It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michigan's Partial-Birth Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
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.


It's too bad you didn't learn anything. After all the time I spent responding to you, it's almost like you didn't even read my answers...


I know you didn't answer MY questions.

I'll remember not to waste my time next time. I don't think you wanted to have a discussion. I'm not sure what your purpose was...




posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Benevolent Heretic,
sorry that you feel that way
As I stated in the quote that you used, I myself find no medical reason that would legitimize this procedure. To expand on that, legitimize this procedure over another. mayhaps i did not make that clear if that is the case, sorry.
The abhorrence that I have is not partial birth aspect but that of where the doctor has to poke a hole in the fetus's head in order to kill the fetus.
Your links and information was read, it did not answer the questions that i had posed, i had thought that the repeated use of the poke a hole in the skull would have answered your question for you,
again if i seem to be too obscured and what i was attempting to note was not recognized.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
The abhorrence that I have is not partial birth aspect but that of where the doctor has to poke a hole in the fetus's head in order to kill the fetus.


Let's get down and dirty, then. The reason the hole is poked (many times into a dead fetus - if you read the material) is to vacuum out the brain contents. Why? I don't know. I'm sure there's a reason.

They don't poke a hole to kill the fetus, they poke a hole to vacuum out the brain. I don't know why it's necessary to do that to an already dead fetus. But they do.

Edit: Here's your answer:

From the source I posted earlier:
"The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb."

So they poke the hole to extract the brain so the skull collapses so it can be more easily removed all the way. That's why they don't pull it all the way out and 'throw the meat away'.

Does that do it?

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



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Benevolent Heretic,
Sorry ut you missed the point of what they said. It is only in the cases of extreme hydrocephalus



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.


Note the option, Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section.

Also note as in the portion that you refered it clealy states 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.

So from your source, the fetus is alive when the hole is made to drain the fluid thus causing the death of the fetus, The D&E even in cases of extreme hydrocephalus have an alternative procedure
Sorry



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Read the whole thing and then come back. I'm not going to point out every single word to you. Your answers are all there. I think you're just trying to be difficult. You asked a question and I've been trying to help you out, but you refuse to see the answer that's right in front of your face. I'm done.


This is the D&X procedure regardless of the reason for performing it:

Description of the D&X Procedure:
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.
....
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.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
BH,
Nice,
From the entire portion that you edited



bullet 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.
bullet
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.


Your source then goes on to negate one of the proposed reason by adding:




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

Which negate the emotional phsycological reasons.

Even the Former Surgeon General objects to the procedure
From your site:



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.


Again your source cites the following:



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


So again, the question comes back into play why the need over other procedures. Notice that the last part that I quoted, is from 1997, there have been medical advances since that date that would preclude the usage of this procedure.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
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


The thread's fine. Outrage is too. Upholding the Constitution of the United States of America pisses you off. Got it. No problem.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Kenshiro, do you honestly have the faintest idea of what, precisely, you're talking about?

Because I'm not sure you do.

A C-section is an invasive surgical procedure that carries with it ALL of the risks that ALL invasive surgical procedures carry. Risks like infection, hemmorages, embolisms, reactions to anesthetics, and reactions to medications. And that's all before the recovery begins. Recovery, in turn, takes several weeks - which is appropriate, because this is an invasive surgical procedure! And recovery isn't actually recovery - while some small percentage of women who have had a C-section are able to give birth vaginally, the vast majority are no longer able to, because the section which has been cut is substatially weaker due to scarring. That section of the abdomen doesn't heal well, after all, and no amount of "core training" or "ab conditioning" (and don't yelp about Pilates to me!) will build muscle over scar tissue. As a result, all further babies that she tries to have will need to be delivered through C-section as well.

So a woman has just been informed that her pre-term baby is dead or dying, and/or might kill or permanetly cripple her, and the best thing to do for all concerned is that it be removed. And now you want to force her to go through an invasive surgical procedure, after which she will be forced to basically do NOTHING for several weeks while she is in SEVERE PAIN and has all the time in the world to reflect on her lost hopes and dreams? After that, every time she has a living child, when she's lying awake in the middle of the night, recovering for the weeks after THAT C-section - she gets to remember the one she lost, and wonder what went wrong, if she could have done something different, made another choice, been a better person?

You are a sadist to the living.

[edit on 16-9-2005 by M_Cat]

[edit on 16-9-2005 by M_Cat]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   
VBAC (vaginal birth after c-section) is becoming more and more common; I attended the vaginal birth of my sister's third kiddie after she'd had two c-sections; frankly, any doctor who tells a woman it's not possible needs to be fired, and quickly. Some c-sections will indeed necessitate all future pregnancies end the same way, but it's becoming much easier for a woman to at least try VBAC first.

I know where you're coming from, Cat...but for many (if not most) women, a c-section isn't really that big a deal. Perhaps that's simply being too cavalier on their part; but after having major convuluted abdominal surgery myself (hysterectomy), I can absolutely see where you, they, and I are coming from


There would be a risk to the mother present during D&X, too, albeit in a considerably lesser degree.

The part I think kenshiro is objecting to is not the need, but the method (sorry kenshiro, I'm really not trying to speak for you, but that's the impression I get) itself; let's face it, the majority of D&X procedures simply are not carried out for medical reasons (such as those threatening the life of the mother).

Whether we're pro-life or pro-choice (I do think it's possible to be both, incidentally), I think this thread was more about the technique, than the theoretical need and legality of abortion.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Tinkleflower,
you are 100% right on with what I am objecting to. It is the technique not abortion in of itself.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, from the source that Benevolent Heretic kindly provided, even the medical community itself do not find a reason for which this procedure should be used today. This is from the former Surgeon General as well as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They made this determination 8 years ago. There has been many new medical procedures developed since that time that strenthen their argument against the need of the D&X procedure.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
What I find boggling and hypocritical is that

those who support abortion also support the fetus law.

Laci Peterson's son conner was still a fetus, of which scott killed him and got charged with a double murder.

Partial Birth abortion is killing an almost full grown baby within the womb.

NO matter how much you sugar coat it you are committing murder, the same kind of murder the scott peterson took part in.

Does that child inside the womb get a chance to voice his opinion on weather or not he wants to live.

Afterall his body has worked hard inside the mother to grow and keep it'self nurished.

My guess would be that yeah, the child wanted a chance at life but the scummy ass female of a mother murdered him/her for selfish reasons.

If your going to have sex, would you freaking wear a codom?! damn.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
What I find boggling and hypocritical is that those who support abortion also support the fetus law.


This actually worries many people.

But it's important to note that Laci & Conner's Law (as it has become known) makes a specific exclusion for terminations.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--

`(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.


However, I have to agree with John Kerry on the issue:


"I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy" - John Kerry


I think he's right. And whilst I simply don't agree with abortion (for many reasons), it concerns me more that people want to interfere in someone else's reproductive choices. If it has to happen, I'd much rather see it happen within a controlled medical environment, than in - to use an old colloquialism - the "back alley".



My guess would be that yeah, the child wanted a chance at life but the scummy ass female of a mother murdered him/her for selfish reasons.


That's a pretty narrow-minded and judgemental statement. You know the exact circumstances of every rape or incest victim then? No, you don't.



If your going to have sex, would you freaking wear a codom?! damn.



In an ideal world, people wouldn't have sex unless they were ready to face the possibility of pregnancy.

Sadly, it ain't an ideal world.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
This actually worries many people.

But it's important to note that Laci & Conner's Law (as it has become known) makes a specific exclusion for terminations.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--

`(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

`(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.


However, I have to agree with John Kerry on the issue:

I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy" - John Kerry


I agree with what he's saying, this is a double standard and clearly demonstrates that conner's law shows us that a fetus is a human being, buuut, if you want to kill it in a controlled medical setting thats fine.

I agree with what you said about having abortions in a medical setting, I would rather see them in there then in the back of an alley.
I don't condone abortions unless the reason is dire, but I wouldn't impose upon another person to make that decision.



That's a pretty narrow-minded and judgemental statement. You know the exact circumstances of every rape or incest victim then? No, you don't.


Like I said in my other post on another thread about this subject.
You have 72 hrs/3 days to get the morning after pill, incest, rape, whatever, if you know you've been violated, go get yourself checked out for std's and take the morning after pill just in case. I've done it after i've had sex without protection, why wait?


That's why I think they are scummy, not a scummy person, but a scummy thing to do to the child. They have options and they don't act sooner, if they did, abortion wouldn't even be an option.
and I do understand, and hopefully you will understand my point as well.



In an ideal world, people wouldn't have sex unless they were ready to face the possibility of pregnancy.
Sadly, it ain't an ideal world.


No it isn't, and as our children grow up in an x rated society, the lessons on this subject should be advanced, this topic shouldn't be hushed up in the classrooms or in homes, the kids need to know even if they think they know it all, I don't care, you still sit them down and bang it into their head until they get a full understanding of the consequences of sex.

I like that baby doll idea home ec classes provide wher eyou have to take care of a baby that cries and poops all day long... It really is a stressful situation for any teen. We need more lessons like this.





[edit on 16-9-2005 by TrueLies]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I understand what you're saying, TL


I just don't really agree with the carte blanche judgement applied in the case of rape and incest; these are incredibly traumatic events, and sometimes it's just not plausible (or indeed, possible) for a victim to get urgent medical attention.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
What I find boggling and hypocritical is that

those who support abortion also support the fetus law.


Not me. That was terrible and purely emotive reactionary legislation as it was at least initially framed. I lost track of the debate and didn't follow the outcome, but when it was proposed as this blanket 'extra time for feticide' BS it was just wrong. If however, we want to consider intent including foreknowledge of pregnancy and the motive was to murder the baby too (as in the Peterson case), fine. That's okay. Still a bit shady, but okay. The only reason I'm for that though is people could technically carve a baby out of a woman's stomach in the street and be charged with simple assualt if she wasn't killed or intended lethal harm. So if it gets around the Caligula loophole, it's okay.

Practical law is just fine by me. Ideological is just wrong.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
What I find boggling and hypocritical is that those who support abortion also support the fetus law.


RANT got to it before I did, but I don't support the 'Laci and Conner's Law' either. It's one or the other. At the time this law was enacted, I disagreed with it for this very reason. So while some pro-choice people support it, I definitely do not.

I recognized it for what it was at the time. An effort to categorize the fetus as a 'life' to push the anti-abortion agenda.

There is the questionable issue of the intent to kill the 'potential' child as well as the mother, especially when the mother fully intended to bear the child and there is a potential life in there, but I think it's too easy to use this as a precedent to outlaw abortion, so I'd rather stay out of it completely.


Originally posted by kenshiro2012
BH,
Nice,
From the entire portion that you edited


kenshiro - you said I edited that source. I only removed the word 'bullet' and replaced it with a dash (-). No word editing was done.

Oh, and my niece died from an infection after a C-section, leaving the 4-day-old baby girl with her 21-year-old father. So, don't even talk to me about the advantages of the C-section method over a vaginal delivery. If you want to have your stomach cut open, go for it, but again, if there is an option, I think it should be the woman's choice on how the medical procedure is performed. The fetus will still be dead either way.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
The day a fetus is given the rights of a human born and breathing with an identity over the woman's womb and rights as a human being.

The woman will lose the control over her body and will be given to the courts and her unborn fetus to manage her live.

Women will become incubators by law.

That is why laws will pass to make somebody responsible for the death of a woman and her unborn fetus but when it comes with the choices of women over her womb and what she wants or not about the unborn fetus growing inside her is a very touchy subject.

Even if a woman is against abortion I don't imagine that she will ever agree to give her rights over her body to the courts including her womb because they know what is best for her.

Is a very touchy element of who's rights are before who's, the mother's or the unborn fetus?

Who was first the chicken or the egg.


[edit on 16-9-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
BH,
sorry to hear about your lose

Unfortunately, though the c-section in of it's self would not be the only source for an infection. The infection could have been from anything up to and including the very trip to the hospital.

The editing that I noted, was due to the parts that were being left out of your arguments that negated your stance. As you can see by the post that I did above that included all of the information, it is plain that the assumption that the fetus is dead prior to the D&E was not entirely correct. The death of the fetus is only mentioned as one of the reasons that the D&E procedure could be used in the 3rd trimester.
I also pointed out that even the medical community have stated that even back in 1997, there is little to no excuse for use of this procedure.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
The infection could have been from anything up to and including the very trip to the hospital.


The infection was a staph infection in the Cesarean incision. Please don't argue with me about the reason my neice died. Thanks.



As you can see by the post that I did above that included all of the information, it is plain that the assumption that the fetus is dead prior to the D&E was not entirely correct.


I made no such assumption.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The reason the hole is poked (many times into a dead fetus...


Many times, not all the time.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I recognized it for what it was at the time. An effort to categorize the fetus as a 'life' to push the anti-abortion agenda.


Whether you want to admit it or not, a fetus is a life, it's a growing life, just like turtles who lay eggs, the reproductive organ within a woman's body is made for just that, to create life.

My point has nothing to do with ideology, it is what it is, it appears that those who don't want to admit it is life, are the ones with an ideology.

All of us were once fetus' it is where we all stem from, before the fetus we were all zygotes, just because we can't put a face to these beings doesn't mean they aren't humans. A human being who has sex with another human being, will make another human being. While in the womb, this being is developing drastically, aborting the development of the being to kill it off isn't murder?

Partial Birth abortion is used after 20 weeks (4.5 months) of pregnancy – often to six months, seven months or even later.

By this time the devloping human is actually in human form, see:










This is murder, it doesn't matter who is doing the murdering, it is what it is, and michigan my home state lifted the ban on this heinous crime.

ps: It's a baby ... not a fetus.



[edit on 16-9-2005 by TrueLies]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join