Michigan's Partial-Birth Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

Okay,
Let me first let you know that I personally am against abortions. The sole exceptions, again my opinion would be for cases of rape or where the woman’s health / life are in jeopardy.
I was first enthused about the ban until I read on and found out just what the procedure was.
From the article:

Doctors label the procedure "intact dilation and extraction," or D&X. During the procedure, generally performed in the second trimester, a fetus is partially removed from the womb and the skull punctured. Some doctors say it is the safest option for women in some circumstances.

Let me emphasis something from this quote:
a fetus is partially removed from the womb and the skull punctured.

That is just so SICK that I thought that I would loose my lunch. How is a doctor, any doctor, who has given an oath to do no harm, not consider this as murder? Abortion is abhorrent to me but after reading this article, I cannot see any logical reason that could be given by anyone that could condone this procedure!

Michigan's Partial-Birth Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

(This might come as a surprise. Then again I think a few folk would be surprised that I'm not actually a supporter of abortion to begin with...)

Even I don't think there's any real necessity for D&X.

That said though, if local courts are allowed to define whether they'll allow D&X, can they/would they be allowed to define, for example, "no terminations after the pregnancy reaches 4 weeks?". Though perhaps an extreme example, such a decision would basically render any termination illegal, as most are performed after the 4 week period; a further example (again somewhat extreme) would be emergency contraception, where conception has occurred already...

So...the abortion debate still goes on.

Personally, I find D&X horrifying.

I agree, it's an awful thing to think about. Just so terrible and it makes me sick to think about it, too.

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Abortion is abhorrent to me but after reading this article, I cannot see any logical reason that could be given by anyone that could condone this procedure!

I'd just like to make a point about this statement. There is a difference between condoning (approving of) something and actively setting about to ban or otherwise illegalize it.

I do not, in any way, condone or approve of this procedure. However, I cannot, in good conscience, support a law that would impose my judgment of disapproval about this act on other people.

There are many things I don't condone. But above all, I hold the right to privacy and choice about such a personal and accountable act as procreating, having and raising a child or just bringing it into the world.

It's not my place or yours or anyone's to decide whether or not the lady down the street should have a child. And if she decides to have a late-term ('partial birth') abortion, it is between her and her god if she has one. I just feel I have no place in that choice.

A lot of things in this world make me absolutely sick. But each person is the captain of their own ship and the decisions we make throughout life add up to who we are. I have no more right to impose my judgments on others than they do theirs on me.

We have come to a place in this world where we think it's ok to go up to someone and say, "What you're doing is wrong"! I think if we all minded our own business a little more and looked at what we're doing that might be wrong instead of concentrating on what everyone else is doing, we'd live in a much more peaceful and gentle society.

Doctors have not problem doing this type of abortions when it comes to doing the deed.

I am for women rights and the right to chose and that include abortion and I stand by it.

But Abortion that is so far in the pregnancy should only be perform if the life of the mother is at stake.

I don't think that a victim of a rape will wait that long to have an abortion.

My son was born with three punctures in his head do to the poor training of the doctors that were with me during my labor.

The tried 5 times to hook a monitor to my baby's head while he still was in my womb because it was a new procedure and I agree with it.

At the end and after spending 5 of the darn devices the doctor in charge of the trainees was able to do it with not problem, but to late he was already coming down.

So as you can see doctors had no problem doing what they need to do be an abortion or a baby to be born.

BTW it was in at the Naval hospital in Oahu Hawaii and is also a medical training and research center.

Very well known as the "Pink Elephant"

Benevolent Heretic,
I hear what you are saying but then again, if I was to take a cat (since you have one for an avatar) and punctured it's skull, I would have every animal rights activist group calling for my head.

And yet, we as a people, are to close our eyes and say it is "the woman's decision" to have a doctor do the very same thing to a human fetus. Don't you find something inheritantly wrong with that?
Under what laws (other than abortion laws) in any country, is puncturing the skull of another person NOT to be considered murder?

As for alternative methods, not withstanding the "self-control" or the use of anti-pregnacy methods, there are alternative abortion methods than the D&X. So I have a hard time understanding how anyone can think that D&X should even be a viable solution.
Abortion Procedures

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
if I was to take a cat (since you have one for an avatar) and punctured it's skull, I would have every animal rights activist group calling for my head.

Well, unfortunately, you picked a bad example for me, because I'm not fond of 'animal rights activists'. But putting that aside, if you did that to my cat, I would have your head. If you did it to another cat, I would report you to the authorities and hope they punished you. That's against the law. It's a living, breathing, fully-viable animal, not a fetus.

And yet, we as a people, are to close our eyes and say it is "the woman's decision" to have a doctor do the very same thing to a human fetus. Don't you find something inheritantly wrong with that?

I at least indicated that I did. It's disgusting, sickening. I don't approve. I would never do it. Would it be better if the Dr. chose another means to terminate the development of the fetus? The only reason they do it that way is that it's the most effective. They're not thinking in terms of 'killing' something. They're doing a medical procedure.

When you think about a person getting any number of medical procedures, a mastectomy, for example, it's shocking and terrifying to think of the doctor taking a large scalpel and sclhepping a woman's breast right off, but it's how the procedure is done.

If, OTOH, a person in an alley did the same thing, it would be unconscionable. But when a doctor does it, it's simply the performance of a medical procedure.

Under what laws (other than abortion laws) in any country, is puncturing the skull of another person NOT to be considered murder?

You know it's useless to have this part of the discussion, don't you? How can we say it's a person when we have no standard of when life begins? We don't really know when it's a 'person'. We all have different opinions on that. Many believe it's not a person until it's born. And I don't mean pulled out prematurely by a Dr. That's not 'birth', thus the misnomer, 'partial birth' abortion. That's a political spin. Don't fall for it.

So I have a hard time understanding how anyone can think that D&X should even be a viable solution.

The D&X might just be the most effective (read quick and painless) of the late-term abortions. I don't know. And, like I said, I do not approve of this at all. I don't think it's a good solution. I hate to think that it ever happens. And I know that it does.

And, really, believe it or not, there are worse things that happen in the world. There are babies being shaken to the point of death. There are babies, real, live, fully-viable babies, little people, being drowned in the bathtub by their mothers. There are fathers having sex with their 3-year-olds who will have to live with those emotional wounds and damage for the rest of their lives.

Unwanted, unloved babies go through hell. People who have children when they don't want them and cannot bring themselves to adopt them out sometimes make late-term abortion look like the more humane action to take.

I'm not at all condoning this, but it's possible it's the best choice in some cases. And, like I said, the mother has to deal with the consequenses. I've known women who've had abortions, and believe me, those consequences can be hell on Earth.

Originally posted by kenshiro2012

Doctors label the procedure "intact dilation and extraction," or D&X. During the procedure, generally performed in the second trimester, a fetus is partially removed from the womb and the skull punctured. Some doctors say it is the safest option for women in some circumstances.

Let me emphasis something from this quote:
a fetus is partially removed from the womb and the skull punctured.

Okay, fair enough. Let's emphasize this part too though:
Some doctors say it is the safest option for women in some circumstances.

I'm not a doctor and not pro-anything in particular but people, but I know most medical procedures make me want to barf. Not some. Not just the ones that huwt witty bitty "babies" (in some people's minds). All of them. They're frequently graphic, disgusting, and aggressively heroic for some reasonably determined greater good of the patient's decision. All surgery includes sacrifice. That's what the knife is for. And it's icky. It may however be less icky (and safe) to you if you were on that table to do it this way rather than an INVASIVE procedure that requires basically doing the exact same thing or something chemically worse IN YOUR WOMB.

But the icky factor doesn't make me want to pass unconstitutional law or tell doctor's and their self determining patients I know better. Cause I don't. And neither does anyone else.

There's nothing wrong with letting the people with the wombs decide what's best for them. If peeking in their panties and medical decisions grosses you out, don't be so damn nosy.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by RANT]

I think...my bottom line relating to all abortion simple, when all's said and done.

I hate the idea, I hate the procedures, I hate the necessity.

But frankly, I'd rather there was a legal, safer option (such as doctors legally being allowed to perform the procedures in a controlled medical environment) than women being forced to take drastic measures themselves and end up "in the back alleys", as it were.

so, it is ok for a doctor to pull a fetus our of the womb (partially) so that the doctor can punture the skull.
but it is wrong for that same doctor to do the same to an animal.
what a wonderful world we live in today where a person can go to jail and be condemned by society due to animal cruelty but we say it is ok for someone to be cruel to a human as long as it is a fetus.

great! wonderful! the new Shangri la!
It make THX 1138, Brave New World and all the others look like paradise!

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
so, it is ok for a doctor to pull a fetus our of the womb (partially) so that the doctor can punture the skull.
but it is wrong for that same doctor to do the same to an animal.

The difference is the first is a medical procedure designed to provide a solution to a particular condition to a human being; and humans have more rights than an animal (whether or not we should is a different argument).

If an animal was in physical danger from a pregnancy, it would not have a choice about the matter; it would either die, or the fetus would be removed surgically without question.

Humans do have such choices.

Do we really want to take away those choices?

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
so, it is ok for a doctor to pull a fetus our of the womb (partially) so that the doctor can punture the skull.
but it is wrong for that same doctor to do the same to an animal.
what a wonderful world we live in today where a person can go to jail and be condemned by society due to animal cruelty but we say it is ok for someone to be cruel to a human as long as it is a fetus.

great! wonderful! the new Shangri la!
It make THX 1138, Brave New World and all the others look like paradise!

You posted the article so you already know it's okay to induce labor during the second trimester and terminate fetal pregancy subject to the restrictions already imposed on 4-6 months.

What that has to do with animal cruelty is NOTHING. You can't go around killing cats any more than you can children.

But you can sure abort a litter of puppy or kitten fetuses any darn way a licensed vet likes. As as for animal cruelty you can also stick a wire in just about any animal's butt, carve off it's skin, chop off it's head, wear it's coat and EAT it, so I dont' see any problem or hypocrisy at all.

Just bad analogies on your part.

What's this brave new world crap anyway? You don't think they were bashing new borns heads against stones in biblical times? Come on.

This is civilized.

Kenshiro needs to read history in which worst means of gender control has been practiced by many cultures around the world.

If killing a fetus is bad think about letting baby girls die all alone or killed as soon as they are born for the only reason of been girls.

Abortion and genocide are not new to the world they have been practice for ages.

No is not an excused to late term abortions but making sound like US is the only place that allowed such a "despicable" act is overrated.

BTW is countries that have not problem eating their pets so what is the big deal.

It maybe cruel to us but is food to them.

Rant

Just bad analogies on your part.
What's this brave new world crap anyway? You don't think they were bashing new borns heads against stones in biblical times? Come on.
This is civilized.

Bad anologies? you are saying that animal cruelty and the puncturing the skull of an infant are not the same? I agree! We treat those who are cruel to animals better than we treat those who are "cruel" to humans as long as that human has the label of "fetus"

The "Brave New World crap" as you put it was posted to show just how inhuman we can be to humans as in the Brave New World. Take a look at it, it is a good read you may then see the anology
Who is bring in bibical times? and how is this "civilized? As per my origion post, I asked, how can anyone say that the D&X procedure would be the only alternative? Heck, why only a partial why not just take the hunk of meat from the womb and toss it into the trash? why just pull it out part way and then poke a hole in it's head? what is the difference? Where is one more civilized than the other?
Rant,
I posted this thread as against the procedure that the law is saying is ok.
I even stated my position on the whole abortion issue up front.
I even stated that even by any standards, the D&X procedure is outrageous!
Do not try to turn this thread into a religious-based argument. I have not and beg that you refrain from such.
Thank you

marg6043,
As per my earlier post as well as the one that I opened this thread with, I maybe opposed to abortion, but that is not the subject of this thread.
It is on the D&X procedure.

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
so, it is ok for a doctor to pull a fetus our of the womb (partially) so that the doctor can punture the skull. but it is wrong for that same doctor to do the same to an animal.

Well, it's legal for a doctor to pull a fetus our of the womb (partially) so that the doctor can puncture the skull, but it is illegal for that same doctor to do the same to an animal.

Whether they are 'right' or 'wrong' is a matter of opinion. If you're asking if they are right or wrong, you're going to get different answers. If you're hoping to convince everyone that your moral judgment on these matters is the one that everyone should adopt, you're going to be disappointed. Because each persons morals are a personal thing and cannot be agreed on universally.

That, specifically, is the problem with legislating morals. Like D&X abortion. If you think it's wrong, don't have one.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Well,
according to RANT, a doctor is able to do that to an animal legally!

As as for animal cruelty you can also stick a wire in just about any animal's butt, carve off it's skin, chop off it's head, wear it's coat and EAT it, so I dont' see any problem or hypocrisy at all.

I should have said that it's legal for a doctor to pull a fetus our of the womb blah, blah, blah, but it is illegal for that same doctor to do the same to a cat.

Kenshiro, surely you know that here in the US, we treat animals differently (legally) depending on what we use them for. We eat animals, for Christ's sake! Because of the culture, not many of us eat dogs and cats, but plenty of people eat cows, sheep, frogs, snakes, squirrels and birds. It's our culture.

Other countries (other cultures) eat dogs and cats without a second thought.

RANT was not talking about a doctor (although a doctor could probably do it if he wished) Rant was talking about a butcher. And the animal was a cow, bunny, etc.

You know this, I'm sure. You seem to be trying to complicate the issue with fuzzy logic. You tell marg that the subject of the post is D&X abortion, yet now you've got us talking about animals. Pick a topic.

Ok,
let me try to spell out exactly what I am on about here.
A law was struck down that attempted to outlaw the D&X procedure,
Is there a reason that D&X abortion procedure, which pulls a fetus partially out of a woman so that a doctor can poke a hole in it's head to kill it, could be the only procedure that can be used. As per my earlier post, there are alternatives to this procedure.
What is the difference between the D&X procedure and just pulling the fetus out of the womb and tossing the meat into the trash? If the D&X procedure is truely a medically necessary procedure, why only go halfway? just pull the fetus all the way out of the woman's womb and toss it. Heck use it for research like stem cell!

As for the animal anolgy, yes we do give more heart to what happens to an animal than we would to how a fetus is treated.

But, I guess it does not matter.
How a doctor performs an abortion does not matter. The fetus is just a hunk of meat hey wait a minute.... was there not an article a week or so ago about how a fetus (or even a newborn) cannot feel pain until weeks after birth!
why not do just as rant says it's ok to do to an animal.... stick a wire up there... chop it up and let it go just like they did back in the day.

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
What is the difference between the D&X procedure and just pulling the fetus out of the womb and tossing the meat into the trash?

I have already answered that. It's the most effective, quickest and least painful way (if there is any pain) of performing the procedure.

Nobody is saying this is pleasant. And I believe RANT had a perfect suggestion for the yucky factor.

My question is, Why do you care whether they pull it all the way out or only partially out? I'm assuming it's because it's quick.

D&X Answers

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 related to the pregnancy.

- 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.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

to the mods,
The reason for this thread was due to my outrage that it seems to be perfectly "legal" to perform a D&E abortion procedure that requires a doctor to put a hole into a fetus's skull.
Since it seems that this procedure is acceptable to all here that have responded to this thread, do to this thread as you will.
I myself find that there seems to be no real medical reson for sanction of this type of procedure but the will of the masses prevail. I shall just let the matter lie.
Sorry that my outrage that this procedure should be considered good stepped on any toes.
to file 13 with this thread then