Blame the pre-teens.


I haven't been keeping track of the entire abortion thead, so I don't know if types of abortions were mentioned, this thread is about one particualr method conservatives managed to ban through legislation, only becuase they're ignorant, self-rightous, ego-inflated bigots.The ones who fought for this ban, in particular.

Partial birth abortion is administed in the third trimester of the pregnancy, I think, where the fetus is pretty far developed. The doctor delivers the fetus/baby partway, untill only the head is left in the womb, take am instument, reaches in, puctures the head of the fetus/baby, drain the brain, and delievers the now-dead baby. Brutal no? At first glance, this type of abortion should be banned beucase of brutality, but did these polititions know how or more importantly why this is done? Like these politicians had the experience and knoweldge of doctors to be making such decisions.

Initially this procedure is done when there is something wrong with the fetus/baby (a condition I don't remember the name to) or with the mother, and their lives are in danger. The mother' or the baby/fetus will be compromised. It's a last minute, desperate procedure, which is dangerous to administer itself becuase it's so late in the pregnancy. The decision essentially comes down to who gets to live, and politicians don't have the right to decide that.

The partial birth abortion ban is something that, I would think, most people agree with. I don't mind it. It's one thing to decide early on that you're not gonna go through with a pregnancy, but waiting until the 6th or 7th month is just perverse and unreasonable.

Of course, if they find out late in the term that going through with the birth would endanger the mother's life, then by all means...

I think this method should only be used if the mothers health is at risk.

on a side note, will the abortion thread be openedagain or have the kiddies and me ruined it for everyone?

I had never heard of this procedure before, and yes it does sound brutal. I am all for abortion but not at the later stages. That is unless it really is a case of life or death for the mother which I guess is the only time this was ever allowed?

I also agree that this should only be used in extreme cases where the mothers life is in danger or if the baby is very ill and wouldn't live for very long outside once born so it would be the merciful thing to do. End it's life before it has to suffer during it's short life before dying.

I don't feel partial birth should be treated the same way as regular abortion since the fetus can almost live outside the womb at this point and is closer to being a person.

The abortion thread was closed?

Oh, apparently yes. I feel out of it...

i don't think that anyone really thinks that partial birth abortion should be legal. It's both a true fetus, and nearly a living baby at that point, as well as the procedure being dangerous to the woman. The only time that it should be used is, again, if the woman would most likely be seriously injured or die during childbirth.

The more interesting argument is early abortion- it has more moral and ethical gray areas.

we were being a little chaotic that night. it's partly my fault of course. sorry everyone!!

but i've heard a little about this type of abortion, just not in detail. i think abortion should be legal within the first trimester. by the last trimester it should be in extreme cercumstances(sp?) for the mother's sake, like other people have mentioned. Although i wish they would do something else so it wouldn't have to be so brutel. "drain the blood out" i mean is that the only way to do it? why not deliver it and then put it to sleep *can't think of word*

I don't think they should make it completely illegal. If there isn't much chance of the baby surviving anyways and the mother is in danger, then it should be allowed, if only for those circumstances. I don't know how anyone could decide to have an abortion that late and go through with it for any other reason... It sounds brutal.

Wouldn't killing it after it's born be considered murder?

Actually, at the time this type of abortion is conducted, the baby can live outside the womb. With modern medical care, premature babies almost always survive to live normal lives. My daughter was born prematurely and now at age 7 she's quite healthy. That's why I feel that this type of abortion is unessecarily brutal and cruel. If a woman decides she doesn't want the baby anymore, why can't she give it up for adoption, rather than kill it? In my opinion, at this point the baby is a person and has a right to live like everyone else.

I don't like the idea of abortion in general, although I don't believe in banning it either--I feel there are times when it may be desirable, such as when genetic testing shows that the baby will be handicapped, or if the mother was raped, etc. Or sometimes someone is just too young to have a baby. But partial birth abortion is different. It's just such a cruel idea. And I honestly don't think it might be done to save the mother's life--because if the pregancy was endangering her life it would be easy for a doctor to perform a c-section, or induce labour for a vaginal birth. I can't see a situation at all where it would be necessary to kill the baby when it's already half-born. If it's already being born, why not let it live, and give it to someone who wants it?

A lot of times, Miriamele, it's impossible to even perform a c-section or somesuch for a mother. For those with fragile bodies and things, the birth could quite likely lead to unforeseeable complication after and during childbirth which could lead to the death of the mother and/or the baby.

Partial birth abortion sometimes produces a baby which could survive, but not without intense medical care and a huge drain on public funds throughout the child's life. It's really not worth it to force an unwanted child into the world at great expense.

However, partial birth abortion is, it must be remembered, very, very rare. It's normally only used in circumstances where it's necessary for a mother's well being, or if, as in the case of many younger people, the menstrual cycle is too irregular to alert the teen of the preganancy in such a time frame that she could choose another form of abortion.

Additionally, I find your stance odd. You would allow someone to abort a handicapped child, but would want them to try as hard as possible to keep premature babies, who will most definitely be handicapped, alive?

Hm.

Premature babies are rarely handicapped. As I mentioned in my post, my daughter was premature and she is petite but has no health problems at all.

When when I said I would understand someone aborting a handicapped fetus, I was talking about abortion at the regular time (first trimester). I wouldn't say the same thing if it was partial birth abortion. It just seems wrong to me to let it go so far and then kill the fetus, after the head is already in the world.

Also, I am not a doctor and I have no medical training...but I find what you said strange, that a c-section could lead to complications for "those with fragile bodies and things?" But a vaginal birth wouldn't? Trust me, vaginal birth is very hard on the body as well. And partial birth abortion is a normal vaginal birth in most respects--they just stop the baby from coming all the way out. Often a c-section is considered easier for a woman (no pushing) and is done in cases where the woman is having severe health problems.

Again, I am not a doctor, and I could be wrong...but I really don't think this form of abortion would be used to preserve the mother's health. I have heard stories from many women (on pregnancy forums) whose health was in danger from the pregnancy, and in all cases their doctors induced labour early, resulting in premature babies--but at least the mother was alive. And the babies were usually okay too.

I guess it's silly to argue about it anyway, because I remember reading somewhere that even if it was legal very few doctors would be willing to do this procedure.

I'm sorry, I should have phrased it so that there was no confusion- I was referring to any type of birth.

Incidentally, babies that are premature enough to be able to be aborted using the partial birth procedure are almost always dead or will have severe problems. We're talking around three months premature, not a few weeks or a month.

As for your other points, I need to do further research on the subject. It's something that I know stuff about, but I'm quickly venturing into a purely speculative area. I don't want to accidentally use incorrect information in an argument...

Well the first post said that it is done during the third trimester, which means the baby would be maximum 3 months premature but possibly 2 or even 1 month? I don't know very much about it. I really hope they wouldn't do it for a baby 1 month early, it's full grown by then...but maybe they do and this is why so many people are against the idea. Even a baby 3 months premature would very likely to survive with modern medical care. My daughter was 1 1/2 months premature and she was still 5 lbs. I took her home from the hospital after only 2 days and she was perfectly fine.

Very, very few abortions (if any) are performed during the third trimester. At that point, any mother will have had plenty of time to decide to have an abortion, and assess the medical risks. At that point, the abortion procedure would most likely be as if not more dangerous than simply inducing labor for the mother. The abortion could be performed very, very early in the third trimester, but it is quite risky. Yes, a 1 1/2 to 2 month premature baby probably would be in pretty good health, but much earlier than that would create a mainly unformed baby without proper faculties.

I apologize then, I was going by false information. I thought that partial birth abortions were conducted during the third trimester. My bad.