Abortion compromise...what do you think?

[Ronald R. Harbers]

Do you know what Partial Birth abortion is? As the baby's head comes out of the womb, the Doctor takes a pair of sissors and cuts into the back of it's head, inserts a suction device, and removes the brain. It has nothing to do with the health of the mother. Personally, I believe in free choice. Abortion may be the only way to stem over population of the earth.

 

[Bester]

You know, I've seen a few posts here that seem to indicate that it's not always fatal.

Seriously, I think we're mostly adults here, we know how to use a search engine or medical text to look up procedures if need be. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html and more info here: http://www.abortionfacts.com/partial_birth/partial_birth.asp

Now, with that said, do you have anything of value to contribute to this thread?

 

[Ronald R. Harbers]

I forgot to answer. English is my first language. Espanol, Lakota and Creek are secondary languages.

What's not always fatal? Abortion?

 

[Bester]

Having
Your
Brain
Sucked
Out.

 

[Ronald R. Harbers]

I still don't comprehend. Nevertheless, I apologize for any remark or statement that may have offended anyone.

 

[michaeledward]

Do you know what Partial Birth abortion is?

Mr. Harbers, you may have found, as you read the entire thread, that my positions appear to be the most extreme of all those posted. I have advocated that terminating a pregnancy should be the womans decision until such time as a 'live birth' has occurred. I have not advocated for this position because I wish it to happen, but rather, because I believe that what a woman does is between her own moral compass, her god, and her doctor. I remind you that current United States law does not support my position, but places restrictions on women as the pregnancy comes to term.

Additionally, 'Partial Birth abortion' is a made-up term that right-to-life crowd invented to horrify all feeling people. Earlier in this thread, I explained the correct term, the medical term is 'intact dilation and extraction', sometimes referred to as D&X. I posted a link to a relatively comprehensive explanation of the D&X proceedure, and when it is used. D&X is a rare proceedure for terminating a pregnancy. One of the examples as to why D&X might be used is 'hyrdocephylus', a disease that causes the skull to grow to 250% normal size. Think about it.

I re-post the earlier link to information about D&X.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Intact%20dilation%20and%20extraction

In the words of the pro-choice people, if you are against abortion, don't have one. Normally we don't like to step down to 'sloganeering', but, there you go.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Do you know what Partial Birth abortion is? As the baby's head comes out of the womb, the Doctor takes a pair of sissors and cuts into the back of it's head, inserts a suction device, and removes the brain. It has nothing to do with the health of the mother. Personally, I believe in free choice. Abortion may be the only way to stem over population of the earth.

It very well may have something to do with the health of the mother, Mr. Harbers. When a fetus has severe hydrocephalus ("water on the brain"), the head of the child can swell up to twenty inches in diameter and contain up to two gallons of cerebro-spinal fluid. This is not a viable fetus.

If a normal birth is attempted, the mother will die. The fetus will as well. The only other option to a D&X procedure is a hysterotomy, which is more dangerous to the mother and can affect her ability to have other children in the future. Hysterotomy, a form of C-section, is one of the most dangerous methods of performing an abortion. Once delivered by hysterotomy, the child will die on its own.

Given that we do not have quality health benefits for the poor we find that many American women do not seek proper pre-natal care. An indigent woman who shows up at the doctor in her third tri-mester--perhaps her first visit to the doctor since conception--might be carrying a fetus in this condition.

What then?

As for abortion being the only way to prevent over-population...bunk. The Indians are in Phase III trials of a method of male birth control that is effective and lasts up to ten years. It is easily reversed, and seems to have no negative long term health effects. The United States will likely never adopt it.

----

I'm surprised the members here let you get away with a racist remark. I shall not. Last I checked, Mr. Harbers, caucasians hadn't cornered the market on cruelty. You have referred negatively to "white" people twice (that I've seen) in two separate threads here on Martialtalk. While this is illuminating in one sense by reminding us that racism goes both ways, I for one would like you to knock it off.


Regards,


Steve

 

[shesulsa]

I'm surprised the members here let you get away with a racist remark. I shall not. Last I checked, Mr. Harbers, caucasians hadn't cornered the market on cruelty. You have referred negatively to "white" people twice (that I've seen) in two separate threads here on Martialtalk. While this is illuminating in one sense by reminding us that racism goes both ways, I for one would like you to knock it off.

Here, here.

It is one thing if you cannot understand how anyone could terminate a pregnancy or if your cultural background is to perpetually state that you do not understand *insert custom here* to make a point (which we all do, by the way - e.g. I can't understand why women are treated so abominably in the east and why, oh why women tolerate it, and why a woman who works at our Girl Scout Council wears a black sheet over herself as though she were ashamed).

But it is another to categorize persons in an inappropriate fashion such as the racist remark you made and I am offended and ashamed for all your brothers as fellow members of the human race.

Sincerely

She-Sulsa

 

[loki09789]

Nicely put in all ways HH.....

The issue is abortion and where to or whether there even should be a line drawn where a fetus/child is recognized as a separate person from the mother AND based on your answer to that, what rights/protections should be afforded to each party involved in the situation (Mother, Father, Child...others as specified in discussion).

I have to say that, theoretically, if I absolutely had to draw the line it would be at the end of the first trimester that the life become 'human'. Before that the mother's body is more likely to self abort. After that, biologically speaking (and none too accurately, only generalizing here) the body 'accepts' the fetus more often than not. Now, 2nd/3rd trimester abortions, within my drawing of the line setting, would be techniquely Euthanization. I think that is about where we are now anyway.

From a woman's perspective, I think that no matter how logically you can rationalize that it isn't 'human' in the first trimester there is an emotional/personal 'human' label given to this 'thing' anyway otherwise post operation stress wouldn't be a point of discussion when the abortion issue comes up.

So, on a rational level, we can say it is or isn't 'human' but no one can reasonably dispute that there isn't some guilt involved in exterminated a 'life' willfully. Heck I felt bad running over a squirrel or hitting a deer and that doesn't even have to potential to be human. Considering aborting something that is bonded to my own body and has a strong potential to develop into 'human life' must be a very hard decision to make, live with EVEN when all the rational logic says it is the reasonable/life saving thing to do.

It very well may have something to do with the health of the mother, Mr. Harbers. When a fetus has severe hydrocephalus ("water on the brain"), the head of the child can swell up to twenty inches in diameter and contain up to two gallons of cerebro-spinal fluid. This is not a viable fetus.

If a normal birth is attempted, the mother will die. The fetus will as well. The only other option to a D&X procedure is a hysterotomy, which is more dangerous to the mother and can affect her ability to have other children in the future. Hysterotomy, a form of C-section, is one of the most dangerous methods of performing an abortion. Once delivered by hysterotomy, the child will die on its own.

Given that we do not have quality health benefits for the poor we find that many American women do not seek proper pre-natal care. An indigent woman who shows up at the doctor in her third tri-mester--perhaps her first visit to the doctor since conception--might be carrying a fetus in this condition.

What then?

As for abortion being the only way to prevent over-population...bunk. The Indians are in Phase III trials of a method of male birth control that is effective and lasts up to ten years. It is easily reversed, and seems to have no negative long term health effects. The United States will likely never adopt it.

----

I'm surprised the members here let you get away with a racist remark. I shall not. Last I checked, Mr. Harbers, caucasians hadn't cornered the market on cruelty. You have referred negatively to "white" people twice (that I've seen) in two separate threads here on Martialtalk. While this is illuminating in one sense by reminding us that racism goes both ways, I for one would like you to knock it off.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Flatlander]

I'm surprised the members here let you get away with a racist remark.

Just to add, it was being discussed, note the account status of the member.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I realize that I not as smart as you folks. Maybe I just got lost in the translation. My clan would never kill a child.

Not all, but many of the Native American Indians of North America, had ways to deal with deformed babies that were a drain on their culture for survival. In some it fell to the oldest male not related, that had not gone through the right of manhood. He was still a child in the eyes of the nation, and therefore could be forgiven for his acts of mercy, as some would call it. Others would call it otherwise.

:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Let me clue some of you folks into reality, on the matter of what happens when the right to decide is removed from women, their families, their doctors, their religious advisors, and handed over to a group of government snoops and moralistic, busybody men who apparently have way too much time on their hands.

In 1979-80, when I worked at a Children's Hospital in a major mid-western city (I'd rather not say which one), I worked as a respiratory tech in a NICU. During that year, new Reagan/Ed Meese-inspired regulations came down from the government.

All newborns, regardless of condition and outcomes, had to be supported to the full extent of the hospital's resources. No more discussing things with the mom and family, bringing in the hospital chaplains and shrinks, giving the family time to deal with it and say goodbye, and shutting off the stupid machinery and letting Nature take its course.

The first time I really ran into this, it was with a term baby born completely anencephalic. That means, kids, no cerebrum, and just enough of a brain stem--the most primitive part of the brain--present to keep some, though not all, of basic housekeeping functions going.

The parents knew it. They wanted the machinery shut off. The nurses knew it; ditto. The doctors, staff, everybody but the lawyers and the Feds agreed.

We supported that brainless carcass for a couple of weeks, until nothing worked.

Quarter million, half a million dollars down the drain. Family torn up for weeks. Staff miserable. Brainless "baby," born dead, "died," anyway, as these unfortunates always do no matter what you do.

Oh, incidentally, kids literally across the street needing their shots, decent meals, Head Start, help for their twisted parents, etc., while we're playing Night of the Living Dead one block away.

Funny how folks who are by-god against guv'mint intervention that takes away a man's assault rifle are perfectly content with such spectacles.

Makes sense to me, though. Guv'mint takes a gun, guv'mint takes away a man's--let's just say thingy; guv'mint takes away a woman's control, well, they never lost anything anyway.

Recommended Halloween film: David Cronenberg, "Dead Ringers."

 

[heretic888]

Hey, folks, know this is a tad off-topic here...

but, if you think "white people" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) have the corner market on cruelty --- particularly cruelty directed against infants --- 'fraid you might be a tad mistaken.

For example, might want to read up on the lovely infanticide practices of the pre-modern Japanese (there were similar practices among the Chinese). The practices found in some Native American tribes that someone cited on this thread are also somewhat common in a few African tribal groups, as well.

Its kinda the same thing with "slavery" --- again, lotta cultures were doing it. Very disingenous to peg any one culture or "race" with its exclusivity.

In the end, what this shows us is that any broad generalizations about social behavior on the basis of "race" or "nation" are kinda silly. Not to mention, un-American (y'know --- tolerance, individualism, equality, and all that jazz).

Laterz. :asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Hey, folks, know this is a tad off-topic here...

. . .

For example, might want to read up on the lovely infanticide practices of the pre-modern Japanese (there were similar practices among the Chinese). The practices found in some Native American tribes that someone cited on this thread are also somewhat common in a few African tribal groups, as well.

. . . :asian:

The Chinese as recent as 1966, the year of the fire horse, had mass infant deaths of female children. It is beleived in their culture that a female child born under this sign (* a whole lunar year *) will bring disgrace upon thier family and themselves. They also practiced selective abortions when population controls were implemented, everyone wanted a son to carry on the family name.

And yes tribal cultures the world over did have lots of similar traits, that allowed them to survive.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Just to add, it was being discussed, note the account status of the member.

Administrative action noted. I was thinking that others here would have responded sooner in the thread. Perhaps they didn't notice it. "White man" isn't really a slur...it doesn't drip the hatred of those slurs we see directed towards other groups.


Regards,


Steve

 

[shesulsa]

I see that Random Phantom addressed it here. I thought I had done so also, but it must have been the comment I typed in the negative rep points I gave him.

 

[Seig]

Racist comments will not be tolerated regardless of who they are directed at.

 

[shesulsa]

edited

 

[shesulsa]

"White man" isn't really a slur...it doesn't drip the hatred of those slurs we see directed towards other groups.

No, but I think most of us can agree that context can dominate over content, right? (Bobby, just nod yer head) "White people" is not a racial slur, but saying "only white people do that" stings to those of us in pale nations who reject racism and embrace the colors.

I'd give a more direct example of this for those of us who might not understand, but ... I can't feel right about doing it.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I'd give a more direct example of this for those of us who might not understand, but ... I can't feel right about doing it.

Ahh, c'mon, we're all adults. And if not...well, the forum has it's disclaimer.