This is gonna be a great debate!

[pajarito 0]

Quote

How much I love to see/hear men talking about something they never will understand!

It just gives hope to know they never will know, that's the positive part.

Men should give up and only talk about cars and weapons (I mean in certain parts of the world).

Just because I'm male doesn't mean I don't have a stake in this. We're talking about the partial birth abortion procedure in particular. I can see you arguing the whole "Pro Choice" abortion thing with me but I don't see how most people could argue the validity or necessity of partial birth abortion. Not given the facts of what it entails and the reasons why it is performed. There may be gray area with abortion at earlier stages but, once it reaches this point, it becomes very black & white (or right & wrong rather). They are most assuredly "killing" a baby human being for the sake of someone's convenience. I would argue that it is clearly "murder" rather than just killing at that point. John Kerry “deeply respects people’s beliefs concerning this.” He really “understands” because he’s Catholic and was an alter boy.” Whatever the bloody hell that means. However, I guess it didn’t bother his conscience too much because he voted against the ban of it. How utterly disgusting!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

In your first example, “The fetus is dead”, why would you need to perform a partial birth abortion? If the fetus is already dead, why would you need to then stab it in the back of the head and suck its brains out?

To collapse the skull so that it can be more easily extracted from the womb without having to tear apart the womans vagina.

Quote

In your second example, “Continued pregnancy could kill the mother”, how is killing the fetus during delivery going to rectify that? They would have done something about it prior to the stage where partial birth abortion would be considered.

So it's imposible for a woman to develop medical complications during the third trimester?

Quote

Again, how is waiting until the baby is partially delivered

A D&X procedure, which you call a "partial birth abortion" because the right to lifers coined it that for shock value, is most times not performed after the woman is in labor. They are most frequently performed in the 5th or 6th month of pregnancy.

It seems that your whole premise is based on the misconception that this procedure is only done when the mother goes into labor. That is not the case and that is not what the bill was seeking to outlaw.

Fine, I'll give in to your statements and say that if a woman goes into labor, there's no reason to perform this procedure (I don't buy it, but I'll concede that point to you). However the bill outlawed ALL D&X procedures, not just those when the mother is giving birth.

[pajarito 0]

My wife is responding to this one.

Quote

In your first example, “The fetus is dead”, why would you need to perform a partial birth abortion? If the fetus is already dead, why would you need to then stab it in the back of the head and suck its brains out?

Quote

To collapse the skull so that it can be more easily extracted from the womb without having to tear apart the woman’s vagina.

First of all, if the fetus is already dead then it is not an abortion. I do procedures all the time on women who have a missed abortion. That is not what we are talking about.

Quote

In your second example, “Continued pregnancy could kill the mother”, how is killing the fetus during delivery going to rectify that? They would have done something about it prior to the stage where partial birth abortion would be considered.

Quote

So it's impossible for a woman to develop medical complications during the third trimester?

It is not unusual for women to develop complications in the third trimester. However, she is not at any greater risk from delivery of a live infant than from a partial birth abortion. Why do you have to kill the infant to remove it? I have had to deliver infants prior to viability knowing that they would most likely not make it for the health of the mother. However, delivering that child alive did not put her at any more increased risk than what you are proposing. In a partial birth abortion, you still have to deliver the infant to a point so that the head is against the cervix so that you can then crush the skull and remove the contents. Either way, she still has to undergo a partial delivery, hence the name “partial birth” abortion.

Quote

Again, how is waiting until the baby is partially delivered

Quote

A D&X procedure, which you call a "partial birth abortion" because the right to lifers coined it that for shock value, is most times not performed after the woman is in labor. They are most frequently performed in the 5th or 6th month of pregnancy.

I disagree with your statement. I have done these procedures (D&E-dilatation and extraction procedure) on people who have had a missed abortion (dead baby) in the second trimester. These are not usually done in the fifth or sixth month as they get more dangerous the further along you are. They are usually done around 12-16 weeks give or take a little. These procedures usually cause quite a bit of bleeding. That is why most people that I know then deliver them by prostin or cytotec induction. Either way, it does not usually work as smoothly as you describe. In a D&E, you often remove the dead fetus in multiple parts that must then be re-approximated to make sure you have removed all the parts. Ever wonder why an abortion is so cheap in the first trimester, but markedly more expensive as the baby gets bigger? ($300-$500 in 1st trimester but several thousand in the 2nd trimester). Again, this is not the same as a partial birth abortion.

Quote

It seems that your whole premise is based on the misconception that this procedure is only done when the mother goes into labor. That is not the case and that is not what the bill was seeking to outlaw.

Fine, I'll give in to your statements and say that if a woman goes into labor, there's no reason to perform this procedure (I don't buy it, but I'll concede that point to you). However the bill outlawed ALL D&X procedures, not just those when the mother is giving birth.

That is not true at all. We still do D&X procedures all the time. Like I described before, sometimes parts get missed and the patient will pass parts of the fetus later (should never happen but it does).

[tunaplanet 0]

Thank your wife for enlightening us and proving certain posters who try to impose false information on us wrong.

Forty-two

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Thank your wife for enlightening us and proving certain posters who try to impose false information on us wrong.

She said, No problem.
Edited to add: She actually said that people who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't be so vocal as if they do.

Added by me: Decisions such as the one John Kerry voted against to ban partial birth abortion should be based on fact, not fiction.

Also added by me: What a f&%$*#g no-backbone, flip-flop, loser John Kerry is. Like I said before, he either truly believes his stance on this and is a radical left-wing LIBERAL or he's just a Ted Kennedy puppet who's decision, no matter what it is, is based on whatever political pressure is placed on him at the time. Very scary choice for all who are considering him. Vote smart people!!!

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

She actually said that people who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't be so vocal as if they do.

But Speaker's Corner would be so quiet then.

Forty-two

[rhino 0]

Quote

How much I love to see/hear men talking about something they never will understand!

It just gives hope to know they never will know, that's the positive part.

Men should give up and only talk about cars and weapons (I mean in certain parts of the world).

REALLY??? Why? So ANGRY, UNEDUCATED, SELFISH "some exceptions", MURDERING women KILL our children?

So men should just step aside while their helpless unborn children are killed?

You are out of your fucking mind for making this statement lady.. Out of your mind... The ONLY reason you are here is because your mother didn't have that same attitude about your life.

Rhino

[quade 4]

Quote

You are out of your fucking mind for making this statement lady.

You can attack the ideas, but you might wanna cool it on attacking the person.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhino 0]

Quote

You can attack the ideas, but you might wanna cool it on attacking the person.

As a father, who would die for ANY child, who has spent 4 years of my sons, my families and my life fighting for custody.. Not to mention the $129,000 spent to date... I think my statement was very kind...

But point taken...

Rhino

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

1 -
REALLY??? Why? So ANGRY, UNEDUCATED, SELFISH "some exceptions", MURDERING women KILL our children?

2 -
So men should just step aside while their helpless unborn children are killed?

1 -
Wow. That's exactly how I love men: Attacking the beast with their empty hands!

2 -
For that statement, you should be honored. That's no fun. But pls do not shout at me again, OK? My 3 big brothers always are around. (And my man and my big son)

And: Man, go and bawl to a man if you need to.

Quote

You are out of your fucking mind for making this statement lady.. Out of your mind... The ONLY reason you are here is because your mother didn't have that same attitude about your life.

That sounds bad, Rhino. So bad. Inform yourself before talking one sided. There are more than one reason why (unborn) babies never will be born. My mother was in best condition to give birth to 4 wonderful children. One of them is me!

Not every woman/mother can do that, do you agree?

Oh man, life's hard, bawlers all around. I do not refer to the very very little ones...

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

My wife is responding to this one.

***In your first example, “The fetus is dead”, why would you need to perform a partial birth abortion? If the fetus is already dead, why would you need to then stab it in the back of the head and suck its brains out?

Quote

To collapse the skull so that it can be more easily extracted from the womb without having to tear apart the woman’s vagina.

First of all, if the fetus is already dead then it is not an abortion. I do procedures all the time on women who have a missed abortion. That is not what we are talking about.

Quote

In your second example, “Continued pregnancy could kill the mother”, how is killing the fetus during delivery going to rectify that? They would have done something about it prior to the stage where partial birth abortion would be considered.

Quote

So it's impossible for a woman to develop medical complications during the third trimester?

It is not unusual for women to develop complications in the third trimester. However, she is not at any greater risk from delivery of a live infant than from a partial birth abortion. Why do you have to kill the infant to remove it? I have had to deliver infants prior to viability knowing that they would most likely not make it for the health of the mother. However, delivering that child alive did not put her at any more increased risk than what you are proposing. In a partial birth abortion, you still have to deliver the infant to a point so that the head is against the cervix so that you can then crush the skull and remove the contents. Either way, she still has to undergo a partial delivery, hence the name “partial birth” abortion.

Quote

Again, how is waiting until the baby is partially delivered

Quote

A D&X procedure, which you call a "partial birth abortion" because the right to lifers coined it that for shock value, is most times not performed after the woman is in labor. They are most frequently performed in the 5th or 6th month of pregnancy.

I disagree with your statement. I have done these procedures (D&E-dilatation and extraction procedure) on people who have had a missed abortion (dead baby) in the second trimester. These are not usually done in the fifth or sixth month as they get more dangerous the further along you are. They are usually done around 12-16 weeks give or take a little. These procedures usually cause quite a bit of bleeding. That is why most people that I know then deliver them by prostin or cytotec induction. Either way, it does not usually work as smoothly as you describe. In a D&E, you often remove the dead fetus in multiple parts that must then be re-approximated to make sure you have removed all the parts. Ever wonder why an abortion is so cheap in the first trimester, but markedly more expensive as the baby gets bigger? ($300-$500 in 1st trimester but several thousand in the 2nd trimester). Again, this is not the same as a partial birth abortion.

Quote

It seems that your whole premise is based on the misconception that this procedure is only done when the mother goes into labor. That is not the case and that is not what the bill was seeking to outlaw.

Fine, I'll give in to your statements and say that if a woman goes into labor, there's no reason to perform this procedure (I don't buy it, but I'll concede that point to you). However the bill outlawed ALL D&X procedures, not just those when the mother is giving birth.

That is not true at all. We still do D&X procedures all the time. Like I described before, sometimes parts get missed and the patient will pass parts of the fetus later (should never happen but it does).

I gave it a full day waiting on some responses but none came.

Seriously...

No more attempts at justifying partial birth abortion?
No more reasons why the ban on partial birth abortion should not have been supported?
Because, John Kerry voted against the ban.
Is there a reason for this? What does this say about him?

[juanesky 0]

I think your wife did us a huge favor posting the details to facts and our "friends" not being able to post something to validate their murderous point of view, decided for silence / or ignorant responses, with hidden threats. It's all good.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I think your wife did us a huge favor posting the details to facts and our "friends" not being able to post something to validate their murderous point of view, decided for silence / or ignorant responses, with hidden threats. It's all good.

I agree. This procedure is vile. However, my point in all that was to point out John Kerry's stance on the matter. I'm not saying that the issue of partial birth abortion should be the key focus for determining who to vote for next month. I'm just saying that it illustrates a continuing trend on his part and should be seriously considered on that merit.

[pajarito 0]

Have you ever seen the movie "Starship Troopers?" Did you see the scene where the regular bug brought the two humans to the "smart bug" in the cave? The smart bug then took his catheter style spear appendage and stabbed the guy in the top of the head to suck his brains out? That's what partial birth abortion does except to an infant.

[juanesky 0]

I know. I would understand if the baby poses a danger in the early stages, or if the woman was raped and made pregnant. Then an abortion at early stages should be warranted. The issue at hand is that it is ok to screw around with no consequences, moral, ethical, religous. It is ok to murder babies, yet if you say "towel head" you are damned....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[PhillyKev 0]

Sorry, I was not on line yesterday...here's my response to your wife.

Quote

First of all, if the fetus is already dead then it is not an abortion. I do procedures all the time on women who have a missed abortion. That is not what we are talking about.

The question he asked me was if the fetus is dead, why do you need to collapse the skull. I gave an answer. I never said it was abortion. In fact I wouldn't call this procedure abortion at all. That's the term the right to lifers made up for it.

Quote

It is not unusual for women to develop complications in the third trimester. However, she is not at any greater risk from delivery of a live infant than from a partial birth abortion.

I'm glad that you can make blanket statements about the risk of a procedure in ALL cases that have and ever will occur.

Quote

That is not true at all. We still do D&X procedures all the time. Like I described before, sometimes parts get missed and the patient will pass parts of the fetus later (should never happen but it does).

Yes, you still perform the procedure, but only if the fetus is already dead. That was not outlawed. So please explain to your husband why it would be necessary for you to perform this procedure on a dead fetus. He seems to think there's no reason for it if the fetus is already dead.

Quote

No more reasons why the ban on partial birth abortion should not have been supported?

Because the government, and your wife, and you, nor anyone else, should try to make blanket judgments about what is the best medical procedure for all people under all circumstances. Just because you or your wife have never personally encountered a medical need for the procedure, doesn't mean it is never needed.

I ask you again why it is not justifiable to include a provision in this ban that would give an exception when it is medically necessary to save the mother.

If as you believe, that never happens, then what's the harm of having that exception?

[tunaplanet 0]

Nah. Pajarito's wife got it right. Good try, though.

Forty-two

[juanesky 0]

Tuna, it is not that, I think they need to research what does "abortion" means, and conjugate it with partial birth abortion.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[PhillyKev 0]

I'd prefer to look at what the law means. And what the law means is that if a doctor is facing a situation where a mother's life is threatened, they are barred from performing a procedure which could save the mother's life.

Medical procedures should be between a doctor and a patient. They shouldn't be legislated based on relifious beliefs.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Yes, you still perform the procedure, but only if the fetus is already dead. That was not outlawed. So please explain to your husband why it would be necessary for you to perform this procedure on a dead fetus. He seems to think there's no reason for it if the fetus is already dead.

D&E’s are still done as a means of abortion today. This is actually one of the ways that 2nd trimester abortions are done. They are not done only on dead fetuses and are not banned. Again, “partial birth” abortions involve the partial delivery, except for the head, of a live wiggling baby. Only then is the procedure performed. That is what the ban refers to. You really wouldn’t even need to perform this procedure for delivery of a dead fetus.

Quote

Because the government, and your wife, and you, nor anyone else, should try to make blanket judgments about what is the best medical procedure for all people under all circumstances. Just because you or your wife have never personally encountered a medical need for the procedure, doesn't mean it is never needed.

As a medical doctor in the OB/GYN field, my wife would be the expert opinion to determine whether a procedure like this would be viable or not. You bring no expert medical opinion or facts to your arguments. She tells me that she can’t think of a single reason why it would ever be necessary. Not that she agrees with them, but there are plenty of other methods to accomplish this goal without performing partial birth abortion.

Quote

I ask you again why it is not justifiable to include a provision in this ban that would give an exception when it is medically necessary to save the mother.

If as you believe, that never happens, then what's the harm of having that exception?

The only reason for a partial birth abortion is to ensure that a fetus is dead prior to full delivery (i.e. convenience). There are other methods to accomplish this at an earlier stage. There is no medical reason why a procedure as obviously cruel as partial birth abortion should be allowed. Again, not that I agree with the other methods but, there are other alternatives earlier in the pregnancy to accomplish this goal.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I'd prefer to look at what the law means. And what the law means is that if a doctor is facing a situation where a mother's life is threatened, they are barred from performing a procedure which could save the mother's life.

Medical procedures should be between a doctor and a patient. They shouldn't be legislated based on relifious beliefs.

I don’t think you’re fully understanding what “partial birth” abortion is although it’s been described rather graphically. It will not put the mother at any more risk to deliver a dead or live baby. The only reason to perform this procedure is to ensure that the baby is dead prior to delivery. If the baby is most likely going to die anyway from some condition, there is still no reason to perform this procedure. Medical ethics involves us all. It’s not always just between a particular patient and his/her physician. Just because you can do something doesn’t necessarily always mean that you should.

[pajarito 0]

Partial Birth Abortion Procedure Diagrams (not actual pictures):

- Guided by ultrasound, the physician grabs the baby’s leg with forceps.
- The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
- The physician delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.
- They physician then jams scissors into the baby’s skull.
- The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
- The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted.
- The Child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse.
- The dead baby is then removed.

Again, there is NO MEDICAL REASON WHY “PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION” IS NECESSARY.
This is not the same thing as a D&E procedure in reference to when it is done.
This is why there was a vote to ban the practice and it was passed pro-life and pro-choice Democrats and Republicans.

JOHN KERRY VOTED AGAINST THE BAN ON PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

You're right, I'm not a medical expert, and neither are the people who wrote this legislation, and that is my point.

The government should not be in the business of dictating to doctors, preemptively, what procedures are or are not medically necessary. Your wife might be an expert, but that doesn't mean she knows about or can predict every eventuality that could ever occur. If she could, then she would be God, not a doctor.

Bush said it himself last night in the debate. The Government should not be involved in decisions made by doctors and their patients. He forgot to include "except when it conflicts with my religious beliefs".

Again, you keep saying it is never medically necessary. So why not word the bill that way? Unless you are trying to stop it even when it IS medically necessary.

JOHN KERRY VOTED AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT TAKES MEDICAL DECISIONS AWAY FROM DOCTORS AND GIVES IT TO THE COURTS

[pajarito 0]

Certainly medical ethics is regulated and should be! Some medical ethics issues are not necessarily meant to be kept private between doctors and patients. Otherwise, any physician could make up their own rules and perform whatever they wanted to. No restrictions. They could try out anything that came to mind because they can and not necessarily because they should. You don’t think decisions by our leadership in Congress concerning medical ethics are based on the scientific research and opinions of medical experts in the field? Do you think this one in particular is completely based on religious bias? This one is pretty common sense. Did you see the diagrams that I posted? You and I aren’t experts but what would be your best guess as to how killing the baby prior to delivering its head would medically benefit the mother in any way? At that point, why would it matter if the baby was alive or dead? Why would you have to kill it other than for reasons of convenience so that no one would have to take care of it?