The US Supreme Court agreed to hear a key abortion case on late-term pregnancy terminations, in an early test of how the newly remade court will rule on an issue cleaving American politics. The US government is appealing rulings by lower courts that a 2003 law banning the procedures decried by opponents as "partial-birth abortion" is unconstitutional, mainly because it fails to make exceptions for a mother's health.
Ok my thoughts if my wifes life is on the line it should beher decision what to do. Your thoughts?
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
Ok my thoughts if my wifes life is on the line it should beher decision what to do.
Absolutely. So long as the woman's 'life' isn't defined by her happiness, her social life, or mental condition.
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
Ok my thoughts if my wifes life is on the line it should beÂ*her decision what to do. Your thoughts?
Charlie, has their ever been a documented case in the medical community where the life or health of a pregnant woman required that a baby be partially delivered and then killed?
I certainly cannot recall one, but I'm very uneducated on the matter. But, more importantly, there are apparently many physicians who can't recall one, either. In 1996, some physicians - most of them experts in the field of obstetrics, gynecology and pediatrics - were upset enough over what they called "false stories" being spread by the national media and pro-abortion groups that they banded together to form the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT). Those false stories they were upset about was false stories proclaiming that partial birth abortion was necessary in some instances to save the life of the mother. PHACT currently consists of around 600 medical specialists, including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. The PHACT says that partial-birth abortion is NEVER necessary to preserve the health of the mother. EVER.
Folks can argue abortion whichever way they want to argue it. I'm personally opposed to any and all abortions at any stage of the pregnancy, but that's just my opinion. However, there is absolutely no scientific nor ethical way that ANYONE can justify partial birth abortion as not being the intentional murder of a living human being. Period.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
RE: Late term Abortion case to be heard
Quote:
ORIGINAL: Charlie P
Quote:
The US Supreme Court agreed to hear a key abortion case on late-term pregnancy terminations, in an early test of how the newly remade court will rule on an issue cleaving American politics. The US government is appealing rulings by lower courts that a 2003 law banning the procedures decried by opponents as "partial-birth abortion" is unconstitutional, mainly because it fails to make exceptions for a mother's health.
Ok my thoughts if my wifes life is on the line it should beher decision what to do. Your thoughts?
Thats a real tough one, but im with you. Im highly agianst abortions, but It would be easier to get over the lose of a child I never knew than my wife.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
IMO, if a fetus/baby is potentially viable outside of the womb and the woman wants to get rid of it, then they should deliver it and see if it lives. If so, then it can be adopted and raised by an anti-abortion family.Problem solved[:-]
__________________
"Shoot him again....his soul is still dancing"
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, when President Clinton vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on April 10, he said there are `rare and tragic situations that can occur in a woman's pregnancy in which, in a doctor's medical judgment, the use of this procedure may be necessary to save a woman's life or to protect her against serious injury to her health.'
The former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. C. Everett Koop--a man who President Clinton singled out for praise on August 23 as someone trying `to bring some sanity into the health policy of this country'--has said that `partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or future fertility.' Let me say that again: it is never necessary.
That is consistent with testimony that the Judiciary Committee received from other medical experts last fall. Dr. Nancy Romer, a practicing OB-GYN from Ohio, testified that in her 13 years of experience, she has never felt compelled to recommend this procedure to save a woman's life. `In fact,' she said, `if a woman has a serious, life threatening, medical condition this procedure has a significant disadvantage in that it takes 3 days.'
Dr. Pamela Smith asked during her testimony before the Committee:
Why would a procedure that is considered to impose a significant risk to maternal health when it is used to deliver a baby alive, suddenly become the `safe method of choice' when the goal is to kill the baby? And if abortion providers wanted to demonstrate that somehow this procedure would be safe in later-pregnancy abortions, even though its use has routinely been discouraged in modern obstetrics, why didn't they go before institutional review boards, obtain consent to perform what amounts to human experimentation, and conduct adequately controlled, appropriately supervised studies that would insure accurate, informed consent of patients and the production of valid scientific information for the medical community?
Even Dr. Warren Hern, the author of the Nation's most widely used textbook on abortion standards and procedures, is quoted in the November 20, 1995 edition of American Medical News as saying that he would `dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.' He called it `potentially dangerous' to a woman to turn a fetus to a breech position, as occurs during a partial-birth abortion.
Defending the indefensible is an understandably difficult task for President Clinton and other defenders of this procedure. What decent person does not get a shiver up the spine upon hearing a description of a partial-birth abortion, a procedure that was characterized by a member of the American Medical Association's legislative council as `basically repulsive' and `not a recognized medical technique.' I suspect that was why the council went on to vote unanimously to endorse the partial-birth abortion ban
just over a year ago.
It is because the procedure is so difficult to defend that some have tried to suggest that it is used only in cases that threaten a mother's life or health. Let me note, then, the words of Dr. Martin Haskell, who authored a paper on the subject for the National Abortion Federation. In an interview with American Medical News, Dr. Haskell said, `in my particular case, probably 20 percent (of the instances of this procedure) are for genetic reasons. And the other 80 percent are purely elective.' Eighty percent are elective--not medically necessary--but elective.
Another doctor, Dr. James McMahon, who performed at least 2,000 of these procedures, told American Medical News that he used the method to perform elective abortions up to 26 weeks and non-elective abortions up to 40 weeks. His definition of `non-elective' was expansive, including `depression' as a maternal indication for the procedure. More than half of the partial-birth abortions he performed were on healthy babies.
And what did the Record of Bergen County, NJ, find when it published an investigative report on the issue just last week? It reported that in New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed each year, far more than the 450 to 500 such abortions that the National Abortion Federation claims occur across the entire country.
According to the Record, doctors it interviewed said that only a `minuscule amount' of these abortions are performed for medical reasons.
The medical experts tell us that this procedure is neither necessary nor safe. It is not done out of medical necessity, but largely for elective reasons. That is why so many people around this country are opposed to this procedure, and why even its most ardent defenders are uncomfortable discussing it.
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.
...
According to the Record, doctors it interviewed said that only a `minuscule amount' of these abortions are performed for medical reasons.
The medical experts tell us that this procedure is neither necessary nor safe. It is not done out of medical necessity, but largely for elective reasons. That is why so many people around this country are opposed to this procedure, and why even its most ardent defenders are uncomfortable discussing it.
well, which is it? is it EVER performed for a medical purpose, or is it always elective? the quote "largely for elective reasons" (emphasis mine)leads me to believe that even the speaker is unsure. and at the end of the day, it becomes a distinction without a difference. if it is NEVER required for genuine medical purposes, such an exception becomes meaningless. if it is required for a genuine medical purpose, such exceptions should be allowed.
The medical experts tell us that this procedure is neither necessary nor safe. It is not done out of medical necessity, but largely for elective reasons. That is why so many people around this country are opposed to this procedure, and why even its most ardent defenders are uncomfortable discussing it
That is pretty much spot on. I'm betting everyone here knows of at least one baby that was delivered 6 weeks early and lived, I know several. My wife suffered from pre-eclamsia with our first son, a condition that is about as life threatening as they come, yet she was able to deliver a healthy baby. She did have seizures and her kidneys did shutdown 2 days after the delivery and she was hospitalized for 2 weeks because of it. A late term abortion would not have changed any of that.
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
Bottom line if anyone can support late terms that consist of half delivering a baby and letting it get its skull smashed or stabbed...then I hope you can sleep well. No need sugarcoating it...its called murder. I am somewhat neutral on the early terms..but half delivering one and letting it see the light of day and killing it...is MURDER!
Sorry for being graphic but..theres no need sugar coating it..it is what it is. A friend of mine had a baby that was several months preemie and weighed less than 2 pounds and it survived and is 100% healthy 10 years later.
Late term Abortion case to be heard
