Partial-Birth Abortion?

[VALIS]

what is this? i always hear about it on US political tv programs.Is it like when the baby is half in, half out?

[TunaMaker]

Basically what happens is while the baby is half out/in of the mother the doctor jabs scissors into the back of the baby's head and sucks their brains out. Sorry about being graphic, but thats what happens.

TM

[VALIS]

[COLOR=]

Basically what happens is while the baby is half out/in of the mother the doctor jabs scissors into the back of the baby's head and sucks their brains out. Sorry about being graphic, but thats what happens.

TM

That is absolutley disgusting!! utterly vile and repulsive........why would america allow that to be legal?
Someone should layeth the smack down upon those abortion docters AND the evil witchs that get it done.

A sad reflection and stain on america.

[mrme]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial...ortion_Ban_Act

[VALIS]

thank you my good man......good thing they stopped such an immoral and sick practice,suprising that it was not banned until 2003 though! should have been outlawed a century ago.
anyway good to know,its no longer around.

[Evariste]

Although the question's been answered, this should probably be in the Athenaeum forum.

[carl-the-conqueror]

why couldnt they use a less grusome method (like lethal injection) ?

[PacSubCom]

why couldnt they use a less grusome method (like lethal injection) ?

Lethal for whom? You can't just inject poison into women my good man.

[Lord Snibb]

PacSubCom makes an exellent point. Remember also that the bady is unlikely to suffer much since it is not fully devolped and will likely die instantaneously. It's much better death than I'm likely to get, but not one I'd want. The fact is the baby is a full-fledged human, it is just not very far in its stages of devolpement. I find it appalling that because it is not as devolped it does not have legal rights.

[Rush Limbaugh]

good thing they stopped such an immoral and sick practice,suprising that it was not banned until 2003 though! should have been outlawed a century ago.

If only that were so. Im afraid its an all or nothing deal here in the US. These type of abortions still happen every year. Theres a doctor and a state that are famous for them though the name escapes me at the moment.

[VALIS]

If only that were so. Im afraid its an all or nothing deal here in the US. These type of abortions still happen every year. Theres a doctor and a state that are famous for them though the name escapes me at the moment.

terrible news.

yes george tiller is his name i believe.

heres an interview about the subject with bill o'reilly just click the woman on the right.
http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html

very smug looking whore.i laughed when o'reilly gave her hell.
another video,click on 'talking points' to the right of the main picture of o'reilly and then click on 'killing babies in america' when the video player pops up.

[Simetrical]

Please stay on topic. The question is not whether partial-birth abortion is good or bad, but what it is. You could open a thread in the Mudpit to discuss the latter if you liked.

To clarify: "partial-birth abortion" is a somewhat vague term as normally used, but as defined by U.S. law it means:

An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.

The main problem people have with it is that by that point, the fetus is indistinguishable from a baby, and it's already partially outside the mother's body, so it straddles the line between abortion and infanticide: a minute earlier it would certainly be the former, and a minute later the latter, but in between is arguable (even leaving aside those who consider all abortion tantamount to infanticide). They don't use lethal injections, I assume, because the fetus has no legal rights, and the practitioners obviously don't believe it has any moral rights, so why bother? As deaths go, having your head smashed might not be great, but it's pretty quick, certainly, and I suppose it's better than many get. It's just pretty disgusting.

Edit: Note that the procedure is currently legal in the United States, at least probably, because the law banning it has been declared unconstitutional by numerous courts across the country, apparently including two appeals courts, for not including an exemption for health of the mother, only for her life. This is on the basis of prior Supreme Court decisions, I believe, so the appeal to the Supreme Court (which it has accepted) should be interesting, given the recent shift in the court's composition.

[Tiwaz]

That brain suction thingy is not accurate. There is case of specific deformation which causes the fetus to have huge amount of water in their head.

It is not viable to live, neither it can be delivered in normal way.

Thus, doctor has to reduce the size of the head, by removing content, so that they are able to remove the body.


Rather reasonable and good reason for most of these "awful" practices, isn't it?
But of course it is far too reasonable for pro-lifers to remember so they just scream of sucking brains out.

(for record, as far as I know western world does not condone abortions beyond rather early point in pregnancy unless MEDICAL reasons make it necessary)

[Simetrical]

Please do not discuss your opinions on the morality of partial-birth abortion here. This thread is for factual discussion only. Start a thread in Ethos or the Mudpit if you want to post only opinions.

That brain suction thingy is not accurate. There is case of specific deformation which causes the fetus to have huge amount of water in their head.

It is not viable to live, neither it can be delivered in normal way.

Thus, doctor has to reduce the size of the head, by removing content, so that they are able to remove the body.

Deforming a fetus that is already dead to more easily remove it is not, of course, an abortion of any sort. The object of moral outrage and illegalization has always been the killing of a living fetus/baby, so I have to say that this point is something of a straw man.

(for record, as far as I know western world does not condone abortions beyond rather early point in pregnancy unless MEDICAL reasons make it necessary)

Eh? Elective abortions are legal in almost every Western country, and are even given as a right in some of their constitutions. Western women can generally have an abortion for any reason they like, at least within a certain timeframe.

[Tiwaz]

Please do not discuss your opinions on the morality of partial-birth abortion here. This thread is for factual discussion only. Start a thread in Ethos or the Mudpit if you want to post only opinions.

Deforming a fetus that is already dead to more easily remove it is not, of course, an abortion of any sort. The object of moral outrage and illegalization has always been the killing of a living fetus/baby, so I have to say that this point is something of a straw man.

It is not dead, but unviable for life as far as I know. It cannot survive on it's own.

Eh? Elective abortions are legal in almost every Western country, and are even given as a right in some of their constitutions. Western women can generally have an abortion for any reason they like, at least within a certain timeframe.

I was trying to make that point. It is legal to have abortion in first trimester or so. Partial birth abortions on other hand tend to refer to much later abortions which take place only if there is very good medical reason for it.

[Bwaho]

Basically what happens is while the baby is half out/in of the mother the doctor jabs scissors into the back of the baby's head and sucks their brains out.

damn that's sick man

[Rush Limbaugh]

It is not dead, but unviable for life as far as I know. It cannot survive on it's own.

Oh you mean like a baby. The fetus is very much alive and in fact would be a considered a baby within millimeters. If you were to allow it to completly eject from the womb it would be just as viable as any other newborn babe.

[Simetrical]

Okay, this is clearly no longer a science discussion. Moved from Athenaeum to Mudpit.

It is not dead, but unviable for life as far as I know. It cannot survive on it's own.

Looking back, I realized you indeed never said it was dead, just unviable. But that seems to be untrue, from some Googling:

In a 1993 interview, Dr. Haskell contended that he performed this procedure “up until about 25 weeks” gestation and that most of them were elective. Dr. McMahon (now deceased) reportedly performed such abortions through all 40 weeks of pregnancy. However, he indicated that he performed no elective abortions after 26 weeks gestation and approximately 80% of those abortions done after 21 weeks were non-elective. It is unclear what indications would be considered to be elective and non-elective, however, the presumption, based on some newspaper reports, is that elective abortions are those done on normal fetuses carried by healthy mothers. . . .

Discussions with some doctors who perform the partial birth procedure indicate that a significant number of their patients have this procedure done for medical reasons, such as serious defects in the fetus, illness in the patient, rape and incest. However, they assert that the majority of the procedures are elective.

Things I found in the first few pages of results that alleged that most cases were due to hydrocephalus were this (by a future practitioner, not a practitioner), and some versions of Wikipedia/some comments on blogs or message boards (with no sources cited). The reliable sources I found were pretty uniformly in agreement that ID&X is a useful procedure for fetuses with severe hydrocephalus, but none suggested that a large percentage of ID&X procedures are performed on fetuses with hydrocephalus. I would be interested in any sources to the contrary.

I was trying to make that point. It is legal to have abortion in first trimester or so. Partial birth abortions on other hand tend to refer to much later abortions which take place only if there is very good medical reason for it.

Ah, I see. Well, that varies widely by jurisdiction. Wikipedia gives Cambodia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Albania, Belgium, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Norway, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Sweden, Bahrain, Canada, and possibly some states in Australia and the U.S. as permitting unrestricted elective abortion up to the moment of birth.

I'm sorry, Rush, but that is not the case. The procedure is typically performed between week 20 and 24 of the pregnancy.

Intact dilation and extraction, yes. Partial-birth abortion, only arguably. They're often taken to be different things, or at least partly different. The AHD gives the definition of the latter as "A late-term abortion, especially one in which a viable fetus is partially delivered through the cervix before being extracted. Not in technical use." They're also often equivocated, however, which of course inevitably leads to confusion.

Please note that even as for intact dilation and extraction specifically, Rush only said that it is performed up until birth, not than it's typically performed up until birth. From what I've read in an hour's Googling, it seems as though there are only a few other choices for very late-term abortion, so it would be attractive for any very late abortion. It isn't routine for the procedure to be performed that late, however, no.

Show me the numbers of abortions carried out after the 24th week without explicit medical reasons.

Why don't you show us the number carried out with explicit medical reasons?

[sephodwyrm]

Again abortion has always been legal in the US if the life of the mother is threatened. Other than that I see no reason to allow it. Even Roe is now pro life. As we speak SCOTUS is again voting on this matter.

You know conservative Muslims are also against abortion as well, right?
People who tend to be against abortion tend to be the Hispanic group. I support them, because I prefer a multi-colored America.

[sephodwyrm]

Are there any other kinds of Muslims?

I know there are many sects of Islam. Dont play me as a fool.

And this is coming from the same person.

So I can't but feel sometimes that there are people sharing a single account on this forum.
But we should keep on the topic of abortion, or partial birth abortion.
Tricky question. But the lack of it will ensure that my career would at least have a realistic demand and objective - to feed the extra people on Earth.