Do you agree with the PBA ban approved by the SCOTUS today?

OKgrannie said:

:damn You were going along so well, explaining your point in such a clear manner evoking agreement (for once) from me...UNTIL...you got to the last statement "the pattern on society shows that it is a negative effect". I'd like to see you prove that point. Well, it can't be done, since any negative effects on society could have been caused by any number of things, just as I cannot prove legalizing abortion has had a positive effect, though I believe it has. Particularly for those women who are alive and healthy who would have died or suffered health complications from illegal abortions.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess my purpose was to argue that a woman's abortion would have an effect on much more people then just herself, so perhaps we can set aside the argument of rather that effect is positive or negative and just bask in this rare agreement? :mrgreen: :2wave:

Jerry said:

No, this is not hypothetical. It is real and it is current. If the Mod team finds that I need a few points for that post then so be it. I'm not being defiant here, it's that I have proof read my post many times to be careful not to reveal anything confidential; like the contents of those PMs, for example.

I don't think it's a breach of confidentiality for me to say that Capt'n and I have a disagreement at the moment, because you really don't know what it's about.

Everything else I've said is public information..."Temp Suspended" is displayed under teacher's name...Stace's avatar can be viewed by anyone....

Point is I made that post in good faith to make a point, but if I have crossed a line despite my best efforts then I accept responsibility for that.

Click to expand...

You're borderline. You're discussing mod actions that have nothing to do with anyone else. If you have a problem with something I or another moderator does, take it up with the mod team through PM, not in the forums.

And I can assure you that two of my husband's fellow officers being killed in the line of duty has nothing to do with you, unless you're the one that killed them. I'm fairly certain you're not....otherwise, our jail system is a lot more cushy than I thought. :lol:

Stace said:

You're borderline. You're discussing mod actions that have nothing to do with anyone else. If you have a problem with something I or another moderator does, take it up with the mod team through PM, not in the forums.

And I can assure you that two of my husband's fellow officers being killed in the line of duty has nothing to do with you, unless you're the one that killed them. I'm fairly certain you're not....otherwise, our jail system is a lot more cushy than I thought. :lol:

Click to expand...

I'll take this opportunity to step away from the line then, and give my wife the computer.

Well, I guess my purpose was to argue that a woman's abortion would have an effect on much more people then just herself,

Click to expand...

What "people", other than herself, do you think might be effected, aversely or otherwise?

If a woman I worked with was in late pregnancy, and then one day she showed up un-pregnant, it cetainly wouldn't effect me one way or the other. Whether she'd given birth prematurely and had a live baby stashed away somewhere, or whether she'd miscarried, or whether she'd had a third-trimester abortion just for kicks and giggles wouldn't be any of my business, particularly, nor would it have any effect whatsoever on my life.
I'd never even know what happened to make her un-pregnant, unless she just felt like telling me.

On the other hand, if a woman at my work had a first trimester abortion, neither I nor anyone else except her and her doctor would probably ever even know she'd been pregnant in the first place, so it would effect me even less than the first scenario, if that's even possible.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists doesn't like it either:

ACOG Statement on the US Supreme Court Decision Upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

ACOG Statement on the US Supreme Court Decision Upholding the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003


Washington, DC -- Despite the fact that the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States—the US Supreme Court today upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) amicus brief opposing the Ban, the Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country.

"Today's decision to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is shameful and incomprehensible to those of us who have dedicated our lives to caring for women," said Douglas W. Laube, MD, MEd, ACOG president. "It leaves no doubt that women's health in America is perceived as being of little consequence.

"We have seen a steady erosion of women's reproductive rights in this country. The Supreme Court's action today, though stunning, in many ways isn't surprising given the current culture in which scientific knowledge frequently takes a back seat to subjective opinion," he added.

This decision discounts and disregards the medical consensus that intact D&E is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions that make the potential complications of non-intact D&E especially dangerous. Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment. "

Stinger said:

It was never carried.

Click to expand...

Where was it "passing through"? Was it not inside the woman's body--conceived--before it "passed through"?--It takes between seven and ten days after ovulation for the newly conceived human being to implant in the uterine wall. A woman "carries" him or her that whole time. If the little human does not implant, he or she is MISScarried. It's fact.

Not a spontaneous abortion, it was never carried, just the normal passing through that occours to every woman who is sexually active.

Click to expand...

Fact Sheets - Spontaneous Abortion
Biological plausibility: While in none of the above cases has a causal link between pesticide exposure and an environmental contaminant or the relevant mechanism involved been established, a number of pesticides have been shown to have estrogenic or anti-progestagenic activity. Elevated estrogen may be toxic to the conceptus prior to implantation and thus induce early fetal loss. It is well known that high doses of estrogen, the so-called "morning after pill" can be used to prevent implantation following unprotected intercourse. Progesterone is critical for implantation and the maintenance of human pregnancy. Therefore, compounds that impair progesterone production increase its metabolism or block its action that is of most interest. Interference with either progesterone production by removing the corpus luteum, or alternatively inhibiting progesterone function by administration of an antiprogestin such as mifepristone (RU-486), can result in a spontaneous abortion. These observations suggest theoretical mechanisms by which environmental chemicals might induce abortions but dose considerations cast some doubt on the probability that low-level environmental chemical exposures would have an effect, unless the chemicals were persistent in the body.

Main Entry: abor·tion
Pronunciation: &-'bor-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation -- compare MISCARRIAGE b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy -- compare CONTAGIOUS ABORTION

The definition fits.rof

Should we force everywoman who is sexually active to enter a hospital after every incidence of intercourse to check to see if an egg was fertilized and try to make sure it survives?

Click to expand...

No--but we should not engage in sexual activity that may result in life and puposefully act in such a way that intentionally ends the life of the conceived, or could possibly end a new life as a result of our actions.

There is little difference between your stance and the pro-choice stance. As I noted, your stance merely imposes an earlier arbitrary level of development required of the embryo to "earn" his right to life. I, however, believe the right to life is something that simply IS from the moment of conception and I am willing to change MY behaviors--however inconvenient--to be true to my convictions. I do not use birth control specifically BECAUSE I do not want to unwittingly kill another human being (my child) out of my selfish desire to have sex whenever I want to--not gonna do it, whether I would know it if i did kill her or not.

1069 said:

What "people", other than herself, do you think might be effected, aversely or otherwise?

If a woman I worked with was in late pregnancy, and then one day she showed up un-pregnant, it cetainly wouldn't effect me one way or the other. Whether she'd given birth prematurely and had a live baby stashed away somewhere, or whether she'd miscarried, or whether she'd had a third-trimester abortion just for kicks and giggles wouldn't be any of my business, particularly, nor would it have any effect whatsoever on my life.
I'd never even know what happened to make her un-pregnant, unless she just felt like telling me.

On the other hand, if a woman at my work had a first trimester abortion, neither I nor anyone else except her and her doctor would probably ever even know she'd been pregnant in the first place, so it would effect me even less than the first scenario, if that's even possible.

Click to expand...

You are not alone in the world, Ten. You make a mark and the world is better off or not by your contributions--known by others or not. The ripple you make on the surface of of the lake of life expands to every shore--even if you and/or others are unaware of the effect. The human being that was aborted in the 1st trimester--was....and then was not. That is an effect on history.

(Sorry for waxing poetic for a moment )

bismitch said:

Roe vs. Wade wasn't a law, (I know what you mean, but don't refer to it as a law), it was a reaffirming interpretation of the rights in the Constitution in the 14 amendment.

Click to expand...

It's not a statute but IT IS CASE LAW; therefore, it is held in similar esteem.

OKgrannie said:

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists doesn't like it either:

ACOG Statement on the US Supreme Court Decision Upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

ACOG Statement on the US Supreme Court Decision Upholding the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003


Washington, DC -- Despite the fact that the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States—the US Supreme Court today upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) amicus brief opposing the Ban, the Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country.

"Today's decision to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is shameful and incomprehensible to those of us who have dedicated our lives to caring for women," said Douglas W. Laube, MD, MEd, ACOG president. "It leaves no doubt that women's health in America is perceived as being of little consequence.

"We have seen a steady erosion of women's reproductive rights in this country. The Supreme Court's action today, though stunning, in many ways isn't surprising given the current culture in which scientific knowledge frequently takes a back seat to subjective opinion," he added.

This decision discounts and disregards the medical consensus that intact D&E is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions that make the potential complications of non-intact D&E especially dangerous. Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment. "

Click to expand...

The "safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation" argument does not address the "Congress determined that such abortions are similar to the killing of a newborn infant" argument, though.

Felicity said:

Where was it "passing through"? Was it not inside the woman's body--conceived--before it "passed through"?--It takes between seven and ten days after ovulation for the newly conceived human being to implant in the uterine wall. A woman "carries" him or her that whole time. If the little human does not implant, he or she is MISScarried. It's fact.

Click to expand...

It never implanted, the mother never carried it as an implanted human being, it had it's chance like everyone else. So we have a semantical difference but one with a distinction. If the womb is not receptive to the a fertilized egg, as is quite the norm with our without the woman contolly her cycle through hormones, then the life does not pass it's first hurdle.

If you want to argue that we do not have the right to control our own hormonal levels then make that argument but that would apply to other medical procedures and treatments too.

Fact Sheets - Spontaneous Abortion

Click to expand...

Use of birth control pills does not result in a spontaneous anything. Not in the doses use for birth control. It's actions prevents the egg from being fertilized in the first place as it's primary function.


http://www.emcom.ca/health/abortion.shtml

No--but we should not engage in sexual activity that may result in life and puposefully act in such a way that intentionally ends the life of the conceived, or could possibly end a new life as a result of our actions.

Click to expand...

So why not make every woman take fertility drugs that help ensure every fertilized egg implants? Most fertilized eggs never make, but in science can increase the chances should we force that upon all women?

There is little difference between your stance and the pro-choice stance.

Click to expand...

Oh no there is a huge difference.

As I noted, your stance merely imposes an earlier arbitrary level of development required of the embryo to "earn" his right to life.

Click to expand...

No mine has nothing to do with the stage of development at all, it has to do with we have a right to control the hormones our bodies produce and the cycles and changes they cause.

I, however, believe the right to life is something that simply IS from the moment of conception and I am willing to change MY behaviors

Click to expand...

OK

--however inconvenient--to be true to my convictions. I do not use birth control specifically BECAUSE I do not want to unwittingly kill another human being (my child) out of my selfish desire to have sex whenever I want to--not gonna do it, whether I would know it if i did kill her or not.

Click to expand...

OK

Stinger said:

If you want to argue that we do not have the right to control our own hormonal levels then make that argument but that would apply to other medical procedures and treatments too.

Click to expand...

You do not have the right to control your hormone levels if doing so could kill another human being. Analogy: I can shoot a properly registered gun on my property outside of city limits. However, I cannot shoot my gun AT someone who is of no threat to me and there by my invitation. I cannot shoot indescriminantly on the off chance I may hit my hunting partner...

Use of birth control pills does not result in a spontaneous anything.

Click to expand...

Technically, you are right because taking the drug is an intentional act. It's abortion.

Not in the doses use for birth control. It's actions prevents the egg from being fertilized in the first place as it's primary function.

Click to expand...

That's crap. The lower doses have MORE break-through ovulation and thus MORE chances to unwittingly kill offspring.

So why not make every woman take fertility drugs that help ensure every fertilized egg implants? Most fertilized eggs never make, but in science can increase the chances should we force that upon all women?

Click to expand...

It's not about "every sperm [or egg] is sacred"--it's about NOT killing already conceived human beings. Don't deflect. That's cheap. It's the difference between an intentional act resulting in someone's death (manslaughter) and a simple accident of nature.

Oh no there is a huge difference.

Click to expand...

Not really. You arbitrarily value human life that has implanted rather than valuing all human life. PCers value human life that's born--some value human life that reaches a certain cognative level....point is--it's all arbitrary.

No mine has nothing to do with the stage of development at all, it has to do with we have a right to control the hormones our bodies produce and the cycles and changes they cause.

Click to expand...

...sure...You are pro-choice (only a little more conservative than most)--it's the woman's "choice" to regulate her hormones EVEN IF she may kill her offspring in the process simply because she wants to. What do you call that

I've got to go with Felicity on this one. :shock:

Stace said:

I've got to go with Felicity on this one. :shock:

Click to expand...

:shock: is right...what is that--a 1st on an abortion topic?:mrgreen: :2wave:

Stace said:

I've got to go with Felicity on this one. :shock:

Click to expand...

You have a moral/ethical problem with hormonal contraception?
That's surprising.

1069 said:

You have a moral/ethical problem with hormonal contraception?
That's surprising.

Click to expand...

I don't think so...I think she meant my logic was sound based on my convictions concerning when human life begins. If she is against hormonal BC--lots has changed!:mrgreen:

1069 said:

You have a moral/ethical problem with hormonal contraception?
That's surprising.

Click to expand...

Felicity said:

I don't think so...I think she meant my logic was sound based on my convictions concerning when human life begins. If she is against hormonal BC--lots has changed!:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Felicity is correct - I have no moral or ethical objection to hormonal birth control - a personal one, given what it does to my system, but morally/ethically, no. :lol: However, Felicity's logic and the facts she has presented are technically correct, at least based upon my own research.

Jerry said:

Alex is completely correct.

This ruling, and yes I have read it, false completely within the bounds of RvW. It does nothing to prohibit early abortion. The upheld state act only prohibits abortion procedures which intend to remove the fetus intact and then kill it, as opposed to disarticulating it before removal.

There are other details also, but apparently most people on this thread care more for the vague and ambiguous abortion arguments and not for the text of the actual ruling itself.

Click to expand...

I can't read all of the thread or the decision, I just don't have time. But if you are familiar with the details, doesn't this decision only affect a particular procedure? Women can still have late term abortions from what I understand. But now the so-called PBA surgery can't be used per this ruling. Is this right?

tryreading said:

I can't read all of the thread or the decision, I just don't have time. But if you are familiar with the details, doesn't this decision only affect a particular procedure? Women can still have late term abortions from what I understand. But now the so-called PBA surgery can't be used per this ruling. Is this right?

Click to expand...

Gonzales v. Carhart, Section 2,c-1

(i) The Act’s text discloses that it prohibits a doctor from intentionally performing an intact D&E. Its dual prohibitions correspond with the steps generally undertaken in this procedure: The doctor (1) delivers the fetus until its head lodges in the cervix, usually past the anatomical landmark for a breech presentation, see §1531(b)(1)(A), and (2) proceeds to the overt act of piercing or crushing the fetal skull after the partial delivery, see §1531(b)(1)(B). The Act’s scienter requirements limit its reach to those physicians who carry out the intact D&E, with the intent to undertake both steps at the outset. The Act excludes most D&Es in which the doctor intends to remove the fetus in pieces from the outset.

Click to expand...

Section 3b:

In addition, if intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of “a living fetus,” 18 U. S. C. §1531(b)(1)(A). Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52 , distinguished.

Click to expand...

Jerry said:

Gonzales v. Carhart, Section 2,c-1


Section 3b:

Click to expand...

So from the little I've heard so far and this info, the SCOTUS decision is very odd, and pretty useless.

The fetus can still be aborted at the same stage where a D&E might have been used, except now, since the D&E is illegal, there are two methods where the fetus can be aborted at this stage instead of three.

The decision in no way way limited abortion at any stage of pregnancy, it just upheld a law prohibiting a particular procedure. I still don't understand it all, but it seems nothing really changed.

tryreading said:

So from the little I've heard so far and this info, the SCOTUS decision is very odd, and pretty useless.

The fetus can still be aborted at the same stage where a D&E might have been used, except now, since the D&E is illegal, there are two methods where the fetus can be aborted at this stage instead of three.

The decision in no way way limited abortion at any stage of pregnancy, it just upheld a law prohibiting a particular procedure. I still don't understand it all, but it seems nothing really changed.

Click to expand...

Well, kinda sorta...yes and no...the precedent set here enables PL to now argue that disarticulating the late term fetus is equivalent to partially delivering it before killing it; if not worse if it can be shown that the fetus is not killed before disarticulation.

Jerry said:

Well, kinda sorta...yes and no...the precedent set here enables PL to now argue that disarticulating the late term fetus is equivalent to partially delivering it before killing it; if not worse if it can be shown that the fetus is not killed before disarticulation.

Click to expand...

I would be totally on board if I thought for one minute that PL would stop there. Unfortunately, I see this as a rallying point for categorically denying abortion options at some point.

Don't get me wrong, PBA was one of the most barbaric and disgusting procedures in use. Dismembering the fetus in utero and extracting it is no different in my eyes.

However, if a woman's life is in danger, the fetus is no longer just a fetus, it is a threat. And I still believe that a woman has the right to end any threat of bodily harm no matter the source. Exceptions have to be made that provide some means of dealing with these rare circumstances.

jallman said:

I would be totally on board if I thought for one minute that PL would stop there. Unfortunately, I see this as a rallying point for categorically denying abortion options at some point.

Don't get me wrong, PBA was one of the most barbaric and disgusting procedures in use. Dismembering the fetus in utero and extracting it is no different in my eyes.

However, if a woman's life is in danger, the fetus is no longer just a fetus, it is a threat. And I still believe that a woman has the right to end any threat of bodily harm no matter the source. Exceptions have to be made that provide some means of dealing with these rare circumstances.

Click to expand...

You're correct, PL won't stop there. Once a ban includes non-intact DnE, it includes abortions far earlier than the late term abortions currently banned.

The limit lays with how early a "compelling state interest" can be established, and personally I don't think it can be argued earlier than 18-21 weeks.

First trimester abortion will always be with us.
And I agree that there must always be the health exception.

Well, it's unfortunate for women carrying fetuses with severe hydrocephalus; this procedure was used to drain some of the fluid from the head and collapse the skull so that the fetus could be delivered vaginally (in severe cases of hydrocephalus, it is not unusual for the fetal head to contain upwards of two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid, and measure 20 inches in diameter- an average adult head is around seven inches). Hydrocephalus is generally not diagnosed until late in the second trimester, so what can one do?
A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it will never achieve consciousness.
Allowing a woman to give birth vaginally to a severely hydrocephalic fetus without first shunting some of the fluid out of its watermelon-sized head is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her and the fetus.

The only option now is c-section (major abdominal surgery).

This is unfortunate, and it's reprehensible that a pointless feel-good law will force women to undergo major, risky abdominal surgery in order to deliver deformed cretins who will not survive an hour.

But as long as it makes everybody feel like they've actually accomplished something moral and positive, I suppose that's all that truly matters.

1069 said:

Well, it's unfortunate for women carrying fetuses with severe hydrocephalus; this procedure was used to drain some of the fluid from the head and collapse the skull so that the fetus could be delivered vaginally (in severe cases of hydrocephalus, it is not unusual for the fetal head to contain upwards of two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid, and measure 20 inches in diameter- an average adult head is around seven inches). Hydrocephalus is generally not diagnosed until late in the second trimester, so what can one do?
A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it will never achieve consciousness.
Allowing a woman to give birth vaginally to a severely hydrocephalic fetus without first shunting some of the fluid out of its watermelon-sized head is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her and the fetus.

The only option now is c-section (major abdominal surgery).

This is unfortunate, and it's reprehensible that a pointless feel-good law will force women to undergo major, risky abdominal surgery in order to deliver deformed cretins who will not survive an hour.

But as long as it makes everybody feel like they've actually accomplished something moral and positive, I suppose that's all that truly matters.

Click to expand...

There is no room for exception in this PBA ban? :|

1069 said:

Well, it's unfortunate for women carrying fetuses with severe hydrocephalus; this procedure was used to drain some of the fluid from the head and collapse the skull so that the fetus could be delivered vaginally (in severe cases of hydrocephalus, it is not unusual for the fetal head to contain upwards of two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid, and measure 20 inches in diameter- an average adult head is around seven inches). Hydrocephalus is generally not diagnosed until late in the second trimester, so what can one do?
A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it will never achieve consciousness.
Allowing a woman to give birth vaginally to a severely hydrocephalic fetus without first shunting some of the fluid out of its watermelon-sized head is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her and the fetus.

The only option now is c-section (major abdominal surgery).

This is unfortunate, and it's reprehensible that a pointless feel-good law will force women to undergo major, risky abdominal surgery in order to deliver deformed cretins who will not survive an hour.

But as long as it makes everybody feel like they've actually accomplished something moral and positive, I suppose that's all that truly matters.

Click to expand...

Hatuey said:

There is no room for exception in this PBA ban? :|

Click to expand...

Gonzalas v. Carhart, section 3b:

In addition, if intact D&E is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of “a living fetus,” 18 U. S. C. §1531(b)(1)(A). Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52 , distinguished.

Click to expand...

Jallman, OKgrannie, I’m rather disappointed that you didn’t read the ruling before “thanking” that post. Oh well, now you know.