OT - What's The Truth?

[Riggins44]

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS

Seems to be a lot of controversy over the latest bill signed by the president. A lot of people that support PBA says it doesn't take into account the health of the mother.

Is there an actual medical condition that requires the child to be delivered from the mother and then killed in order to protect the mother from a serious health risk?

[Buccaneer]

I was born at the very start of the third trimester, weighing in at 2 lbs 14 oz. My mother would have sacrificed her life if that improved my chances of survival (which was very slim). Through God's grace, we both are living and reasonably healthy.

[Riggins44]

This is one of those issues that if you know anything about the procedure... you're against it.

I've been looking on all the pro-choice type web sites and can't find any examples of a medical condition that requires this procedure.

Maybe someone will enlighten us.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Riggins44
This is one of those issues that if you know anything about the procedure... you're against it.

That's just a ridiculous statement.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Riggins44
This is one of those issues that if you know anything about the procedure... you're against it.

Shows how little you know. Try searching by the real name...dilation and extraction.

Why Are D&X Procedures Performed?
This is a topic that is rarely discussed during public debates:

1st Trimester: D&Xs are not performed during the first three months of pregnancy, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow a D&X procedure, because the fetus' head quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus.
2nd Trimester: D&Xs are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. These, like most abortions, are performed for a variety of reasons, including: She is not ready to have a baby for whatever reason and has delayed her decision to have an abortion into the second trimester. As mentioned above, 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.
There are mental or physical health problems.
The fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

In addition, some physicians violate their state Medical Association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.

There appears to be no reliable data available on how many D&X procedures are performed for each of the above reasons.

The physician is faced with two main alternatives at this late point in pregnancy:

a hysterotomy, which is similar to a Cesarean section, or
a D&X procedure

A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies." 2 Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her.

There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X. Of course, many physicians lack this level of skill, and so need to resort to the D&X procedure. And, even in the United States, not all women have access to good quality pre-natal care. Many pregnant women first seek medical attention when they are about to deliver.

A committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) thoroughly studied D&X procedures in 1996. They reported: "A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." They also determined that "an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision." Their statement was approved by the ACOG executive board on 1997-JAN-12. 3

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Riggins44
...

Is there an actual medical condition that requires the child to be delivered from the mother and then killed in order to protect the mother from a serious health risk?

I am not a doctor, but I think the answer is No. I think that is specifically why the phrase " unless the mothers health or life is in jeopardy" does not appear in the bill. Now the folks filing the lawsuits are, in my opinion, looking at this as a slippery slope issue. In other words they are saying "if they outlaw this one procedure, what is to stop them from incrementally taking away a womans right to choose". I don't think it is conceivable that delivering a baby breach, which is actually more dangerous to the mother than a head-first delivery, and then killing it, could be any less life-threatening to the mother, than letting her simply deliver the child. A lot of doctors that perform abortions, will not perform this procedure. To those people opposing this new law, I would say that the bill had to be written "vaguely", and didn't contain the phrase "partial birth" because doctors would have circumvented the law.

I am a religious person, but you will NEVER see me at an anti-abortion rally. I think it is legally acceptable for a woman to end her pregnancy by abortion. I think it is irresponsible, and in some cases reprehensible, but it is certainly a decision she can make. I am in the middle on this issue, and I wish more folks would find a way to make their way to some middle ground here. I mean it is pretty ridiculous to me, to say that a full term fetus doesn't count as a life. It is also pretty ridiculous to me to say that the few cells gathered on the wall of the uterus deserves the same consideration as a full term fetus. I think abortion ought to be legal for a certain number of days, probably somewhere mid-term. Say 120 to 150 days. Sure a woman six months pregnant would not legally be able to get an abortion, but she would have had 4 months of opportunity to do so. Some would say this is stripping this woman of her rights, I would say it is forcing her to have some personal responsibility.

[wishbone]

Originally posted by John Galt
That's just a ridiculous statement.

Aren't partial birth abortions where they draw the head into the birth canal, deflate it and then pull the body out?

My cousin was 14 when she got pregnant and begged me and everyone else in the family to give her the money to have the above procedure done. When I read the pamphlet she was passing to people to show them how easy it was, I about puked.

[Blackadar]

"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."

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
I am a religious person, but you will NEVER see me at an anti-abortion rally. I think it is legally acceptable for a woman to end her pregnancy by abortion. I think it is irresponsible, and in some cases reprehensible, but it is certainly a decision she can make. I am in the middle on this issue, and I wish more folks would find a way to make their way to some middle ground here. I mean it is pretty ridiculous to me, to say that a full term fetus doesn't count as a life. It is also pretty ridiculous to me to say that the few cells gathered on the wall of the uterus deserves the same consideration as a full term fetus. I think abortion ought to be legal for a certain number of days, probably somewhere mid-term. Say 120 to 150 days. Sure a woman six months pregnant would not legally be able to get an abortion, but she would have had 4 months of opportunity to do so. Some would say this is stripping this woman of her rights, I would say it is forcing her to have some personal responsibility.

I think the problem with this argument is, when do you draw the line? I agree there is a difference between a baby at 9 days and 9 months, but the problem for me is, where do you draw the line and say, this is when life starts? To me, if you don't know for sure, you really can't take the chance, unless there is a medical issue.

[Blackadar]

My biggest problem with this whole thing is that I don't like the Government regulating what medical procedures are acceptable and what isn't. They're not the doctors.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Blackadar
My biggest problem with this whole thing is that I don't like the Government regulating what medical procedures are acceptable and what isn't. They're not the doctors.

Normally I would agree but in this case you are dealing with the lives of mother AND baby, not just mother; the child's right to life should be equal to those of the mother, and in most cases here they are not.

And this is the crux of the argument, the question of whether the fetus is truly a life or not. Though I guess the 'live with the consequences of your actions' argument would apply as well.

Of course, I think when discussing a life-threatening medical condition involved with the mother or fetus, that is a different issue altogether.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by ice4277
I think the problem with this argument is, when do you draw the line? I agree there is a difference between a baby at 9 days and 9 months, but the problem for me is, where do you draw the line and say, this is when life starts? To me, if you don't know for sure, you really can't take the chance, unless there is a medical issue.

Ok, then what's the alternative? And deal with the reality, not the bullshit typical "if she didn't want the baby, she shouldn't have had sex" response, because it's a total cop-out. It takes two parties to get it on and it's going to happen - we're sort of genetically predisposed to want to do the humpy-dumpty.

So, what do we do?

Force women to have the babies? What about the impact of the medical bills? Time off from work? Day care? Physical trauma? Emotional trauma?

Who pays for all of this? The woman herself? What if she can't? The Father? What if he can't/won't/can't be found? Do my tax dollars have to go to this? How much with the State Social Services bills run?

Answer all of the real social and monetary impacts of the abortion issue, then we can discuss the morality side of it.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Riggins44
This is one of those issues that if you know anything about the procedure... you're against it.

Abortion is the left's Gun Rights. The supporters are always against any restriction because they believe the other side is just using it as a step towards total banning of it, and most of the time, they're right.

Personally, I'm against the Government stepping in and telling people what to do on either issue, but I'm not too concerned about this issue because the Supreme Court will most likely strike it down and quite honestly, I am not going to shed any tears over the banning of this particular procedure.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Answer all of the real social and monetary impacts of the abortion issue, then we can discuss the morality side of it.

Well, if the monetary issue is the big thing for you, thats fine, but for me, the morality of it is the big issue. The other concerns take a backseat. Using monetary arguments when talking about ending lives ring hollow to me. Sorry.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by ice4277
I think the problem with this argument is, when do you draw the line? I agree there is a difference between a baby at 9 days and 9 months, but the problem for me is, where do you draw the line and say, this is when life starts? To me, if you don't know for sure, you really can't take the chance, unless there is a medical issue.

I agree with you. I guess I am saying the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I would try to balance a womans right to choose against her baby's life. I dont' think you can be specific, I don't think there is a right answer. I just know the answer doesn't lie at either of the extreme points of view on this issue.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by Blackadar
My biggest problem with this whole thing is that I don't like the Government regulating what medical procedures are acceptable and what isn't. They're not the doctors.

...and they are not a lot of other things either but that never stopped from (over)regulating everything.

[Eaglesfan27]

I'm going to stay clear of the debate regarding this issue. However, I must say in 4 years of medical school, observing a dilation and extraction (I was required to do so) is the only thing that ever made me lose it and vomit. I dissected a cadaver with no problem, saw a half dozen bloody autopsies, assisted in a lot of surgeries, performed some really nasty gyneological exams, but that one "procedure" was the most disturbing thing I ever saw in medical school.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by ice4277
Well, if the monetary issue is the big thing for you, thats fine, but for me, the morality of it is the big issue. The other concerns take a backseat. Using monetary arguments when talking about ending lives ring hollow to me. Sorry.

"It's just wrong" is such a simple view of the world and shows that you've done very little thinking and have adopted someone else's spoon-fed rhetoric. So I'll give you a second chance...

What's the solution, Einstein? And it's not just money, junior.

How are you going to ensure the care of all of these babies? Mothers? Where are the doctors going to come from? The hospitals? Day cares? Nurseries?

How will the laws be written to protect jobs? Careers?

Will there be exceptions written for rape, incest or the health of the Mother? Why or why not?

How would you rewrite adoption laws? Where will all of the experienced social workers come from?

ALL of these MUST be considered before you can begin to outlaw abortions. There are so many ramifications that have to be ironed out before you can do anything it's staggering.

I'd support an outright ban on abortion immediately if I saw a plan that took the reality of the situation and designed a plan that took care of all of the issues raised. But, alas, no such plan exists or it's too costly to implement and would result in more problems than it would fix.

[JonInMiddleGA]

ALL of these MUST be considered before you can begin to outlaw abortions.

Would it just shock the %^$ out of you to discover that we seem to be in total & complete agreement on this subject?

[Jon]

I agree with Blackadder here. In many instances, the same people who want to limit the right of a woman to choose whether to have children are the same who want limited welfare, limited government sponsored medical care, etc. They all go hand in hand. It's pro-choice, not pro-abortion. The right simply doesn't want to provide many viable choices.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Would it just shock the %^$ out of you to discover that we seem to be in total & complete agreement on this subject?

Nope, b/c even though we come from different sides of the political spectrum, we both tend to think out the ramifications of the decisions.

[cody8200]

So a child's life is about finances and lack of child care? Wow...at least you have the balls to say that. Personally I couldnt have that kind of shit on my conscious. That's bullshit. Think about it like this: In most states if a mother is pregnant and wants the baby and someone does something to her (beats her, hurts the baby inside) it is considered feticide. You goto prison. It's like murder. However if the woman doesn't WANT the baby then it's no longer considered murder or feticide...just a choice. Interesting I think...

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by cody8200
So a child's life is about finances and lack of child care? Wow...at least you have the balls to say that. Personally I couldnt have that kind of shit on my conscious. That's bullshit. Think about it like this: In most states if a mother is pregnant and wants the baby and someone does something to her (beats her, hurts the baby inside) it is considered feticide. You goto prison. It's like murder. However if the woman doesn't WANT the baby then it's no longer considered murder or feticide...just a choice. Interesting I think...

Um, no, it's not. Go look at the law again.

The friggin' misconceptions of the misinformed staggers me.

[cody8200]

Then correct me professor

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by cody8200
Then correct me professor

Go...look...at....the....law....again.

Simply put, the law does not afford fetuses the same legal protections as people.

[cody8200]

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/feticide.htm

BTW, Im right...your wrong

"Similarly, California amended it's Penal Law §187 in the wake of the Keeler decision, above. This statue was held by the California Supreme Court (6-1, Mosk dissenting) to apply from seven weeks gestation on in People v. Davis, 872 P.2d 591 (Cal. 1994).

Both these statutes make killing a fetus (or an embryo in the case of §609) murder with life imprisonment as a penalty. Minnesota's statute is perhaps the most remarkable in term's of its comprehensiveness, applying from conception and having gradations for degrees of murder, manslaughter, and assault
"

[JonInMiddleGA]

FWIW, while the law varies from state to state (as even the quoted passages show), I've always thought feticide should cease to exist as a criminal charge.

[cody8200]

JonInMiddleGA, you are absolutely correct. It does vary from state to state but murder charges are a very real possibility was all I was stating.

[Blackadar]

What I was saying is that a fetus does not carry the same legal weight or penalty in most States, so we're making different points. Each one of these laws clearly defines that a fetus does not have the same legal protection as a person. As you can see below, in almost every State, the laws are different for hurting a person versus hurting a fetus. A fetus can't even be assigned a guardian in virtually every state.

Even more telling is how little these statutes get used. I believe it's only 4 or 5 States where these laws have actually been used in case law and stuck.

State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims

National Right to Life Committee
June 23, 2003

Full-Coverage Unborn Victim States (15)
(States With Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Children as Victims Throughout the Period of Pre-natal Development)

Arizona: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is manslaughter. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13-1103 (A)(5) (West 1989 & Supp. 1998). Also to be read with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-702(c)(10).

Idaho: Murder is defined as the killing of a "human embryo or fetus" under certain conditions. The law provides that manslaughter includes the unlawful killing of a human embryo or fetus without malice. The law provides that a person commits aggravated battery when, in committing battery upon the person of a pregnant female, that person causes great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement to an embryo or fetus. Idaho Sess. Law Chap. 330 (SB1344)(2002).

Illinois: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is intentional homicide, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide. Ill. Comp. Stat. ch. 720, §§5/9-1.2, 5/9-2.1, 5/9-3.2 (1993). Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-3.1. A person commits battery of an unborn child if he intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to an unborn child. Read with Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/12-4.4.

Louisiana: The killing of an "unborn child" is first degree feticide, second degree feticide, or third degree feticide. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§14:32.5 - 14.32.8, read with §§14:2(1), (7), (11) (West 1997).

Michigan: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter under Mich. Stat. Ann. § 28.555. The Supreme Court of Michigan interpreted this statute to apply to only those unborn children who are viable. Larkin v. Cahalan, 208 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. 1973). However, a separate Michigan law, effective Jan. 1, 1999, provides felony penalties for actions that intentionally, or in wanton or willful disregard for consequences, cause a "miscarriage or stillbirth," or cause "aggravated physical injury to an embryo or fetus."(M.C.L. 756.90)

Minnesota: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is murder (first, second, or third degree) or manslaughter, (first or second degree). It is also a felony to cause the death of an "unborn child" during the commission of a felony. Minn. Stat. Ann. §§609.266, 609.2661- 609.2665, 609.268(1) (West 1987). The death of an "unborn child" through operation of a motor vehicle is criminal vehicular operation. Minn. Stat. Ann. §609.21 (West 1999).

Missouri: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is involuntary manslaughter or first degree murder. Mo. Ann. Stat. §§1.205, 565.024, 565.020 (Vernon Supp. 1999), State v. Knapp, 843 S.W.2d 345 (Mo. 1992), State v. Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997).

Nebraska: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is murder in the first degree, second degree, or manslaughter. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-391 to § 28-394. (2002)

North Dakota: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is murder, felony murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. N.D. Cent. Code §§12.1-17.1-01 to 12.1-17.1-04 (1997).

Ohio: At any stage of pre-natal development, if an "unborn member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another" is killed, it is aggravated murder, murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide, and vehicular homicide. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2903.01 to 2903.07, 2903.09 (Anderson 1996 & Supp. 1998).

Pennsylvania: An individual commits criminal homicide in the first, second, or third-degree, or voluntary manslaughter of an "unborn child" if the individual intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of an unborn child. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 2601 to 2609 (1998) "Unborn child" and "fetus." Each term shall mean an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth."

South Dakota: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is fetal homicide, manslaughter, or vehicular homicide. S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §22-16-1, 22-16-1.1, 22-16-15(5), 22-16-20, and 22-16-41, read with §§ 22-1-2(31), 22-1-2(50A) (Supp. 1997).

Texas: Under a law signed June 20, 2003, and effective September 1, 2003, the protections of the entire criminal code extend to "an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." The law does not apply to "conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child" or to "a lawful medical procedure performed by a physican or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent." (SB 319, Prenatal Protection Act)

Utah: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is treated as any other homicide. Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-201 et seq. (Supp. 1998)and UT SB 178 (2002).

Wisconsin: The killing of an "unborn child" at any stage of pre-natal development is first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, second-degree intentional homicide, second-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, homicide by intoxicated use of vehicle or firearm, or homicide by negligent operation of vehicle. Wis. Stat. Ann. §§939.75, 939.24, 939.25, 940.01, 940.02, 940.05, 940.06, 940.08, 940.09, 940.10 (West 1998).



Partial-Coverage Unborn Victim States (13)
(States with Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Children as Victims, But only During Part of the Period of Pre-natal Development)

NOTE: These laws are gravely deficient because they do not recognize unborn children as victims during certain periods of their pre-natal development. Nevertheless, they are described here for informational purposes.

Arkansas: The killing of an "unborn child" of twelve weeks or greater gestation is capital murder, murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-102(13)(b)(i)(a), read with Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 5-10-101 to 5-10-105. (A separate Arkansas law makes it a battery to cause injury to a woman during a Class A misdemeanor to cause her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth, or to cause injury under conditions manifesting extreme indifference to human life and that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-13-201 (a)(5)(a)).

California: The killing of an unborn child after the embryonic stage is murder. Cal. Pen. Code § 187(a) (West 1999)

Florida: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 782.09 (West 1999). The killing of an unborn child after viability is vehicular homicide. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 782.071 (West 1999).

Georgia: The killing of an "unborn child" after quickening is feticide, vehicular feticide, or feticide by vessel. Ga. Code Ann. § 16-5-80 (1996); § 40-6-393.1 (1997); and § 52-7-12.3 (1997).

Indiana: The killing of "a fetus that has attained viability" is murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. Indiana Code 35-42-1-1, 35-42-1-3, 35-42-1-4.

Massachusetts: The killing of an unborn child after viability is vehicular homicide. Commonwealth v. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (Mass. 1984). The killing of an unborn child after viability is involuntary manslaughter. Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 536 N.E.2d 571 (Mass. 1989).

Mississippi: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-37 (1994).

Nevada: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.210 (1997).

Oklahoma: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 713 (West 1983). The killing of an unborn child after viability is homicide. Hughes v. State, 868 P.2d 730 (Okla. Crim. App. 1994).

Rhode Island: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. The statute defines "quick child" to mean a viable child. R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-23-5 (1994).

South Carolina: The killing of an unborn child after viability is homicide. State v. Horne, 319 S.E.2d 703 (S.C. 1984); State v. Ard, 505 S.E.2d 328 (S.C. 1998).

Tennessee: The killing of an unborn child after viability is first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and reckless homicide. Tenn. Code Ann. §39-13-201, 39-13-202, 39-13-210, 39-13-211, 39-13-213, 39-13-214, 39-13-215 (1997 & Supp. 1998).

Washington: The killing of an "unborn quick child" is manslaughter. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.32.060(1)(b) (West Supp. 1999).

Conflicting Statutes

New York: Under New York statutory law, the killing of an "unborn child" after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy is homicide. N.Y. Pen. Law § 125.00 (McKinney 1998). But under a separate statutory provision, a "person" that is the victim of a homicide is statutorily defined as a "human being who has been born and is alive." N.Y. Pen. Law § 125.05 (McKinney 1998). See People v. Joseph, 130 Misc. 2d 377, 496 N.Y.S.2d 328 (County Court 1985); In re Gloria C., 124 Misc.2d 313, 476 N.Y.S.2d 991 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1984); People v. Vercelletto, 514 N.Y.S.2d 177 (Co. Ct. 1987).

[Leonidas]

I am against abortion, but...

As I understand it, this law outlaws abortions after 12 weeks. For my first son we had certain tests done that showed he could have had Downs Syndrome or worse, but we couldn't have a confimration of that until an amnio at 18 weeks. So that means under this law if our son had Downs Syndrome, or something possibly worse, we couldn't even confirm it until after we had the option to do anything about it.

My wife and I talked about this and probably would have had him even if he eventually came up positive for Down's (which thank God he didn't), but it kinda would have been nice at least to have the option.

Then there are people like Barbara Eden of "I Dream of Genie" who found out after 15-20 weeks that their child was dead in the womb. Under this law (and the pre-Roe V Wade law of her time) it would have forced her to carry a dead fetus to term. Seems pretty damn assinine to force a women through several months of that type of ordeal beacause of an inflexible law crafted on certain principles that aren't always applicable in real life.

I agree in principle with the idea of outlawing partial birth abortions, but this particular law is way too inflexible.

[Jon]

Originally posted by cody8200
So a child's life is about finances and lack of child care? Wow...at least you have the balls to say that. Personally I couldnt have that kind of shit on my conscious. That's bullshit. Think about it like this: In most states if a mother is pregnant and wants the baby and someone does something to her (beats her, hurts the baby inside) it is considered feticide. You goto prison. It's like murder. However if the woman doesn't WANT the baby then it's no longer considered murder or feticide...just a choice. Interesting I think...

Choosing to have an abortion is not comitting murder. The law is clear, which is why the Bush administration is trying to change it, a fetus is not a person. Murder is the killing of a person.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by cody8200
So a child's life is about finances and lack of child care? Wow...at least you have the balls to say that. Personally I couldnt have that kind of shit on my conscious. That's bullshit. Think about it like this: In most states if a mother is pregnant and wants the baby and someone does something to her (beats her, hurts the baby inside) it is considered feticide. You goto prison. It's like murder. However if the woman doesn't WANT the baby then it's no longer considered murder or feticide...just a choice. Interesting I think...

And you still haven't offered any plan or suggestions. Want to know the cost of bringing each pregnancy to term?

There's about 1.2 million abortions each year. If even 1/2 of those each year were brought to term...you'd be looking at over $100 billion dollars each year in child support alone after 18 years. Never mind the costs for the deliveries and other expenses.

I'm not arguing the morality of abortion. I'm arguing the reality of it. It's easy to sit on high and preach the morals. It's much harder to get in the trenches and look at the cold reality of a situation.

[Ben E Lou]

To answer the original question.

The truth is that it is murder.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by SkyDog
To answer the original question.

The truth is that it is murder.

Yet another example of an idealist with no plan or suggestions.

Sorry SkyDog, but THAT'S the truth.

[Buccaneer]

While I would make exceptions for dead fetuses and other extreme health risks, I very much take exception to those thinking that what is inside the womb is not an unborn child. How shameful.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
While I would make exceptions for dead fetuses and other extreme health risks, I very much take exception to those thinking that what is inside the womb is not an unborn child. How shameful.

Still waiting for a plan...still not ONE attempt forthcoming.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by SkyDog
To answer the original question.

The truth is that it is murder.

your paintbrush seems to be capable of some mighty broad strokes.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Yet another example of an idealist with no plan or suggestions.

Sorry SkyDog, but THAT'S the truth.

My wife works in the adoption industry. There are so many loving families waiting on a childout there, and we're murdering them instead. That is the truth.

And I'm sorry. If calling a murder a murder is idealistic, then call me idealistic.

[cuervo72]

Ok....my personal belief is that the manner and timing of how this is done seems pretty barbaric and disturbing, at least to me.

What I don't understand about this issue, and admittedly I haven't fully researched it, is under what circumstances this is usually performed. I see three scenarios:

1) Safety of the mother. I can understand if it is a safety issue for the mother. This implies that the mother wanted and tried to carry the baby to term. If it is that late in the pregnancy, is it possible sometimes to just have an early c-section where the baby will be viable with aid? Like Bucc pointed out, plenty of babies are delivered pre-term and turn out just fine. If this isn't possible however (i.e. no or little possibility of the mother and baby both surviving) and there is a situation where the mother is in danger, I can then see an argument for having the procedure available.

2) Genetic defects/debilitating ailments. This is a little shaky. If there is something where the baby is 100% guaranteed to not survive past say a few months, ok. But what is the cutoff for the severity of the ailment? Possible slippery slope argument.

3) The mother's choice. This is what gets me about groups like the ACLU and NOW that are arguing for this. Ok, it is law that a woman has the choice to have an abortion or not (like it or not, that's what the law is). But....IF YOU DON'T WANT THE BABY OR DON'T THINK YOU CAN "AFFORD" IT, COULDN'T YOU HAVE FIGURED THIS OUT MONTHS AGO? WHAT IN THE BLOODY HELL TOOK YOU SO LONG? I just can't understand this argument. If you're committed to not having the baby, make that choice before the fetus becomes that developed.

[cody8200]

Ok lets take that number...1.2 million. How many of those abortions are for convenience? Ok lets say half. That's 600000 less legal murders a year. Now your going to say that women would have had those abortions legally or not. Maybe true...but since it's not legalized there will probably be many less. Ok so the other 600000 do have a 'legitimate' reason for not having the baby...adoption agencies would love to have those kids. There are plenty of well off impotent families in America and elsewhere. I think they would take care of a good chunk. It's not a plan or anything but they are ideas...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Tell ya what, I'm gonna say my piece, shorter than usual I hope. And then I'm gonna try to avoid this thread like the plague, because I've never seen a discussion of this subject yet do anybody any good.

My staunch, adamant support of the right to a legal abortion comes with a simple caveat: When the foster homes are empty, when the adoption rolls are vacant, and when every child born is properly cared for in a sufficient manner, and most of all, when every baby born is actually treated as though they are wanted ... when all of those things happen, then I'll consider supporting a ban on abortion.

Until then ... I'll do everything possible to prevent another child from suffering because their breeders don't have the wisdom to avoid conception nor the common decency to take proper responsibility.

I'm out.
Jon

[Buccaneer]

Plan? I'm sorry, I didn't see the question. Were you talking about having a plan for those engaging in pre-marital and extra-marital sex or not being conscientious (sp?) of family planning and thus having to deal with the consequences of such actions? Or are you talking about matters of lifestyle choices and inconvenience or matters of life and death?

[Jon]

Originally posted by SkyDog
To answer the original question.

The truth is that it is murder.

Murder is a legal term that requires the killing ofa person. A fetus is not a person. That's why they are not afforded rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, because they are not people. A group of people tried that in South Carolina and weren't successful.
And, what about the interest of the woman? Shouldn't she have a say as to whether or not she wants to have a child rather than us shoving the choice down her throats?
Blackadder's right...what are teh other options?

[cody8200]

Didn't she have her choice already(in most cases)? Or did someone have sex for her?

[Blackadar]

I'm being a bit prickly to prove a point. I'm pretty much done now until someone actually does come up with a viable alternative, because at this point it's just religious dogma and self-serving rhetoric.

It's just to simple to say "it's wrong". I don't think anyone SUPPORTS abortion. And if there were a viable alternative, I bet 95% of us would go for it.

But the right-to-lifers can't come up with one beyond going back to the scarlet letter days. Make the woman suffer. Make her pay. Make her feel ashamed. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

If you can deal with the reality of the situation, then do so. Look at the whole mess and find a way out. If you can't, then you have no other option besides abortion. So Bucc, SkyDog, etc., by just shouting out self-serving slogans and platitudes, you do nothing but reinforce the battle-hardened positions of both sides and reinforce the evil itself. Really, by having no thought or plan, you ENCOURAGE abortions. Congratulations.

Deal with the reality and the world will embrace you. Think, gentlemen, think.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
Tell ya what, I'm gonna say my piece, shorter than usual I hope. And then I'm gonna try to avoid this thread like the plague, because I've never seen a discussion of this subject yet do anybody any good.

My staunch, adamant support of the right to a legal abortion comes with a simple caveat: When the foster homes are empty, when the adoption rolls are vacant, and when every child born is properly cared for in a sufficient manner, and most of all, when every baby born is actually treated as though they are wanted ... when all of those things happen, then I'll consider supporting a ban on abortion.

Until then ... I'll do everything possible to prevent another child from suffering because their breeders don't have the wisdom to avoid conception nor the common decency to take proper responsibility.

I'm out.
Jon

Here here! Well said.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by Blackadar
I'm being a bit prickly to prove a point. I'm pretty much done now until someone actually does come up with a viable alternative, because at this point it's just religious dogma and self-serving rhetoric.

It's just to simple to say "it's wrong". I don't think anyone SUPPORTS abortion. And if there were a viable alternative, I bet 95% of us would go for it.

But the right-to-lifers can't come up with one beyond going back to the scarlet letter days. Make the woman suffer. Make her pay. Make her feel ashamed. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.

If you can deal with the reality of the situation, then do so. Look at the whole mess and find a way out. If you can't, then you have no other option besides abortion. So Bucc, SkyDog, etc., by just shouting out self-serving slogans and platitudes, you do nothing but reinforce the battle-hardened positions of both sides and reinforce the evil itself. Really, by having no thought or plan, you ENCOURAGE abortions. Congratulations.

Deal with the reality and the world will embrace you. Think, gentlemen, think.

excellent, excellent post.

[cody8200]

Blackader:"Deal with the reality and the world will embrace you. Think, gentlemen, think."

Sometimes when I hear things like this I just want to get as far away from the worlds embrace as possible.

[Buccaneer]

But you didn't listen, Blackie. SkyDog offered a real viable alternative. My alternatives involve thinking up front and as far as the consequences, I would add that being parent of a child has its rewards, no matter how difficult it can be - economically, socially, culturally, etc. It takes personal courage and personal responsibilities and bringing an unborn child into the world (instead of dumping it in a trash can) should be something to celebrate. One does not have to bear the burden alone but forsaking the life of a child (it is a real person, it is not "nothing" until it is born) can not be the answer.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Deal with the reality and the world will embrace you.

As a general principle. I'm a lot more concerned with doing what is right than with earning the world's embrace. Sorry.