Home - List All Discussions

A Realization

Late term abortion in cases of mother's life

by: LiberalChiRo

I just realised that abortion is never going to be the best solution for a woman in a late term emergency situation. How long does a late term abortion take? Actually, the entire process takes several days! You have to insert laminaria (sp) at least a day or sometimes two before the abortion takes place to open the cervix. That's certainly not an emergency procedure; that is a planned procedure.
A c-section will always be the faster option. And lo and behold, no one dies!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If she's dying right then and there - which is what EMERGENCY means (learn to read) - she does not have time to wait two days for her cervix to dialate. The fastest option to save her life is a c-section. A late-term abortion cannot physically be performed in the time-frame of an emergency situation.
On top of that, many women CHOOSE c-sections for their birth plan in America anyway! Apparently it's not as "horrible" as you make it out to be. Doctors often choose c-section if they are worried about the delivery.

reply from: scopia1982

Liberal, I am glad that you have came to this realization. Even in a non emergency sitaution an abortion isnt nessecary, a csection will accomplish the same thing if a woman developes severe pregnancy related complications that are being monitored.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And I hardly think Jouve's excuse of "she doesn't want to be cut up" is an excuse to KILL SOMEONE. She could just go through induced labor in a non-emergency case if she doesn't want a c-section. If she's this far along, why on earth is she electively aborting anyway? It isn't legal anyway, so that's a totally moot point.

reply from: Banned Member

I had a C-Section, the recovery process isn't that bad. I was out of bed in less than 12 hours. I agree, I don't see any reason for late term abortions.

reply from: CharlesD

Being cut apart is more permanent than being cut open.

reply from: ChristianLott2

It's a baby after the birth but just a couple days before it's 'fetal tissue'. It's MAGIC!

reply from: lukesmom

Oh give me a break! Any excuse or reason to kill at whatever stage of development is fine with you? Hmmmm, would you still support death if the child has been partially delivered and the mother changes her mind? After all, until the chest has been delivered there is no first breath. At what age do you believe this person has a right to continue living?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

I've had 2 C-secs and while they're major surgery with possible complications and painful recovery, having one is much, much better than a late-term abortion.

reply from: CharlesD

You mean you weren't aware of the sudden transformation that occurs with passage through the birth canal? It's truly a wonder of science how a mass of fetal tissue can become a human being in a matter of seconds.

reply from: lukesmom

You mean you weren't aware of the sudden transformation that occurs with passage through the birth canal? It's truly a wonder of science how a mass of fetal tissue can become a human being in a matter of seconds.
Actually, according to "the choicers" fetal tissue is only a human being IF the mother wants it to be. That is why pregnant mothers who want their child pat their abd and call their fetal tissue "baby" and mothers who don't want their child pay someone to remove that same "fetal tissue". Who needs segments of time? For "choicers" it is all a mind game.

reply from: CharlesD

Every abortion involves two people, a mother and a child. We would do well to remember that.

reply from: Carifairy

Liberalchiro~
Actually, a later tern abortion using D&E takes about 20-30 minutes.
Dilation over a period of DAYS is not common for all abortion procedures, it varies on the circumstances and issue at hand.
Example, Ecclampsia. Coma, siezures, blood pressure sky rocketing, stroke.. Those happen with ecclampsia.
If a woman presents with this problem, the pregnancy MUST be delivered or terminated, otherwise death will occur.
Now, at 29 weeks, this is an easy one.. C-section can be done ASAP, which is very very common.
At 20-22 weeks an abortion procedure using D&E is very common. This is because the mortality rate is 98-99% with a birth at 22 weeks.
Women are not just told "YOU get an abortion".. They are given treatment options, and are allowed to choose the treatment option that they feel is best.
.1% of all abortions happen after 30 weeks.
IF A life threatening thing/event is going to happen during pregnancy, it will happen much sooner than 30 weeks.

reply from: Carifairy

Abortion involves two humans, and only one human has the right to make medical decisions, which include abortion.

reply from: Rosalie

Every abortion involves two people, a mother and a child. We would do well to remember that.
Funny. I hardly ever see the pro-life side mention the woman. Except of course for the instances when they express their wishes for her to be used as a walking incubator, regarldess of her wishes or opinions.

reply from: lukesmom

And that makes the murder of the unborn justifiable? Because a human being cannot make medical decisions for him/herself does not give someone else the legal right to kill them. Yes, in regards to the unborn, that is the law in this country but the law is wrong. It is not the first time a law would be wrong.
"Talking" to an abortionist like you makes me sick to my stomach. I gotta go vomit.

reply from: CharlesD

If a woman does not wish to be pregnant, then there are ways to avoid that that don't include killing the child after the fact.
Funny. I hardly ever see the pro choice side show me adequate scientific proof that an unborn child is intrinsically different from an infant and that the difference is enough to disqualify it from basic human rights.

reply from: CharlesD

This is truly a momentous day here. We have someone that admitted that the unborn is indeed a human. So we have established the existence of a human being there. Can we not also establish, based on law, that it is wrong to take the life of innocent humans? What does abortion do? Hmm...it ends the life of an innocent human.
Who should have the right to make that decision? The constitution does not grant the right to kill innocent humans.

reply from: lukesmom

This is truly a momentous day here. We have someone that admitted that the unborn is indeed a human. So we have established the existence of a human being there. Can we not also establish, based on law, that it is wrong to take the life of innocent humans? What does abortion do? Hmm...it ends the life of an innocent human.
Who should have the right to make that decision? The constitution does not grant the right to kill innocent humans.
Yeh, it is indeed a momentous day. Scaryfairy is an abortionists assistant who acknowledges the fact she is killing human beings but she doesn't care. She is the epidamy of evil in human form as she has personally lead and helped hundreds (most likely more) of women kill their children.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If a woman does not wish to be pregnant, then there are ways to avoid that that don't include killing the child after the fact.
Funny. I hardly ever see the pro choice side show me adequate scientific proof that an unborn child is intrinsically different from an infant and that the difference is enough to disqualify it from basic human rights.
An early-term baby is much different from a born baby. Size, development, capabilities, etc. They are very different. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still a BABY.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

How do they dialate the cervix that fast without causing severe damage to it? I can't imagine that it is safe for the mother at all.
Strange, since all the pro-choice sources I read that discussed the late-term procedures said it was done over several days.
Yes they do... That is an example of an emergency situation.
I'm not saying the pregnancy should not be ended, I'm saying the child should not be purposely torn apart and its life ended in the process.
I should hope so.
That baby can feel pain. No one has a right to kill it. Why can't it just be delivered via c-section? It's senseless to me to rip it apart for no good reason.
I never said they were told that.
I'm aware of that as well. I think 0 should happen. There is NO excuse.
Most likely. The survival rate past 20 weeks is increasing every day as our technology advances. I believe no child should be killed past the age where even a single one has survived prematurely, which I believe is currently 22 weeks.

reply from: Carifairy

Like I said, it varies on circumstances! If a woman wants to have an abortion at 20 weeks for 'birth control' purposes, dilation can occur overnight, or it can occur that same day. Basically, it is PHYSICIAN preference and experience. Misoprostol can be used to soften and help assist in dilation as well. Plenty of clinics perform 20 week abortions in one day.
Because I am an insider in the abortion industry, I am aware that medical emergency creates a situation that involves different procedures and techniques for an abortion.
Abortions for medical emergency are not carried out in abortion clinics, most women will have in hospital emergency care.
There are other medical reasons, non emergency, that are commonly handled in clinics themselves.
Certainly the issue of pain is relevant at 22 weeks.
I thought that maybe you and I had discussed this before...?
General anesthesia is common for abortion procedures, especially procedures over 13 weeks. General anesthesia does cross the placenta into the fetus, and it does affect the fetus as well.
ALSO, most Clinics that provide later abortions provide injections of digoxin into the heart to euthanize the fetus prior to an abortion procedure.
Drugs are often used to help assist with dilation of the cervix. You have to understand that the cervix is not dilated but to about 2/3 or 3/4 cm at most during a very later term abortion.
It is not dilated that much.
At 20 weeks there is absolutely no chance at all of survival.
A c-section is a more serious procedure than an abortion at that stage.
I have always said that women should have a choice, and they do.. They can choose a c-section at 20 weeks, but they also understand that live birth is improbable at best.
My job is not to tell women how they should handle an emergency situation.
My job is to give them every option available, with realistic outcomes, and encourage her to think and make a decision that she feels okay with.
Some medical emergencies often do not allow time, but thank goodness many women have a game plan on what they will do if something awful happens.

reply from: CharlesD

Not to nitpick, but I am pretty careful with my words when I post. The key word I used was "intrinsically." You could also say "fundamentally." The point is that there is not a "fundamental" or "intrinsic" difference between an embryo and a toddler. Both are completely human, just in different stages of development.

reply from: CharlesD

Actually, the issue of pain is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand here. If I put a bullet in your head while you're sleeping, you will feel no pain. Heck, you won't even see it coming. If I torture you to death over a long period of time and inflict unspeakable amounts of pain on you, what's the difference? Either way you are dead. I will be convicted of murder either way. How much or little you suffer does not change what happened. The amount of pain a fetus feels or does not feel has no bearing on whether or not it is a human being and whether or not it is right to kill it. Sure, the notion of it suffering is more heart wrenching, but either way it ends up dead. A human being has been deprived of its constitutional right to life either way.
Chances of survival are pretty good if the child is left alone and allowed to develop.
More serious for which person? I'd say being removed alive is less serious than being killed.
You see, when you strip away all the justifications, this issue comes down to the systematic killing of thousands of innocent human beings each and every day. That is an abominable atrocity that no amount of rhetoric about rights can justify. There is no justification for it, no way to excuse it. It is not a constitutional right; it is murder.

reply from: yoda

Then you are available to kill their husbands for them? How much do you charge for that?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Not to nitpick, but I am pretty careful with my words when I post. The key word I used was "intrinsically." You could also say "fundamentally." The point is that there is not a "fundamental" or "intrinsic" difference between an embryo and a toddler. Both are completely human, just in different stages of development.
I think there is, actually. There are fundamental differences between a toddler and an adult, the least of which is size. Being completely human doesn't mean they can't be fundamentally different. Heck, males and females are fundamentally (and functionally) different. I'd never deny that both are human, but there are fundamental differences that makes a man a man and a woman a woman. The same goes for the preborn.

reply from: CharlesD

Oh heck, you know what I meant. Intrinsically, at the most basic level, there is no difference, genetically speaking.
Form and function, however, can be a different thing, and I think that's what you're alluding to.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Genetically, no, there's no difference and of course no one can prove there is... from the moment of fertilization it is a complete human being! All 48 chromosomes in place :3

reply from: scopia19822

This is truly a momentous day here. We have someone that admitted that the unborn is indeed a human. So we have established the existence of a human being there. Can we not also establish, based on law, that it is wrong to take the life of innocent humans? What does abortion do? Hmm...it ends the life of an innocent human.
Who should have the right to make that decision? The constitution does not grant the right to kill innocent humans.
Yeh, it is indeed a momentous day. Scaryfairy is an abortionists assistant who acknowledges the fact she is killing human beings but she doesn't care. She is the epidamy of evil in human form as she has personally lead and helped hundreds (most likely more) of women kill their children.
I agree with you 100% Sue. One question I would like to ask her, since the anniversary of my daughters death is coming up in 5 days, how many women has she personally seen come into that clinic that appear to only be seeking an abortion under duress and the "loving" male partner is standing right over her shoulder to make sure that she gets that much needed abortion.? Since we got someone who says they work in the industry, I would really like to see if they would attempt to answer it. Only a sociopath with no empathy or compassion could last a longtime in this industry.

reply from: BossMomma

Every abortion involves two people, a mother and a child. We would do well to remember that.
Funny. I hardly ever see the pro-life side mention the woman. Except of course for the instances when they express their wishes for her to be used as a walking incubator, regarldess of her wishes or opinions.
A walking incubator is not what a pregnant woman is, as a pregnant woman who just lost one of her 6month gestation twins I rather resent it. Abortion is a perminant and brutal fix to a temporary inconvenience. It is a crime to shake a colicky baby to death, why is it a right to rip that same child piece by piece from the womb? Abortion scars the woman as well in many cases, several examples of abortion regret post right here.

reply from: Rosalie

And what if something happens to her during the unwanted pregnancy she was unwilling to continue in the first place? Does it matter to you at all?
Unless you can guarantee no temporary or lasting effects or that her health or life will not be threatened during pregnancy or childbirth, how can you even consider forcing women to continue their unwanted pregnancies? By wanting that you are sending only one message: your health and life is absoluely irrelevant to me, all that matters is the life of the fetus and you should not have any say over what happens to you or your body because of my personal beliefs.
Saying "oods are you will be okay" is not nearly enough. It is just NOT ACCEPTABLE when it comes to the woman's health or life.
If you cannot understand the difference between fetuses and babies, that's your problem. Are babies physically dependent on one particular person whose health and life their existance may harm or endanger? That IS a fundamental difference.
You are lying, CharlesD. No one is out to abort every single fetus, not even every single unwanted fetus. No one is attempting to systemtically kill fetuses.
Does lying make you feel better about the horrendous stance you support?

reply from: Rosalie

As a moter, I refuse to carry unwanted pregnancies that may potentionally endanger my helath or my life. I absolutely resent the idea that I should continue my pregnancy regarldess of my personal beliefs, my health status, my economical status and most importantly the impact it might have on my family that already exists.
If you feel that pregnancy and childbirth are temporary inconvenience, that's your prerogative. I don't share your opiniona and millions other women don't, either. Your opinion has no value when someone else is making the choice.
And just because someone regrets their abortion does not mean everyone will. I know a person who regrets having a child. Am I supposed to infer that everyone will regret having their children from that example?

reply from: CharlesD

Do women get pregnant by pure accident, something in the water? Pregnancy is the natural consequence of having sex. Don't want to get pregnant? Either don't have sex or use protection. And don't even go down the rape road with me. That argument has already been refuted on here countless times. Like I said, there are ways to prevent pregnancy from happening if you have sex. If you don't use what's available to you, then pregnancy is a very real possibility and once it happens, the ship has sailed. How much you wanted or didn't want the pregnancy is irrelevant at that point. You now are pregnant. Actions have consequences.
Sure, there is risk in pregnancy. There is risk in walking out your front door, driving down the road, eating strange food in foreign countries, but we do all those things knowing the risks and knowing that we have to accept the possible consequences of those actions. Life cannot be lived without some element of risk. I have gone on record here in saying that I support an exception in cases where the mother's physical life is in immediate danger, but even in those cases there is the possibility of removing the child and saving baby and mom. The value of a human being is not dependent on how much it was wanted.
Don't go saying it's all a matter of personal belief either. Sure, it's my personal belief, but it is a belief that is based in truth, a truth that is backed up by science. An unborn child is just as much a human being as you are and is just as deserving of the right to live as you are. We have no more right to kill them than I have to come over and shoot you in the head. You have done nothing to me to deserve that and the unborn has done nothing to deserve death. Killing unborn children is not a constitutional right, regardless of what the courts have said. The courts have mis-interpreted the constitution in the past as well. Was the Supreme Court right when it ruled that blacks were not completely human? The constitution says that people cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. You can reference my thread on the 14th amendment for a more detailed explanation, but you probably won't like it. Sometimes the truth is difficult to swallow.
Is an infant any more capable of sustaining life on its own than a fetus is? Sure, remove a fetus from the nutrients that come from mom and it will die. Try telling an infant to fend for itself. You have to do practically everything for them. The main difference is that the infant is residing outside of the womb. Where you live does not determine whether or not you are a human being.
So abortion isn't the systematic killing of unborn people? You mean there isn't a system in place to do it? How else are women getting abortions if there isn't a system to make it possible? What are all those clinics? Saying it is systematic does not mean that people are trying to kill all of them; it is saying that there is a system in place whereby abortions are done. Don't try to argue word definitions with me and don't ever again call me a liar. Anyone who supports the killing of innocent people is standing on rather shaky moral ground. You have to have a more firm footing before you can level those accusations.
The bottom line is this. The unborn are human beings. They're not members of any other species. It is wrong to take the life of innocent human beings. Any other issue is secondary to that truth. How much you wanted it, how you are going to care for it, how much it will mess up your social life for nine months...all of these are secondary to whether or not the child is a human being and whether or not it is right to kill innocent human beings.

reply from: Carifairy

Actually Liberchiro..There are situations that are unique.
A molar pregnancy is not human. The egg is fertilized, it implants, but it turns into a tumorous mass. We cannot know what will happen until implantation.
NOT that this is highly likely for every woman.. But it shows that fertilization does not necessarily make for a human.

reply from: BossMomma

As a moter, I refuse to carry unwanted pregnancies that may potentionally endanger my helath or my life. I absolutely resent the idea that I should continue my pregnancy regarldess of my personal beliefs, my health status, my economical status and most importantly the impact it might have on my family that already exists.
If you feel that pregnancy and childbirth are temporary inconvenience, that's your prerogative. I don't share your opiniona and millions other women don't, either. Your opinion has no value when someone else is making the choice.
And just because someone regrets their abortion does not mean everyone will. I know a person who regrets having a child. Am I supposed to infer that everyone will regret having their children from that example?
If they regret their child I wonder why they didn't seek adoption? I don't share your opinion that it is a right to kill a child. Of course I believe that the woman is entitled to save her own life, though the majority of the time the pregnancy can be ended and still result in a live birth, thus both are saved. My opinion has as much value as yours so kindly do not hold yourself on a pedistal.

reply from: Rosalie

Usually a sexual intercourse. Ideally, a willing sexual intercourse with the purpose to procreate.
Pregnancy might be the natural consequence of having sex. It is not the only purpose of having sex and whether it is the primary purpose of having sex is up to opinions of individual people.
It is not up to you to decide for people whether they should or should not have sex. The sooner you realize this the better.
And again, ideally, everyone who doesn't want to get pregnant would be using protection. IF protection was cheaply and easily attainable everywhere, if everyone was educated enough to use protection and if protection never failed.
Atrocious manners right there.
That is your opinion only. Nothing else. Do not flatter yourself that your opinion means anything to anyone but you.
To you, maybe. Not to me. And again, your opinion has no bearing on my choices.
Knowing the risks means that I will do everything in my power to prevent these things to happen. I will use seatbelts, I will look twice before I step on the road and I will have an abortion if the risk to my health seems to be too big for me.
Who do you think you are to tell me what I should or should not be saying?
And as a matter of fact, it is a matter of personal belief.
Lies and opinions, nothing else.
YOUR OPINION.
I don't believe that just because a fetus has a human DNA and a heartbeat it is automatically deserving of life.
Your opinion.
It is not about what a fetus deserves or not. It is whether the fetus poses any actual risk to my health, life, to my current situation etc.
Killing unborn children is a constitutional right, regarldess of what you are saying.
See?
There are not similarities to women's right to have an abortion. That was a very desperate attempt.
Yes. It can be cared for by absolutely anyone. It is not, by merely existing, posing any threat to the particular woman's health or life.
Remove a fetus from the nutrients that come from mom and it will die. Remove a baby from the nutrients that come from mom and someone else can easily care for it. That's a huge difference you are ignoring here.
Not really. I have just outline the main difference above. ^
I never said fetuses weren't human. Of course they're human, what else would they be?
No. No one is out to assassinate all fetuses. If you think so, you should be under psychiatric supervision.
Do you know what SYSTEMATIC KILLING means? This very quote proves that you have no idea. It would be amusing if it weren't so sad.
Systematic killing would mean that there is an organized group demanding women to abort every single fetus they ever bear with the aim to stop fetuses to come into existence, ever. ALL women, ALL fetuses. That is what the phrase "systematic killing" means.
PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF. It is embarassing for anyone to use terms you don't understand.
Please educate yourself. I almost feel embarassed for you at this point.
And again, don't tell me what to do.
That's your opinion. And as such it has no bearing on anyone else but you.
I never said they weren't human beings so I'm not sure why you are arguing this point.
Not always. Like I said, I don't believe that just because it is human and/or has a heartbeat it is automatically wrong to kill it.
You keep confusing your opinions with the truth.

reply from: Rosalie

I don't know. But I'm sure they have their reasons.
I'm not asking you to share that opinion. I'm only saying your opinion does not make it a fact and I will not consider someone else's opinion relevant when my health or family is at stake.
And no thank you, I quite enjoy my pedestal.

reply from: BossMomma

I don't know. But I'm sure they have their reasons.
I'm not asking you to share that opinion. I'm only saying your opinion does not make it a fact and I will not consider someone else's opinion relevant when my health or family is at stake.
And no thank you, I quite enjoy my pedestal.
I'll pray that you don't get pregnant with an unwanted child then and that should benefit us both. BTW, watch out for that pedestal, those things suck to fall from.

reply from: ProLulzer

Laws forbid things. They do not make moral judgments about things they forbid or allow. Read Thomas Hobbes.

reply from: ProLulzer

This is truly a momentous day here. We have someone that admitted that the unborn is indeed a human. So we have established the existence of a human being there. Can we not also establish, based on law, that it is wrong to take the life of innocent humans? What does abortion do? Hmm...it ends the life of an innocent human.
The constitution does , however, guarantee the right to refuse a fetus the use of your body, as per the ruling of SCOTUS in Roe vs Wade, and also in Plan Parenthood vs Casey. See Amendment 14.
Who should have the right to make that decision? The constitution does not grant the right to kill innocent humans.

reply from: Beprolifewithme

Where do you get that stat from? You're abortion club?

reply from: CharlesD

If you can't successfully refute an argument, just call it an opinion and say it isn't valid. Sound logic there.
But it is. This will be addressed below.
And two more real gems that will be addressed below:

This really says a lot here:
Is it or is it not wrong to kill innocent human beings? You notice I said innocent and the reply is not always. In other words, there are instances where it is actually acceptable to kill an innocent person. I'm used to talking to people who try to argue that it isn't a person or that it isn't fully a human being before birth, but when someone admits that it is indeed human and then goes on to say that it is not wrong to kill it, that is not a person that should be calling me a liar or suggesting that I undergo a psychiatric evaluation. The point is that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings. That is a well established precedent throughout history, not to mention the laws of this country.
You also mention a threat to your current situation. How selfish is that? I can understand the risk to your life and I have already stated that I am willing to grant that exception, but a human interfering with your current situation, whatever that situation is, does not constitute grounds for killing it.
I'm also not buying the constitutional argument. There is no wording in the constitution that explicitly outlines the right to kill innocent people. It isn't there.
Yes, I have opinions...opinions that are based on two incontrovertible facts. The first we have actually agreed on, and that is that the unborn are in fact human beings. The second is that according to law it is wrong to kill innocent human beings. The constitution says that the states cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process. It doesn't place qualifications on what any person applies to. You could substitute human for person and the meaning stays the same.
If you want to argue the facts, go right ahead, but maybe you should try to do so without using the word opinion. I would also advise arguing your points without calling those who disagree with you liars. Calling what I say an opinion does not discredit the facts that opinion is based on.
What we have here is someone who has stated that it is actually acceptable to kill innocent people. If that isn't an opinion with no basis in fact, I don't know what is. That is not only an opinion, but a rather dangerous way of thinking.
And once again, please don't call me a liar. Vindictive name calling does not become you.

reply from: CharlesD

The 14th amendment says no such thing. I addressed all of that in a separate thread, so repeating myself here would be rather redundant.
The Supreme Court has been wrong before. Roe is not the only instance. How about Dred Scott?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Actually Liberchiro..There are situations that are unique.
A molar pregnancy is not human. The egg is fertilized, it implants, but it turns into a tumorous mass. We cannot know what will happen until implantation.
NOT that this is highly likely for every woman.. But it shows that fertilization does not necessarily make for a human.
So freak accidents justify killing babies? Not in my book. Just because I could develop cancer in my body doesn't mean I should kill myself to prevent it. Just because I could become sick doesn't give anyone the right to kill me. The unborn is a baby, a human being. That's what people are like when they are only 3 days old; that doesn't mean they are not a person, just that they aren't very big.
There was a post on here a while back, about the Developmental view vs the Constructed view. Does anyone remember what that post was called?

reply from: CharlesD

I don't remember the title, but I posted it. It was an article written by someone else. I'll try to dig it up again if you'd like.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yeah, I should try to go look for it too... Because it says what I'm saying here much better than I can.

reply from: scopia19822

The 14th amendment says no such thing. I addressed all of that in a separate thread, so repeating myself here would be rather redundant.
The Supreme Court has been wrong before. Roe is not the only instance. How about Dred Scott?
Sadly in case of Dred Scott the Constitution counted blacks as 3/5 of a person for representation purposes, but also considered them movable property. So the Court of that time had something in black and white in the Constitution to come to the decision they did regarding Dred Scott. It took the passing of the 13th and 14th amendments to regard them as persons. However in the case of RoevWade there was and is no such writing in the Constitution to guarentee a constitutional right to abortion. In this case law was legislated from the bench. The states had the right under the 10th amendment to make laws banning or restricting abortion.

reply from: Rosalie

You automatically presume that I would abort an unwanted child. What do you know? Maybe I personally would consider adoption... and maybe not. You know nothing about me, you are just applying your misconceptions about pro-choice people on me.
And ... you amuse me greatly.

reply from: ProLulzer

CharlesD, the SCOTUS thinks it does say such a thing. Seems you are out of luck!

reply from: Rosalie

When you start posting arguments that you can actually back up with some substantial information instead of opinions, I might actually consider debating them with you.
Until then, your opinions will just remain opinions. Sorry if you can't deal with that.
You apply the words "innocent" and "persons" to fetuses and yes, I think it's perfectly all right to kill fetuses out of choice.
It is obviously human, it was made by two humans so I don't know what else it would be.
I don't think it is a person but even if it was - it still changes nothing about the fact that it is a feuts, completey physically dependent on the woman. That's what I consider more important.
And nice passive agressive attack! Too bad for you that I don't care what people with such atrocious attitude and so-called morals like you think, especially since you are just another person on the internet.
Says you. I say there are instances when it isn't wrong.
You are obviously wrong. Abortion is legal and in some states, the death penalty is legal as well and nobody gives a damn that these people are human beings. So yes, you are obviously wrong.
It's not selfish at all. I have a child to take care of and I will do anything not to leave that child motherless. I will do everything in my power to be there all her life.
I also have a boyfriend and other family members and I think of them, too. Not to mention that my health and life are both very important to me.
If you call that selfish, then I am very proud to be selfish.
Oh, how very generous of you.
I, however, am not willing to take anyone's opinion into consideration when it's affect my health, life or family.
I will repeat it for you once again: yes, fetuses are human. What else would they be?
And no, law clearly states that in some instances it is okay to terminate an "innocent" human being. Abortion is legal so obviously the latter IS only your opinion and it is wrong.
I call them like I see them. Not to mention that condescending attitude does not become you.

reply from: BossMomma

You automatically presume that I would abort an unwanted child. What do you know? Maybe I personally would consider adoption... and maybe not. You know nothing about me, you are just applying your misconceptions about pro-choice people on me.
And ... you amuse me greatly.
Under normal circumstances you would amuse me as well, though not much does these days. Frankly I fail to see how I warrented such a rude response, you seem to think every pro-lifer is out to take a jab at you. Praying that you don't have an unwanted pregnancy was not an insult.

reply from: Rosalie

You automatically presume that I would abort an unwanted child. What do you know? Maybe I personally would consider adoption... and maybe not. You know nothing about me, you are just applying your misconceptions about pro-choice people on me.
And ... you amuse me greatly.
Under normal circumstances you would amuse me as well, though not much does these days. Frankly I fail to see how I warrented such a rude response, you seem to think every pro-lifer is out to take a jab at you. Praying that you don't have an unwanted pregnancy was not an insult.
What exactly was rude about my reply?
I told you that you know nothing about me and hence you have no idea what I would do in case of an unwanted pregnancy. Also I personally consider it rude to pray for someone who has not asked for this, especially if you do not know anything about their beliefs, but I decided to let it go and I did not even mention it in my response. Yet you still somehow found it rude.
Your pedestal remark amused me. Again, what was rude about that?
There was nothing rude about my reply. You are just looking for something that's not even there for one reason - I am pro-choice. And that's all the reason you need, right?

reply from: BossMomma

You automatically presume that I would abort an unwanted child. What do you know? Maybe I personally would consider adoption... and maybe not. You know nothing about me, you are just applying your misconceptions about pro-choice people on me.
And ... you amuse me greatly.
Under normal circumstances you would amuse me as well, though not much does these days. Frankly I fail to see how I warrented such a rude response, you seem to think every pro-lifer is out to take a jab at you. Praying that you don't have an unwanted pregnancy was not an insult.
What exactly was rude about my reply?
I told you that you know nothing about me and hence you have no idea what I would do in case of an unwanted pregnancy. Also I personally consider it rude to pray for someone who has not asked for this, especially if you do not know anything about their beliefs, but I decided to let it go and I did not even mention it in my response. Yet you still somehow found it rude.
Your pedestal remark amused me. Again, what was rude about that?
There was nothing rude about my reply. You are just looking for something that's not even there for one reason - I am pro-choice. And that's all the reason you need, right?
The pedestal remark was made because you obviously hold yourself in higher regard than any child you may become pregnant with, as if that child were subhuman. I don't presume to know anything about you but was going by comments you posted on this forum.

reply from: Carifairy

BEPROLIFEWITHME~
The CDC has abortion statistics, and they are easily looked up.

reply from: CharlesD

What I said did not apply to the death penalty, since I was referring to innocent people. States don't make a habit out of executing innocent people. Yes, it has happened before, but in most cases the death penalty is given out to people who are guilty of something. I also find it rather amusing that you can call me a liar while at the same time asserting that everything I say is just an opinion. In order for someone to be lying, there has to be an objective standard of truth. That would imply that there are things that can be more than just opinions. If we want to follow that line of reasoning, I could simply say that everything you say is an opinion and equally invalid.

Another question is whether or not there is a standard of right and wrong that supersedes the laws of the state. On what authority does the government pass laws? How can the government say that it is wrong to murder people or to steal things that don't belong to you. Are those things simply wrong because the government says so, or did the government say so because they are wrong? I would say the latter applies. In that case, it could be argued that the government is capable of making mistakes from time to time, as it did in the case of Dred Scott and also for years after the abolition of slavery where there were segregation laws on the books. What was the whole point of the Civil Rights movement? The repeal of unjust laws. How can we say that a law is unjust if there isn't a standard of right and wrong above that law?
I will end with this. It is intrinsically wrong to end the life of an innocent human being. Laws can change, but that standard does not change. There are things that are not just a matter of opinion.

reply from: CharlesD

Show me specifically in the constitution where it gives people the explicit right to kill unborn humans. I don't give a darn what a few flawed justices said they saw in there. What does it say specifically? Where is abortion guaranteed in the constitution? More importantly, what was the intent of the writers of that document? Show me where the people who wrote it intended to include that right.

reply from: CharlesD

Well, the scripture does say to pray for those who persecute you, and that would probably even include people who say mean things about one another on the internet. Who and what I pray for is between me and God. If you think it's rude to include you in that prayer, then so be it. I pray about a lot of people daily, but I usually don't go telling everyone that I am praying for them, unless I know of a specific person who might find comfort in knowing that. If knowing that you are being prayed for isn't something you take comfort in, then I just won't bother telling you when I do.

reply from: ProLulzer

CharlesD, I do not have to show you where it explicitly says that the right is there; man rights are no explicitly states yet still exist. The right to take a crap is not granted explicitly yet no one can point to it the the text directly or claim that it was intended to be implied. It is give because of other things which lead us to conclude this right follows. To understand the 14th and abortion read the SCOTUS decisions.

reply from: Rosalie

I absolutely put my family first. They are already born, they have feelings, they love me, and they need me. I would rather have an abortion than knowingly risk leaving my child (children) motherless.
I also have high regard for my health, yes. One's health is a very fragile thing and it can be easily destroyed and you don't get another chance. I try treat my body and health with utmost respect.
I call that having my priorities straight and I'm very proud of that indeed.

reply from: Rosalie

What I said did not apply to the death penalty, since I was referring to innocent people. States don't make a habit out of executing innocent people. Yes, it has happened before, but in most cases the death penalty is given out to people who are guilty of something. I also find it rather amusing that you can call me a liar while at the same time asserting that everything I say is just an opinion. In order for someone to be lying, there has to be an objective standard of truth. That would imply that there are things that can be more than just opinions. If we want to follow that line of reasoning, I could simply say that everything you say is an opinion and equally invalid.

Another question is whether or not there is a standard of right and wrong that supersedes the laws of the state. On what authority does the government pass laws? How can the government say that it is wrong to murder people or to steal things that don't belong to you. Are those things simply wrong because the government says so, or did the government say so because they are wrong? I would say the latter applies. In that case, it could be argued that the government is capable of making mistakes from time to time, as it did in the case of Dred Scott and also for years after the abolition of slavery where there were segregation laws on the books. What was the whole point of the Civil Rights movement? The repeal of unjust laws. How can we say that a law is unjust if there isn't a standard of right and wrong above that law?
I will end with this. It is intrinsically wrong to end the life of an innocent human being. Laws can change, but that standard does not change. There are things that are not just a matter of opinion.
Well, when you are presenting your opinions as truthful facs, of course that makes you a liar.
Add "IN MY OPINION" to it and your liar status is gone.
And of course there are unjust laws from time to time. Like the laws that prohibited abortions, they were really bad, unjust, terrifying laws. A law that prohibits woman to take care of the most personal and pivotal matter that directly affects her health and life is wrong.
And that is still nothing but your opinion which I disagree with.

reply from: Rosalie

Well, the scripture does say to pray for those who persecute you, and that would probably even include people who say mean things about one another on the internet. Who and what I pray for is between me and God. If you think it's rude to include you in that prayer, then so be it. I pray about a lot of people daily, but I usually don't go telling everyone that I am praying for them, unless I know of a specific person who might find comfort in knowing that. If knowing that you are being prayed for isn't something you take comfort in, then I just won't bother telling you when I do.
Your point would've been valid if everyone subscribed to the same religion. But because different people have different believes, it is very rude to pray for someone who did not ask for it first.
I don't care what is between you and your God because I don't believe he exist. I just think it's a sign of great disrespect to other people and their beliefs to do that.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

How would you even know if someone was praying for you? That's a stupid remark. You sound like a couple I heard of. They went to a party and had a delicious dinner. As they were leaving one of the guests mentioned that it was the best vegetarian meal they'd ever had. The husband, who had just finished expressing how much he'd loved it too, suddenly became enraged and accused the hosts of "forcing" their vegetarian views on him. Yeah... anger management issues anyone?

reply from: BossMomma

I think it's rather funny that she automatically assumes I'm christian. I pray to what ever powers that be, my deity has no name, no doctrine, my prayers are more to fate than anything else. Furthermore I find it ironic how she feels it is a right to kill an unborn baby but it is rude for someone to pray about the issue. I feel that praying is MY right.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yeah, she's all kinds of confused.

reply from: Rosalie

Um, because she said so? Here, a quote for you to prove it:
You are all so funny, attacking people left and right just because they have a different opinion.
You were wrong, Liberal. Can you at least admit it?

reply from: Rosalie

I think it's rather funny that she automatically assumes I'm christian. I pray to what ever powers that be, my deity has no name, no doctrine, my prayers are more to fate than anything else. Furthermore I find it ironic how she feels it is a right to kill an unborn baby but it is rude for someone to pray about the issue. I feel that praying is MY right.
Excuse me? I did not assume anything. You said you will pray for me. I didn't even mention it unless you started calling me rude and then I remarked that I consider it rude o pray for someone who didn't ask for it and about whose religious belief you know nothing about.
I also never said praying was not your right. It is your right, by all means. I just remarked it was rude to pray for people who might reject your religious beliefs.
So maybe you should calm down, re-read the posts and stop jumping down people's throats just because you cannot come to terms with the fact that they have a different opinion.

reply from: Rosalie

As I've just pointed out and proven, that would be you and BossMomma. But thanks for playing, it was rather amusing to have you both yelling incoherent nonsense I've never even said and ignoring what actually was said and written.

reply from: scopia19822

"I also never said praying was not your right. It is your right, by all means. I just remarked it was rude to pray for people who might reject your religious beliefs."
It is rude to tell people who they can and cannot pray for. I pray for proabortionists and athiests all of the time as a group. I just do it in secret, because what and who I pray for and about is between me and God.

reply from: CharlesD

This thread has become rather interesting, but also rather vindictive and mis-informed. Let's start with the issue of calling people who don't agree with you liars. To start with, what is a lie? A deliberate untruth, something that is not true. For something to not be true, then there have to be things that are true. If something is not true, then by default the opposite of that statement is true. For there to be things that are true and things that are not true, then there has to be an objective standard for truth. There have to be things that are just essentially true no matter what opinions people hold about them. The sky is blue. Grass is green. Those statements are true, even if someone says something contradictory. The contradicting statement would by nature be not true. Another statement that most people would agree with is that killing innocent people is wrong. Either it is, or it isn't. The statements that it is wrong and that it isn't wrong contradict one another, therefore one of those statements is wrong and one is not. They both cannot at the same time be true. I cannot be both awake and asleep at the same time. One of them is so and the other isn't. There is a reason that is called the law of non contradiction, not the theoory of non contradiction. Now I'm not even getting into areas of religious doctrine here, since that can be more subjective in nature. What is essentially true or not is not dependent on opinion. Things are just true or not true, independent of what we think about them. Putting the words "in my opinion" before or after a statement does not change whether or not that statement is true. If I say "Grass is red, in my opinion.", I have still made a false statement by the very nature that grass is not red. It being my opinion does not change that. Likewise, if I say that it is green, it doesn't matter if I clarify that it is my opinion or not. It is just true. If everything is a matter of opinion, then that means there is no objective standard of truth, and if there is no truth then there can be no lies. So a person cannot on one hand say that everything is an opinion and at the same time call someone with a differing opinion a liar. The only way for a statement to be a lie is for the opposite of that statement to be objectively true, regardless of opinion. Now I know that what I just said might seem like an odd concept to a post modern relativist, so we will just have to agree to disagree on that point. But we should be able to discuss disagreements without resorting to name calling.
As to prayer, how is it rude if someone prays to someone you don't believe exists? If a Muslim tells me that he is going to pray to Allah that I become a good Muslim, I really don't care. I don't follow his religious system anyway, so his prayer means nothing to me. If I pray for you to a God you don't believe in, how is that rude? For the record, I pray for people I don't know all the time. If I drive past an accident scene, I pray for the safety of the people involved. How is that rude? Should I stop at the scene and ask if the accident victim is a Christian before I pray? I pray daily for all sorts of people, relatives and friends who are going through situations, people I don't know that I see are suffering in some way and I wish for that person to be relieved of suffering, like when we see something on the news. I also pray for unbelievers that they may become believers. That is simple obedience to what I am told to do in scripture. That is one of the ways I practice my religion. I thought atheists and agnostics believed in tolerance and acceptance of others. Part of that is leaving me be to practice my religious beliefs the way I see fit, especially if that doesn't affect you in any way.

reply from: Rosalie

It's rude to tell you that I'd rather you did not pray for me because my beliefs are very different from yours and I'd prefer you not to do that?

Okay then.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Rosalie, you seem very much to need to read Charles' post. He has some very good advice. I again ask you HOW you would ever know if someone has prayed for you? The answer is you can not know unless they tell you. Did I just pray for you? Did I not? Did I curse you? You'll never know, since I'm not going to tell you. You will either have to assume EVERYONE is praying for you and thus be offended a everyone, or assume NO one is praying for you.

reply from: Rosalie

I might do that when I have time. Meanwhile, you should read mine.
I'm telling you AGAIN that BOSSMAMA said it directly that she was praying for me. I don't know how else to make you realize that fact. If you still don't get it, then you might be the problem here.
I don't know or care whether you pray for me or not. I just think it's condescending and rude to boast about how you are going to pray about someone who never asked you to and whose belief system might be completely different from yours.
Try to grasp that opinoin of mine, please.

reply from: BossMomma

I think it's rather funny that she automatically assumes I'm christian. I pray to what ever powers that be, my deity has no name, no doctrine, my prayers are more to fate than anything else. Furthermore I find it ironic how she feels it is a right to kill an unborn baby but it is rude for someone to pray about the issue. I feel that praying is MY right.
Excuse me? I did not assume anything. You said you will pray for me. I didn't even mention it unless you started calling me rude and then I remarked that I consider it rude o pray for someone who didn't ask for it and about whose religious belief you know nothing about.
I also never said praying was not your right. It is your right, by all means. I just remarked it was rude to pray for people who might reject your religious beliefs.
So maybe you should calm down, re-read the posts and stop jumping down people's throats just because you cannot come to terms with the fact that they have a different opinion.
Maybe you should calm down, you are a pro-choice advocate on a pro-life board, did you think people would just love your views here? Did you honestly think you'd find no opposition? I try to be diplomatic and polite as possible, others would just as soon start screaming baby killer at you. You have been snappy and confrontational from the start so maybe you should nuke some herbal tea and take a chill pill.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I might do that when I have time. Meanwhile, you should read mine.
I'm telling you AGAIN that BOSSMAMA said it directly that she was praying for me.
And how does that actually affect you? It can't, according to your own logic! If God doesn't exist, then she's just wasting her breath. Why is that any of your concern? People being offended for being prayed for annoy me. Because it's just intolerance on your part. What if a Jew said they'd pray for you? I bet you wouldn't be offended, because all this is about is you bashing Christianity. Because you think all Christians are the same. And you should know better.
I don't get why you're offended to be quite honest. I think it's very immature of you to be so prejudiced.
See, there's your problem. She wasn't boasting. You get that idea from thinking that all Christians are arrogant, which is another stereotype. You ASSume these things, and you're wrong. Bossy isn't even Christian in the first place, so you're so completely off base here I don't even know why I'm bothering.
Face it, you wouldn't be offended if a Jew prayed for you, or someone of another (non offensive) religion. This is just about hatin' on Christianity.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Hehe ^^ that make me lol.

reply from: CharlesD

You know, in the short time I've been here, almost two months now, I've seen Boss come a long way. There is a humility there that wasn't there before. Take that for what you will, but when she mentions praying for someone, I don't see the boastfulness in that statement. "I'll pray for you" are not words of arrogance.

reply from: BossMomma

As I've just pointed out and proven, that would be you and BossMomma. But thanks for playing, it was rather amusing to have you both yelling incoherent nonsense I've never even said and ignoring what actually was said and written.
No, I'm not confused, I'm not yelling incoherent nonsense and once again you are being insulting without cause. If you want people to respond in a more positive manner to your posts you might try not being so abrasive. We are simply responding to the attitude you convey in your posts.

reply from: BossMomma

Yesterday I buried my little son, that changes a person.

reply from: CharlesD

I can't even begin to imagine...
I know you won't get offended by my praying.

reply from: scopia19822

Yesterday I buried my little son, that changes a person.
Boss I remember once I said that I would pray for you and you jumped down my throat. I still prayed for you, but I know now while you were so angry and bitter and I understand why. You have come a long way in such a short period of time. I am glad that you have had a change of heart, i just hate it had to come under such difficult and heartbreaking circumstances. Maybe Aiden is now chasing my Sabrina Elizabeth and she is running fast because she does not want cooties.

reply from: BossMomma

Yesterday I buried my little son, that changes a person.
Boss I remember once I said that I would pray for you and you jumped down my throat. I still prayed for you, but I know now while you were so angry and bitter and I understand why. You have come a long way in such a short period of time. I am glad that you have had a change of heart, i just hate it had to come under such difficult and heartbreaking circumstances. Maybe Aiden is now chasing my Sabrina Elizabeth and she is running fast because she does not want cooties.
I was angry and bitter because I was misguided and didn't want to believe that I was wrong, Aidan did make a big difference in his short span of life.

reply from: lukesmom

I believe we are all created for a purpose in life. Some of us like Aidan, Sabrina, Luke and others just complete their purpose sooner than others. I know my Luke has touched more lives than I can count or even am aware of. The same goes for your Aidan How are you today? This will be a hard year without Aidan and thinking of him but also a joyful year with his sister. No parent should have to bury a child...
Hugs and God bless, Sue, Luke's mom

reply from: Rosalie

Originally posted by: BossMomma
I was angry and bitter because I was misguided and didn't want to believe that I was wrong/q]
That was your personal problem. Do not project your misguidedness and confusion on others.

reply from: Rosalie

I have a suggestion. Why don't you actually start reading my posts instead of making up what you wish I said and replying to THAT? It's like the #1 trend around her.
It affects me about as much as you talking to your TV - not at all. What she said to me, however, was rude and condescneding. I was reacting to that.
I have to wonder, though, why are you so riled up about this? It's actually coming across as little funny.
And you have JUST projected some of your baseless, mindless assumption on me. You have no idea what I think about christianity. So STOP LYING and pretending you do.
Wrong agian. See above.
Another mindless insult coming from the oh-so-good pro-life camp! Well done, you are totally changing minds and hearts right now!
I never said she was. Please start reading my posts before replying to them.

reply from: Rosalie

Nope. As I said in another thread, I've come to check back, after a couple of years, if anything has changed in the radical pro-life camp, that's all.
I don't care what you think of me and my views - it does not affect me at all.
I'm not seeing that, sorry. But by all means, keep trying.
I have been amused and sarcastic from the start.
Also - is that what you call diplomatic and polite? That's really funny, then.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Pfft, I'm far from "radical" chicky. Ask anyone around here. Many of us are far from "radical". Now there are some nutjobs on here, like Augustine and GodsLaw4, and a few others. Talk to them and your brain will feel like it's exploding.

reply from: BossMomma

I never projected any misguided confusion onto you so what exactly are you pissing and whining about? All I said was that I'd pray you didn't get pregnant before you were ready to and that alone was enough to get your hackles up. And frankly, I don't see what's got your panties in a twist, you don't seem to want an unplanned pregnancy in the first place.

reply from: domsmom

And that makes the murder of the unborn justifiable? Because a human being cannot make medical decisions for him/herself does not give someone else the legal right to kill them. Yes, in regards to the unborn, that is the law in this country but the law is wrong. It is not the first time a law would be wrong.
"Talking" to an abortionist like you makes me sick to my stomach. I gotta go vomit.
yeah, my great grandma couldnt make a medical decision if her delirious life depended on it. And it just so happens that it does. So I suppose we should kill her.
And that "vomit" comment made me laugh BTW. Thanks I really needed a laugh right now!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

How long, from the start of anesthesia to the last stitch, does an emergency late-term abortion at say 34 weeks take, compared to an emergecny c-section at 34 weeks?

reply from: scopia19822

Liberal This describes the D&E Procedure . I got this off Wikipedia. It takes about 2 days, verses about half an hour from prep to incision on a Csecton. I will post PBA here in a moment.
Dilation and evacuation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Dilation and evacuation
(D&E) Background
Abortion type Surgical
First use 1970s
Gestation 13-24 weeks
Usage
UK: Eng. & Wales 5% (2005)
Infobox references
Dilation and evacuation (also sometimes called dilation and extraction) literally refers to the dilation of the cervix and surgical evacuation of the contents of the uterus. It is a method of abortion as well as a therapeutic procedure used after miscarriage to prevent infection by ensuring that the uterus is fully evacuated.[1][2] It is commonly referred to as a D&E.
D&E normally refers to a specific second trimester procedure.[2] However, some sources use the term D&E to refer more generally to any procedure that involves the processes of dilation and evacuation, which includes the first trimester procedures of manual and electric vacuum aspiration.[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Usage
2 Description
2.1 Variations
3 See also
4 References

[edit] Usage
Approximately 11% of induced abortions are performed in the second trimester. In 2002, there were an estimated 142,000 second-trimester abortions in the United States.[3] The second trimester of pregnancy begins at 13 weeks gestation. For first-trimester and early second-trimester abortions, the pregnancy may be ended by vacuum aspiration alone. Sometime in the second trimester, however, it becomes necessary to use instruments to help remove the fetus. This instrumental procedure is normally what is meant when the term dilation and evacuation is used.
[edit] Description
Methods of abortion
Part of the abortion series
Surgical
Vacuum
aspiration
Dilation and
evacuation
Dilation and
curettage
Intact D&X
Hysterotomy
Instillation
Menstrual
extraction


Medical
Mifepristone
Misoprostol


The first step in a D&E is to dilate the cervix. This is often begun about a day before the surgical procedure. Enlarging the opening of the cervix enables surgical instruments such as a curette or forceps to be inserted into the uterus.[2]
The second step is to remove the fetus. Either a local anesthetic or general anesthesia is given to the woman. Forceps are inserted into the uterus through the vagina and used to separate the fetus into pieces, which are removed one at a time. Lastly, vacuum aspiration is used to ensure no fetal tissue remains in the uterus (such tissue can cause serious infections in the woman). The pieces are also examined to ensure that the entire fetus was removed.[2]
[edit] Variations
Feticide may be performed prior to the surgical procedure. The tissues of the dead fetus will soften, making dismemberment easier. The standard D&E procedure is difficult after 20 weeks gestational age due to the toughness of the fetal tissues.[4]
If the fetus is removed intact, the procedure is referred to as intact dilation and extraction by the American Medical Association,[5] and referred to as "intact dilation and evacuation" by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).[6]
[edit] See also

reply from: scopia19822

Liberal here is the outline on PBA. It appears to take about 2-3 days to complete
Intact dilation and extraction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
Intact dilation and extraction
(IDX, intact D&X, et al.) Background
Abortion type Surgical
First use 1983
Gestation >16 weeks
Usage
United States 0.17% (2000)
Infobox references
Intact dilation and extraction (IDX or intact D&X), also known as intact dilation and evacuation (intact D&E), dilation and extraction (D&X), intrauterine cranial decompression and controversially in the United States as partial birth abortion, is a surgical abortion wherein an intact fetus is removed from the uterus via the cervix. The procedure may also be used to remove a deceased fetus that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction. [1]
Though the procedure has had a low rate of usage, representing 0.17% (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States in 2000 according to voluntary responses to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey,[2] it has developed into a focal point of the abortion debate. In the United States, intact dilation and extraction was made illegal under some circumstances by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.
Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 Intact D&X surgery
3 Indications for this procedure
4 Partial-birth abortion
5 Controversy
6 Legal and political situation in the United States
6.1 Federal law
6.2 State law
7 Legal and political situation in the United Kingdom
8 References
9 External links
9.1 Legislation, testimony, and court decisions
9.2 Commentary
9.3 Other

[edit] Etymology
The term dilation and extraction, or D&X, was coined by Cincinnati physician W. Martin Haskell, MD in a monograph that was distributed by the National Abortion Federation in September 1992.[3] Haskell's term was a variation on intact dilation and evacuation (shortened to intact D&E), the term preferred by Dr. James McMahon, who developed the procedure in 1983 as an alternative to dilation and evacuation or D&E.[4]
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has settled on the term intact dilation and evacuation (intact D&E) for this procedure.[5] The much smaller American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) contends that this was a contrived attempt by ACOG to legitimize the abortion technique in question, by wedding it to "D&E" (a long-recognized procedure) using a sort of legitimacy by association.[6] The American Medical Association (AMA) has settled on the term intact dilation and extraction (intact D&X) for this procedure.[7]
[edit] Intact D&X surgery
Methods of abortion
Part of the abortion series
Surgical
Vacuum
aspiration
Dilation and
evacuation
Dilation and
curettage
Intact D&X
Hysterotomy
Instillation
Menstrual
extraction


Medical
Mifepristone
Misoprostol


Under the Intact D&X method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[8] First, the cervix is dilated. Second, the fetus is positioned for a footling breech. Third, the fetus is partially pulled out, starting with the feet, as far as the neck. Fourth, the brain and material inside the skull is evacuated, so that a dead but otherwise intact fetus can be delivered via the vagina.
Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull, scissors are inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[9] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.[10]
[edit] Indications for this procedure
See also: Late-term abortion
IDX, along with dilation and evacuation (D&E), early induction of labor, and rare procedures such as saline abortion, are only used in the late stages of pregnancy. Late-term abortions at 21 weeks or later account for 1.4% of all abortions in the USA.[11] Intact D&X procedures are used in approximately 15% of those late-term abortion cases. This is the equivalent of between 2,500 and 3,000 per year, using data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute for the year 2000. They are typically performed between the twentieth and twenty-fourth week of pregnancy.[12]
Women choose to have late-term abortions for a variety of reasons. Once a pregnant woman has made the decision to have a late-term abortion, she or a doctor may choose IDX over other available late-term abortion procedures because:
Although a woman may experience contractions, she does not have to experience labor.[13]
IDX is an outpatient procedure; the woman does not have to be hospitalized.[13]
The woman does not have to undergo abdominal surgery.[14]
The procedure results in a largely intact body over which the parents may grieve.[15]
Instruments are inserted into the uterus fewer times than in a D&E abortion, potentially reducing the risk of uterine tearing.[16]
The fetus may have hydrocephalus, where the head may expand to a radius of up to 250% of a normal skull at birth, making it impossible for it to pass through the cervix. If live birth is desired, the physician may drain the excess fluid in utero using a syringe,[17] or a caesarian section may be done as soon as amniocentesis indicates lung maturity.[18] If abortion is desired, D&X may be the simplest procedure.[13]
Reasons a woman or physician may not choose IDX, opting instead for another abortion procedure, include:
IDX requires a larger dilation of the cervix than D&E.[16]
Podalic version (turning the fetus into a breech position) can be dangerous to the woman.[17]
The incision in the fetal skull is made blind; the physician may miss and injure the woman's cervix.[17]
[edit] Partial-birth abortion
See also: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
The term "partial-birth abortion" is primarily used in political discourse - chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States.[19] The term is not recognized as a medical term by the American Medical Association[20] nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.[21] This term was first suggested in 1995 by pro-life congressman Charles T. Canady, while developing the original proposed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.[22][23] According to Keri Folmar, the lawyer responsible for the bill's language, the term was developed in early 1995 in a meeting among herself, Charles T. Canady, and National Right to Life Committee lobbyist Douglas Johnson.[15] Canady could not find this particular abortion practice named in any medical textbook, and therefore he and his aides named it.[24] "Partial-birth abortion" was first used in the media on 4 June 1995 in a Washington Times article covering the bill.[25]

The signing of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was seen as a political victory for the pro-life movement, though the law was soon declared unconstitutional by some federal courts. It was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision.In the U.S., a federal statute defines "partial-birth abortion" as any abortion in which the fetus is extracted "past the navel [of the fetus]... outside the body of the mother," or "in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," in order to cause death of the fetus. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the terms "partial-birth abortion" and "intact dilation and extraction" are basically synonymous.[26] However, there are cases where these overlapping terms do not coincide. For example, the IDX procedure may be used to remove a deceased fetus (e.g. due to a miscarriage or feticide) that is developed enough to require dilation of the cervix for its extraction.[1] Removing a dead fetus does not meet the federal legal definition of "partial-birth abortion," which specifies that partial live delivery must precede "the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus."[27] Additionally, a doctor may extract a fetus past the navel and then cut through the neck. This could fall within the terms of the statute, even though it would not result in an intact body and therefore would not be an intact dilation and extraction.[15]
In addition to the federal ban, there have also been a number of state partial-birth abortion bans. There, courts have found that state legislation (rather than federal legislation) intended to ban "partial-birth abortions" could be interpreted to apply to some non-intact dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures.[28] Though sometimes performed during the same developmental stage wherein most IDX procedures are done, non-intact D&E is a separate procedure.
There is debate over use of the term "partial-birth abortion". Those who oppose the term consider it a political term used to frame the argument in a way which is favorable to those who seek greater legal restrictions, or a total ban, on this or all abortion procedures, and have called the alleged political framing "partial truth abortion".[29]
[edit] Controversy
IDX is a target of pro-life advocates who believe the procedure illustrates their contention that abortion, and especially late-term abortion, is immoral. Critics consider the procedure tantamount to infanticide,[30] or murder, a position which many in the pro-life movement extend to cover all abortions.[31] Some advocates, both for and against abortion rights, see the IDX issue as a central battleground in the wider abortion debate, representing an attempt to set a legal precedent so as to gradually erode access to all abortion methods.[32]
Dr. Martin Haskell has called the IDX procedure "a quick, surgical outpatient method" for late second-trimester and early third-trimester abortions.[3] The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 describes it as "a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary."[33]
According to a BBC report about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, "government lawyers and others who favour the ban, have said there are alternative and more widely used procedures that are still legal - which involves dismembering the foetus in the uterus."[34] An article in Harper's magazine stated that, "Defending the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban... requires arguing to judges that pulling a fetus from a woman's body in dismembered pieces is legal, medically acceptable, and safe; but that pulling a fetus out intact, so that if the woman wishes the fetus can be wrapped in a blanket and handed to her, is appropriately punishable by a fine, or up to two years' imprisonment, or both."[15] The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that intact D&X remains legal as long as there is first an "injection that kills the fetus."[1]
There is also controversy about why this procedure is used. Although prominent defenders of the method asserted during 1995 and 1996 that it was used only or mostly in acute medical circumstances, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (a trade association of abortion providers), told the New York Times (February 26, 1997): "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."[35] Some prominent pro-choice advocates quickly defended the accuracy of Fitzsimmons' statements.[36]
In support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, a nurse who witnessed three IDX procedures found them deeply disturbing, and described one performed on a 26½-week fetus with Down Syndrome in testimony before a Judiciary subcommittee of the US House of Representatives, where she states "[t]he baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking," right before the procedure.[37]
A journalist observed three IDX and two D&E procedures involving fetuses ranging from 19 to 23 weeks. She "watched for any signs of fetal distress, but ... [she] could see no response, no reflexive spasm, nothing. Whether this was a result of the anesthesia or an undeveloped fetal system for pain sensitivity, one thing was clear: There was no discernible response by the fetus."[16]
Abortion provider Warren Hern asserted in 2003 that "No peer-reviewed articles or case reports have ever been published describing anything such as 'partial-birth' abortion, 'Intact D&E' (for 'dilation and extraction'), or any of its synonyms."[38] Therefore, Hern expressed uncertainty about what all of these terms mean. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Gonzales v. Carhart that these terms of the federal statute are not vague because the statute specifically detailed the procedure being banned: it specified anatomical landmarks past which the fetus must not be delivered, and criminalized such a procedure only if an "overt" fatal act is performed on the fetus after "partial delivery."[39]
[edit] Legal and political situation in the United States
[edit] Federal law
Main article: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
Since 1995, led by Republicans in Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate have moved several times to pass measures banning the procedure. Congress passed two such measures by wide margins during Bill Clinton's presidency, but Clinton vetoed those bills in April 1996 and October 1997 on the grounds that they did not include health exceptions. Subsequent congressional attempts at overriding the veto were unsuccessful. Doctors "have been successfully sued for failure to refer patients for late-term abortions in cases of fetal abnormalities."[40]
A major part of the legal battle over banning the procedure relates to health exceptions, which would permit the procedure in special circumstances. The 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which declared many state-level abortion restrictions unconstitutional, allowed states to ban abortions of post-viable fetuses unless an abortion was "necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother." The companion ruling, Doe v. Bolton, upheld against a vagueness challenge a state law that defined health to include mental as well as physical health. The Court has never explicitly held, as a matter of constitutional law, that states have to allow abortions of post-viable fetuses if doing so is necessary for the mother's mental health, but many read Doe as implying as much. The concern that the health exception can be read so liberally partly explains why supporters of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act did not want to include one.
The Act includes an exception for the life of the woman, but explicitly not for non-life-threatening health issues; opponents believe that this exception is too narrow and have mounted numerous legal challenges. Congress asserted that the procedure is never necessary for maternal health.
In 2003, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 760, S. 3) was signed into law; the House passed it on October 2 with a vote of 281-142, the Senate passed it on October 21 with a vote of 64-34, and President George W. Bush signed it into law on November 5.
Beginning in early 2004, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Abortion Federation, and abortion doctors in Nebraska challenged the ban in federal district courts in the Northern District of California, Southern District of New York, and District of Nebraska. All three district courts ruled the ban unconstitutional that same year. Their respective federal courts of appeals - the Ninth Circuit, Second Circuit, and Eighth Circuit, respectively - affirmed these rulings on appeal.
The three cases were all appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and were consolidated into the case Gonzales v. Carhart. On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court voted to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act by a decision of 5-4.[41] Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority and was joined by Justices Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts. A dissenting opinion was written by Justice Ginsburg and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer.
[edit] State law
Many states have bans on late-term abortions which apply to the IDX procedure if it is performed after viability.
Many states have also passed bans specifically on the IDX procedure. The first was Ohio, which in 1995 enacted a law that referred to the procedure as dilation and extraction. In 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found the law unconstitutional on the grounds that it placed a substantial and unconstitutional obstacle in the path of women seeking pre-viability abortions in the second trimester.
Between 1995 and 2000, 28 more states passed Partial-Birth Abortion bans, all similar to the proposed federal bans and all lacking an exemption for the health of the woman. Many of these state laws faced legal challenges, with Nebraska's the first to reach decision in Stenberg v. Carhart. The Federal District Court held Nebraska's statute unconstitutional on two counts. One being the bill's language was too broad, potentially rendering a range of abortion procedures illegal, and thus, creating an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose. The other count was the bill failed to provide a necessary exception for the health of the woman. The decision was appealed to and affirmed by both the Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court on June 2000, thus resolving the legal challenges to similar state bans nationwide.
Since the Stenberg v. Carhart decision, Virginia, Michigan, and Utah have introduced laws that remain virtually identical to the unconstitutional Nebraska law. The Virginia and Michigan laws were similarly struck down due to broadness and the failure to provide a health exemption, Utah's law remains pending trial, though is unenforceable due to a court-issued preliminary injunction.
In 2000 Ohio introduced another "partial-birth abortion" ban. The law differed from previous attempts at the ban in that it specifically excluded D&E procedures, while also providing a narrow health exception. This law was upheld on appeal to the Sixth Circuit in 2003 on the grounds that "it permitted the partial birth procedure when necessary to prevent significant health risks."
In 2003 the Michigan Senate introduced Senate Bill No. 395. The bill, which would change the legal definition of birth, would in effect ban partial birth abortions. The definition of birth as defined in the bill was that once any part of the body had passed beyond the vaginal plane of introitus it is considered a birth. The bill included an exemption for the mother's health. The bill was passed by both the Senate and House of Representatives but was vetoed by governor Jennifer Granholm.
[edit] Legal and political situation in the United Kingdom
Questioned about UK government policy on the issue in Parliament, Baroness Andrews stated that "We are not aware of the procedure referred to as 'partial-birth abortion' being used in Great Britain. It is the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' (RCOG) belief that this method of abortion is never used as a primary or pro-active technique and is only ever likely to be performed in unforeseen circumstances in order to reduce maternal mortality or severe morbidity."[42]
[edit] References
^ a b c Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. ____ (2007). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-04-30. ("If the intact D&E procedure is truly necessary in some circumstances, it appears likely an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative under the Act that allows the doctor to perform the procedure.")
^ Guttmacher.org Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States in 2000
^ a b Haskell, Martin. Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion. Presented at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar, September 13, 1992.
^ Owner of Bombed Atlanta Nightclub is Sister of Abortion Doctor. Feminist Daily News Wire, February 26, 1997.

reply from: ProInformed

Um actually most of the time when a woman is told she "has to" abort for medical reasons she is NOT given options but the doctor, or the abortionist he refers her to. HE chooses the abortion procedure to be used, AND does not give the woman accurate detailed info about exactly what the abortion will do to either the mother or the baby. The abortion industry has fought consistently to deny pregnant women the patient proteciton right of real informed consent BECAUSE they want to be able to lie to pregnant women, and to withhold options info, with legal impunity.
YOU don't know what you're talking about.
I am a woman who was lied to and I know LOTS of other women who were lied to as well. Typically women are just told that they "have to" abort and then the abortion procedure is described with euphemisms. There is NO legal requiremement that the abortionist inform the woman of even the name of the abortion procedure being used, let alone the risks, what it really does ot the baby, or altrernatives.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Scopia: See, that's what I thought!! 2-3 days, 1 day at the least. I'd never heard of a late-term abortion being done "fast", yet that is what Carifairy claims. I'd like to see her sources. Conversely, a regular scheduled c-section takes about 45 minutes. That's a non-emergency case. I'm sure it can go much quicker when lives are in danger.

reply from: BossMomma

An Emergency c-section takes about 30 minutes to an hour start to finish. A late term abortion at the same stage takes generally 2 days to make time for dilation, then anesthesia and, the dismemberment of the child. Then there is recovery time.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

An Emergency c-section takes about 30 minutes to an hour start to finish. A late term abortion at the same stage takes generally 2 days to make time for dilation, then anesthesia and, the dismemberment of the child. Then there is recovery time.
Again, just as I thought. So either we're all wrong, the pro-choice propaganda is wrong (since this is where I got MY information) or Carifairy is wrong.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

My second C-section (scheduled, not emergency like the first one) took 15 minutes. The nurses said it was the fastest one they had ever seen. The doctor was 45 minutes late and I'm guessing that he had a tee time or something, lol.
The healing, however, took many months.
I've read that maternal death occurs in one of something like 2,800 C-sections. Does anyone have a death rate (for the MOTHER) for D & Xs or D & Es?
None of these options are pleasant, that's for sure.

reply from: BossMomma

An Emergency c-section takes about 30 minutes to an hour start to finish. A late term abortion at the same stage takes generally 2 days to make time for dilation, then anesthesia and, the dismemberment of the child. Then there is recovery time.
Again, just as I thought. So either we're all wrong, the pro-choice propaganda is wrong (since this is where I got MY information) or Carifairy is wrong.
There is no quick easy way of aborting a late term fetus, it's dangerous, uncomfortable and, takes 80% longer than it would to just do a c-section and remove the child alive. Furthermore the emotional trauma that is present before, during and, after a LTA is often not present in a c-section delivery. Even as a pro-choice advocate I disagreed with LTA's as there is really no purpose in them.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Same here; I never felt there was a need for them.

reply from: carolemarie

By late term, what are we referring to? Third trimester procedures? 2nd trimester procedures?
I really don't see much difference between a first trimester or the other procedures, except in the third trimester the baby has a good chance of surviving the abortion, there seems to be no really valid reason to not just induce labor and put the child up for adoption...

reply from: BossMomma

Late second to third trimester abortion. There is a big difference between a 5 minute D&A and a 2 day LTA. Furthermore if the child is viable and could survive outside of the uterus I see no reason why the child could not be delivered alive and put up for adoption.

reply from: carolemarie

But if we are okay with first trimester abortions, then you can't complain against a 13 week abortion and if that is okay why not 20 weeks and so it goes.
Either abortion is wrong all the time, or none of the time.
I don't really see what difference it makes if the baby is 7 months in utero or 8 weeks in utero. Both are humans who will die.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'll tell you why: A big factor in it for me was viability, and I went through the exact same stage Boss is going through right now. I could completely understand not aborting once it is viable, but I could not see the logic in the debate for when it is younger. I think what finally made sense to me was the concept that just because it can't survive doesn't give you the right to kill it; in fact, it is all the more reason to protect it! We don't throw babies into lakes or expose them to the elements, we protect them. Just because a baby can't function as a swimmer doesn't give me the right to drown it. If I break my arm, I put it in a protective cast and I care for it; I don't chop it off just because it doesn't work at the moment.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics