Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

UK Gov't Adviser: Post-natal abortions OK

Abortion UK Post Natal Abortions

  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#21 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 01:00 PM

Please, let's keep things about the topic and not the poster. Okay, Rhea?

That's awful, Rov! I had no idea. :crazy: Are those kind of abortions really necessary?
Per aspera ad astra

#22 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 01:03 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Jan 26 2004, 12:51 PM, said:

Which is a smokescreen.

Remember, partial birth abortion is named that because they pull the baby out of the womb, and leave the head in, whereupon they utilize sufficient vacuum pressure to suck the brains out. Then, they pull the baby the rest of the way out. The reason they suck the brains out while the baby is still inside is so that it's not legally murder.
Rov, I think you've just ruined my appetite for the entire day...could've seriously done without that mental image stuck in my head.  :barf:
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#23 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 01:09 PM

I've stuck a NSFL warning in my initial post.

Here's the official description.

Again, Not Safe For Lunch.

W
A
R
N
I
N
G

Quote

The term "Partial Birth Abortion" was recently created by pro-life groups when the procedure became actively discussed at a political and religious level. We will generally use the medical terms in this section.

The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb.

E
N
D
W
A
R
N
I
N
G

For more information-- and again, NSFL warning-- http://www.religious...org/abo_pba.htm

I realize the domain name might make you wary, but they seem to be fairly balanced. :). For diagrams from a pro-life source, click here: http://www.nrlc.org/...ba/diagram.html

Oddly, I can't find a pro-partial birth abortion site that wants to go into detail about what the procedure involves. That's so weird.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#24 Shoshana

Shoshana
  • Islander
  • 4,033 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 01:10 PM

:eek2:

I agree with what Nick said.

'shana

#25 eryn

eryn

    So, a baby seal walks into a club...

  • Islander
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 01:22 PM

I'm disturbed that that kind of abortion is in any way legal.

mystic
If you watch the news and don't like it, then this is your counter program to the news.
Jon Stewart

My Flickr

#26 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 01:24 PM

Kevin Street, on Jan 26 2004, 10:58 AM, said:

Please, let's keep things about the topic and not the poster. Okay, Rhea?
Delvo frequently manages to insult a lot of us by making sweeping and nasty generalizations and then expecting everybody to just ignore him. I don't feel like ignoring him today, so I'll bow out of the thread. I guess as long as you're generally vile and insulting to anybody who disagrees with you it's ok as long as you make sweeping generalizations.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#27 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 02:07 PM

Deaths have happened a few times to both mother and baby when a baby's head just wouldn't fit through and come out. Emptying the cranium makes it more collapsible, making removal possible in such a case. But it's quite rare, and in fact there's no telling that such a problem will arise until birth is already happening.

#28 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 02:57 PM

Well that is disgusting and disturbing on all levels...
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#29 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 03:17 PM

Rhea, on Jan 26 2004, 12:22 PM, said:

Delvo frequently manages to insult a lot of us by making sweeping and nasty generalizations and then expecting everybody to just ignore him.
I wasn't hoping you'd ignore me; I was hoping somebody would prove me wrong. I don't WANT to go around thinking that so many Americans think killing little kids is an inalienable right, but jeez, what else am I left with when that's exactly what the abortion crowd says, even if they try to make it sound like they're not saying it? But so far, nobody has ever explained it as anything else; challenge them to, give them an opportunity to, and all you get is either personal denigration or more of the same old evasion.

And they don't even really deny it. They just proceed to tell us that it's justified... not just in special cases where the mother's life is in danger or where the kid would go through life suffering horrible defects, but on general principle; you can tell by the fact that even when they use the above justifications, they try to make them apply to all abortions, even though they're actually only the case in a small minority. So what's their general principle? That it's the mother's "right to choose". Well, what a lovely way to say it... We all want people to have the right to choose stuff. I'll probably choose to vote Libertarian in the upcoming Presidential election as a protest vote. I'm going to choose what to have for lunch today in a few minutes. But "the right to choose" to kill someone? Even though that is PRECISELY what abortion activists advocate, they don't admit it out loud. It takes things like this guy in the article being linked to in the first post here to expose the principle that abortionists are standing for for what it is, because they don't admit it themselves, even though they don't deny it either, trying instead to make it sound like something else. Now how's THAT for hoping the opposition will just ignore something? Phrasing a discussion about when it is and is not OK to kill kids in terms that don't acknowledge that we're talking about killing kids is like saying that the South's position in the Civil War was all about the states' rights but failing to admit that the states' right in question was the right of a state to have slavery if it felt like it. It makes one side sound a whole lot better by running from the whole point.

Kids are people, and I've got no qualms about talking about when it is and isn't OK to kill people. I'll say it right now: Self defense, and mercy for the suffering. That includes 4% of abortions right there. But at least that's admitting what it is that we're really talking about, so that it really can BE talked about. You want to say that killing people is OK in more circumstances than those? Fine, but tell me why and under what circumstances, and do it while admitting that you're talking about killing someone. Abortionists want us to set a general principle that it's OK to kill kids without setting any limits or even admitting that killing kids is what we're talking about. That's treating them like slaves. And that's what this guy has exposed by applying their own principles.

#30 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 03:28 PM

Quote

Delvo frequently manages to insult a lot of us by making sweeping and nasty generalizations and then expecting everybody to just ignore him. I don't feel like ignoring him today, so I'll bow out of the thread. I guess as long as you're generally vile and insulting to anybody who disagrees with you it's ok as long as you make sweeping generalizations.

LOL. The very same thing was said about me not too long ago, a couple of days as a matter of fact.

Quote

I don't WANT to go around thinking that so many Americans think killing little kids is an inalienable right, but jeez, what else am I left with when that's exactly what the abortion crowd says, even if they try to make it sound like they're not saying it?

Of course that's what the abortion crowd would say, even if it isn't true. There is a distinction. If the infant, fetus, whatever you want to call it, hasn't been born yet...it's NOT a child. Period.

Granted, some argue to the contrary, saying it should be considered one...but to my knowledge, no law has been passed saying it is so. So, until the child has been born, whether by natural means or C-section, it technically isn't a human yet. At least not IMO.

Quote

But "the right to choose" to kill someone?

Again, until it is born it's not really a person.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#31 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 03:58 PM

LORD of the SWORD, on Jan 26 2004, 02:26 PM, said:

Quote

But "the right to choose" to kill someone?

Again, until it is born it's not really a person.
Why does the child's location grant personhood?
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#32 Ilphi

Ilphi
  • Islander
  • 4,071 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 04:02 PM

^

The argument I heard on the BBC Today program this morning is that when a child is born it is completly indepentent from the mothers body (although certainly not from her care), but when inside the womb it is dependent on her body for survival.

Not a very strong argument, IMO, but the one put forward.
Yea, ere my hot youth pass, I speak to my people and say:
Ye shall be foolish as I; ye shall scatter, not save;
Ye shall venture your all, lest ye lose what is more than all;
Ye shall call for a miracle, taking Christ at His word.
And for this I will answer, O people, answer here and hereafter,
The Fool - Padraic Pearse

#33 Taryn Wander'r

Taryn Wander'r

    scott pilgrim's precious little lover

  • Islander
  • 605 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 04:04 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Jan 26 2004, 06:07 PM, said:

Oddly, I can't find a pro-partial birth abortion site that wants to go into detail about what the procedure involves. That's so weird.
As far as I understood it, a partial birth abortion is ONLY legal if it was obvious that the mother's life is at severe risk, the baby is at severe risk of dying after birth, or the baby is brainless/braindead (in which ase it has no potential for life anyway, and would be considered stillborn if carried to term). And before the partial-birth abortion ban was passed, those were the ONLY times it was done anyway, because (most) mothers considering abortions would have chosen a LONG time before that sort of procedure would have to be necessary, or chosen not to go ahead with it.

I could be wrong, though.

#34 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 04:23 PM

Taryn Wander'r, on Jan 26 2004, 02:02 PM, said:

Javert Rovinski, on Jan 26 2004, 06:07 PM, said:

Oddly, I can't find a pro-partial birth abortion site that wants to go into detail about what the procedure involves. That's so weird.
As far as I understood it, a partial birth abortion is ONLY legal if it was obvious that the mother's life is at severe risk, the baby is at severe risk of dying after birth, or the baby is brainless/braindead (in which ase it has no potential for life anyway, and would be considered stillborn if carried to term). And before the partial-birth abortion ban was passed, those were the ONLY times it was done anyway, because (most) mothers considering abortions would have chosen a LONG time before that sort of procedure would have to be necessary, or chosen not to go ahead with it.

I could be wrong, though.
A good example of this is an ancephalic baby (a baby born with no brain). They never live more than a few days and only then on life support, because they literally have NO brain. I've actually seen pro-life folks tell a woman that she should carry it to term anyway.

I actually heard some idiot say "Well, *i* was a special needs child, and look what would have happened if my parents had felt that way."

We're talking about a child who would not live and has no brain activity because it has no brain.  :eek:  HOW could anyone not get the difference?

Edited by Rhea, 26 January 2004 - 04:24 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#35 Jid

Jid

    Mad Prophet of Funk

  • Islander
  • 12,554 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 04:37 PM

Taryn Wander'r, on Jan 26 2004, 03:02 PM, said:

As far as I understood it, a partial birth abortion is ONLY legal if it was obvious that the mother's life is at severe risk, the baby is at severe risk of dying after birth, or the baby is brainless/braindead (in which ase it has no potential for life anyway, and would be considered stillborn if carried to term). And before the partial-birth abortion ban was passed, those were the ONLY times it was done anyway, because (most) mothers considering abortions would have chosen a LONG time before that sort of procedure would have to be necessary, or chosen not to go ahead with it.

I could be wrong, though.
Well, up until the passing of this bill, it was legal, though officially not recommended.

So sayeth The AMA

Their exact language is

Quote

(1) The term 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term "intact dilatation and extraction"(or intact D&X)....

(2) According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient.

...

(4) In recognition of the constitutional principles regarding the right to an abortion articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and in keeping with the science and values of medicine, the AMA recommends that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes.

Make of it what you will.  

I've been reading various sites of doctor "testamonials" of how many of their D&X abortions were actually motivated by health, but refuse to post something untill I get the source material, regardless of how 'balanced' a site may or may not seem.  (Stupid paper trails)
cervisiam tene rem specta

#36 eryn

eryn

    So, a baby seal walks into a club...

  • Islander
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 05:01 PM

Rhea, on Jan 26 2004, 02:21 PM, said:

A good example of this is an ancephalic baby (a baby born with no brain). They never live more than a few days and only then on life support, because they literally have NO brain. I've actually seen pro-life folks tell a woman that she should carry it to term anyway.
But if an ancephalic baby has no brain why would it need to be aborted through partial-birth abortion? There is no brain to take out.

mystic
If you watch the news and don't like it, then this is your counter program to the news.
Jon Stewart

My Flickr

#37 Shoshana

Shoshana
  • Islander
  • 4,033 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 06:05 PM

Delvo, on Jan 26 2004, 01:05 PM, said:

Deaths have happened a few times to both mother and baby when a baby's head just wouldn't fit through and come out. Emptying the cranium makes it more collapsible, making removal possible in such a case. But it's quite rare, and in fact there's no telling that such a problem will arise until birth is already happening.
I didn't think that was an issue in first world countries - doctors can tell how big the babie's head is before birth and I'd think they'd have already figured out whether it's gonna be a problem..

My opinion only tho

#38 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 07:01 PM

Drew, on Jan 26 2004, 09:38 AM, said:

Nick, on Jan 26 2004, 11:01 AM, said:

You'll be hard pressed to find any pro-choicers that support late term/partial birth abortions.
Uh . . . I'm not so sure about this. Talk about banning partial-birth abortions usually results in the pro-choice crowd complaining that such a ban is merely the first step in outlawing abortions altogether, so they end up supporting late-term abortions just on principle.
Consider yourself corrected.  The only case in which I *might* support a partial birth abortion is where the life of the mother is at stake.  I think that even rape victims should be able to make up their mind a lot sooner than that.

Lil
Posted Image

#39 eryn

eryn

    So, a baby seal walks into a club...

  • Islander
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 07:35 PM

Rhea, on Jan 26 2004, 04:29 PM, said:

If you've ever seen a woman give birth to a literal monster, you wouldn't be so quick to make the judgement that it's no big deal to go ahead and carry the fetus to term.
Uhm.... Exactly when did I say that?

mystic
If you watch the news and don't like it, then this is your counter program to the news.
Jon Stewart

My Flickr

#40 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 26 January 2004 - 07:56 PM

mystic, on Jan 26 2004, 06:33 PM, said:

Rhea, on Jan 26 2004, 04:29 PM, said:



If you've ever seen a woman give birth to a literal monster, you wouldn't be so quick to make the judgement that it's no big deal to go ahead and carry the fetus to term.
Uhm.... Exactly when did I say that?

mystic
That line seemed to be addressed to people in general.

I had almost posted before I even saw that line, that ancephalics are the lucky ones compared to some of the other defects that could lead to "mercy" abortions.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Abortion, UK, Post Natal Abortions

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users