Hey- I was reading the newspaper about 2 weeks ago, and I was reading on a ban against partial abortion.It said that "The ban was passed and that 30 states can't do partial abortions.But there are 20 other states that have laws against baning partial abortions." I was just wondering what ya'lls comments on this is. Thank's for reading! BabyGurl
Don't worry about yesterday for it has passed.Don't Worry about tomorrow for it is in the future.Worry about today for it could be your last.
Posts: 56 | From: Back In The sticks of Missouri | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
First of all, I think what you mean is "partial-birth abortion", which is a specific type of abortion procedure where the baby is partially born and then killed. Not to sound too graphic or pro-life about it, but that's basically what happens, according to my knowledge. My opinion? I don't know. I am tremendously ambivalent about abortion at this point in my life. On the one hand, I think if I got pregnant with the boy I am currently with, I wouldn't be able to abort it; I think it would be difficult to have an abortion and abortion is probably morally ambiguous at best. On the other hand, however, I don't believe anybody has the right to make a choice like that for anybody else...the choice whether to have a baby or not is like the choice whether to have sex or not, and I believe everybody has the right to make a free and informed choice. So I guess that makes me pro-choice. Which is different from being rampantly pro-abortion, something I have realized in my various ruminations on the topic. This ban in particular is really not such a big deal in the scheme of things, though, I don't think. Partial birth abortions were quite rare in this country to begin with, I believe; I think it's really more of a gesture to the pro-life people, who like to use partial-birth abortion as an example of how horrible abortion in general is, even though partial birth abortions make up only a tiny percentage of all abortions performed in the U.S. (Somebody please correct me if I have my facts wrong.) What I would worry about is Bush's apparent fondness for abstinence-only sex ed, and his cutting funding, like, his first week in office, to health clinics that even mention abortion as a possibility. There, that's my two cents.
Posts: 54 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
"Partial birth abortion" is NOT a medical term or abortion procedure. It is a political term used by the antichoice lobby.
The broadest statutory defintion for the term would be somemthing like "partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery" which would essentially then include everything from late first trimester abortions onward (or all abortions, since there is only one usual way out for an embryo, and that is through the vagina), even if there is NO fetal viability. No one is being "partially born."
The antichoice lobby likes to jump on this train to fool the uninformed into thinking that late term abortions (well past the first trimester) are commonly performed, when they are, in fact, not at all, but instead usually only when the life of the mother is in jeapordy or the fetus is no longer living, and the bans suggested would include certain D&C procedures even WHEN the life of the mother is in jeapordy which are the best used in those cases.
This is also generally a ploy to try and slip into a better positon for making ALL abortion illegal (which is an interestingly stupid chain of logic to follow -- should this sort of antichoice utopia come to pass, some of those "unborn lives spared" by abortion may end up being put to death as the adult women they grow to be who need those procedures to live. Apparently cell masses have more value as living beings than the women some of them will grow to become).
[This message has been edited by Miz Scarlet (edited 06-09-2003).]
It's not like it was ever a common procedure, anyway. Likely, it would only ever have been used when it was discovered very late in a pregnancy that the woman's health or life was in great danger, or the child simply wasn't viable (there are disorders that can cause babies to be born with organs outside of their bodies, or other things that'd prevent them surviving). Quite simply, this procedure would be used to save lives, not to end unwanted pregnancies.
Anyway, I'm sending this to Ethics and Politics.
------------------ Milke, with an L, SSBD, RATS, TMNTP, MF, CWCD, DNFTF
But doesn't this ban eliminate the use of the procedure, even in the case that the mother is in severe danger from delivering a living fetus? I remember reading on another message board one poster said that if it was his child's life, or his wife's life, it should be up to God to decide, but like Milke said, if these are fetuses that are in no way viable, then it results in the death of an individual needlessly. It just seems like a wasted amount of time to pass the law, and dangerous to boot, for the rare women who find themselves at risk because they cannot terminate something that can end their lives.
Is this an America-wide ban, or just in certain states? The articles I've read were never quite clear on that.
I'm pretty sure it's the federal bodies that are dealing with it, which would mean it would apply nationally, jane. I could be wrong on that though, so an American should really speak up on it...
------------------ ...and we raise the white flag, so they can paint it red and blue! -Joel Plaskett, True Patriot Love
quote:Originally posted by platzapS: I'm just wondering--how old is the term "anti-choice"? I prefer to be called "pro-life", thank you very much. :-(
the term is about semantics. i recognize four terms in particular: pro-choice, pro-life, anti-choice, pro-abortion
of course, they are all different things; I will break them down accordingly.
Pro-choice: you don't have to like abortions, and you probably don't, but you see them as a necessary evil that needs to be protected so that women in need still have that option available to them
Pro-life: you definitely don't like abortions and you strongly encourage women to seek alternatives, and you favor restrictions on the procedure but probably recognize that it has some useful capacity
Anti-choice: you hate abortions and you want them barred entirely
Pro-abortion: you actively encourage abortionfor pregnant women, maybe because you oppose population growth
Different groups will use different terms to describe their opposition, and that's not always fair. ST is pro-choice, and Miz S gets a good amount of grief from anti-choice people who actively harass her or flood our boards. But we've had a few number of pro-life users who express their views respectfully.
quote:Originally posted by wobblyheadedjane: But doesn't this ban eliminate the use of the procedure, even in the case that the mother is in severe danger from delivering a living fetus?
No, this bill has a provision that would allow for use of this procedure in cases where the life of the mother would be in danger. It was put in there because the Nebraska law upon which this legislation is based did not contain that provision and was struck down by the Supreme Court for being "overbroad." So the legislators who wrote this bill included that provision this time around in the hopes it would pass muster.
And yes, Dzuunmod is correct. This law was passed by the US House of Representatives, and will be shipped off to the Senate later on. This makes it a Federal law, which means it'd be applied applied from sea to shining sea.
no problems there. i'm openly politically conservative (center-right but pro-choice, and definitely not pro-abortion). There are quite a few other right and center-right ppl on these boards, too. you just gotta learn to adapt
Okay thanks Bruin (I seem to be saying that a lot lately. Hmm, wonder why? ) But wasn't the original usage of this this procedure restricted to women whose lives were in danger, hence the rarity of it being performed? Or am I confusing it with something else? If that was the case, then what does this new bill change?
Posts: 1679 | From: London, ON | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Almost always, the procedure referred to as "partial birth abortion" is only used in cases where the mother's life or health is in danger - or where the fetus is already dead, is not viable, or would die during or shortly after birth.
quote:Originally posted by logic_grrl: BruinDan, do you know where this bill stands on those cases?
logic_grrl, I know all. Just kidding, just kidding...
As previously stated, the House bill that passed last month does carry a provision that makes it a-ok for a woman to undergo the "partial-birth" procedure. But my feeling is that this is more a matter of semantics than anything else. The backers of the bill know that failing to include that provision will result in their bill's being struck down as unconstitutional, just like the Nebraska predecessor was. So while "partial-birth" procedures will still be technically legal in cases of dire medical necessity, I don't think that would be the case if the bill's sponsors had their way.
Jane, you're right that the vast majority of these procedures were done in cases where the mother's life and health were in jeapordy, but there were still some wherein that was not the case. The Nebraska law tried to counter all "partial-birth" procedures as a backlash, but this was deemed overbroad and struck down. The new law will affect only those few that were not taking place under the umbrella of grave concern for the woman's safety. Make sense?
quote:Originally posted by logic_grrl: But then in that case, the law won't allow the procedure in cases when the woman's health isn't at risk, but the fetus has something like Trisomy-13, for example?
That's going to be left open for debate. There is no explicit allowance in there for any "partial-birth" procedure being acceptable when the medical problem is of the fetus and not the mother. I'm not a doctor and don't know enough about the medical side of things to speculate if that's because the legislators assume problems with the fetus would have been discovered at a time when it could have been aborted without the use of a "partial-birth" procudere or not, but that would be one guess.
But no, the exception to the rule would be solely when serious questions exist about the health and survival of the mother. Not the fetus.
Copyright 1998, 2013 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998
Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.