thought out answer. :)

I'm afraid I feel that any attempt to quantify the notion of "viability" is doomed to arbitrariness, and so I must respectfully disagree. No baby can survive outside of the mother without intervention, even those born at the full 9 months - they require care and feeding until well into their early years. The only difference is the degree of intervention required.

A human being can be defined in purely technical terms as a unique biological expression of genes; this unique expression begins at fertilization and does not cease until death, with development of that expression occurring throughout the entirety of biological life at various rates. Consequently, I would consider a baby "viable" from the moment fertilization occurs.

However, it should be noted that ultimately it's not my place to make that call unless it's my baby.

This is a little off topic but I wonder...

If a woman is in total control of her pregnancy, should a man have to pay her child support? I mean, she could have just not had the baby right? So how is the man responsible?
Child support is about a parent's obligation to a born child. If the child exists, there can be claims for support by the parents. If there is no child, there are no claims.

How the child came to exist isn't really the point, since the obligation is to the child. The child didn't decide how, when, or to whom it would be born, so it's not really reasonable to punish it for the choices made by others.