Why is the left wing supportive of partial birth abortion?

[toms]

Lets clear a few things up.

 

Late term abortions are only performed in very unusual circumstances, and only make up about 1.5% of abortions.

 

Partial Birth Abortions only make up a tiny percentage of those abortions. And are only used when there are felt to be good reasons for doing so.

 

If you believe that all liberals support partial birth abortion then you have either been fed a lot of biased propoganda, or ahve a very distorted view of what a diverse group of people are really like.

 

If they are going to perform a late term abortion anyway.. does it really matter if it is a partial birth abortion or another form of late term abortion? Both have identical results.

[Good Sir Knight]

Lets clear a few things up.

 

Late term abortions are only performed in very unusual circumstances, and only make up about 1.5% of abortions.

 

Partial Birth Abortions only make up a tiny percentage of those abortions. And are only used when there are felt to be good reasons for doing so.

 

If you believe that all liberals support partial birth abortion then you have either been fed a lot of biased propoganda, or ahve a very distorted view of what a diverse group of people are really like.

 

If they are going to perform a late term abortion anyway.. does it really matter if it is a partial birth abortion or another form of late term abortion? Both have identical results.

 

 

Oh you two. Please when you list facts like that Toms, I need some sources. Surely you know that if one person is MURDERED like this then it's a tragedy enough, is there safety in numbers for you?

 

Secondly both of you weren't able to come up with one single Democrat/Liberal in the United States that has spoken out against this.

 

Plenty of Senators have spoken out about those poor Gitmo detainees and I haven't seen any peace protesters rallying outside the abortion clinics.

 

You, personally may find it disgusting and so I guess you have some common sense. Though your focus is on the wrong place, just like others on the left.

 

Surely you have or would protest the war in Iraq, why wouldn't you do something about this?

 

It's a question and most liberals here have either beat around the bush or accused me of generalizing. I'm not, alot of liberals have some common sense on this issue so I'm just wondering why they feel more strongly about Gitmo detainees than children taken from life when they were about to experience it.

 

I'm simply asking for some examples. Oh and if you voted for Kerry, he voted against the partial birth act..so voting for Kerry was effectively a vote for partial birth abortion.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Surely you have or would protest the war in Iraq, why wouldn't you do something about this?

Partial-birth abortion, as far as I and toms understood it ("Late term abortions are only performed in very unusual circumstances"), is an emergency procedure only carried out when the mother's life is at risk. Would you rather that the mother went through with the birth of her kid knowing she risked dying from doing so (which'd probably kill the baby, too)?

 

I knew a school librarian in the US who nearly died giving birth to her third child. It didn't sound like too cozy a situation to be in before I heard that story, and it definetly does not sound like one now.

 

Operation Iraqi Freedom Failure, on the other hand, I'm against because it's based on lies, has cost the lives of over 100 000 people so far and ruined the lives of millions more (you know, the lucky liberated Iraqis), has a price tag that's reached into hundreds of billions of dollars, has caused anti-Americanism to reach new heights, and has created a new playground for terrorists to refine out their latest recruitment-and-terrorism methods.

 

It's not "relativism" to support abortion and not Guantanamo any more than it is to support Guantanamo and hate abortion. They're different things, with different factors applying to them.

[edlib]

...voting for Kerry was effectively a vote for partial birth abortion.

Err... so voting for a candidate means you automatically support each and every position that candidate supports and has ever supported (rather than, in my personal view on the last election, the more qualified and reasonable choice for the job... or perhaps in this particular instance: the lesser of 2 evils?)

 

So then, (assuming you supported Bush last time around): You have no issues with the idea of Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court, Dubai Ports World controlling our ports, or our President's views on immigration?

 

Just because you vote for and support a candidate doesn't necessarily mean you are with them 100% of the way, on each and every issue. Just that you believe that they will do the job better than the other guy.

[toms]

I still don't get what it is you want from me.. to be on a street corner campaigning against partial birth abortion? To NOT raise any other issues such as torture because I haven't raised this issue?

[Good Sir Knight]

Err... so voting for a candidate means you automatically support each and every position that candidate supports and has ever supported (rather than, in my personal view on the last election, the more qualified and reasonable choice for the job... or perhaps in this particular instance: the lesser of 2 evils?)

 

So then, (assuming you supported Bush last time around): You have no issues with the idea of Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court, Dubai Ports World controlling our ports, or our President's views on immigration?

 

Just because you vote for and support a candidate doesn't necessarily mean you are with them 100% of the way, on each and every issue. Just that you believe that they will do the job better than the other guy.

 

 

Name one Liberal that has denounced this vile component of our medical establishment.

 

Just name one, this issue really makes the left squirm.

 

Oh and Tom, I'd be more concerned about innocent children being murdered than a bunch of detainees in an American prison.

 

Heck I'd worry more about political prisoners in the hands of dictatorships, not the US.... but you know that already.

[toms]

You realise you really are acting like a fanatic on this issue. You don't even seem to be reading any responses.. just banging on with the same rhetoric that you have obviously picked up from some "entirely unbiased source".

 

Can i go with: Breaux (D-LA) ... or any of the other democrats who voted FOR the act banning it?

The Senate cleared the final version of the bill yesterday by a 64-34 vote, with 17 Democrats voting for it and three Republicans voting against it.

 

I admit i don't understand the weird american legal system, but as i understand it Partial Birth Abortion is illegal in the US, and has been for a short while now.

 

So what you are saying is "why are no liberals jumping up and down and condemning this practice that isn't practiced??"

My guess would be that there is no need to jump up and down to condemn something that is already condemned. There is only reason to jump up and down when you need to CHANGE things.

 

As for why people might be worried about it:

 

the legislation for "the first time in history bans a medical procedure without making any exception for the health of the woman. This is a radical, radical thing."

Miss Saporta said, "A federal ban on safe medical procedures endangers women's health. Medical decisions must be made by medical professionals — not politicians."

Opponents say the legislation is the first step toward banning all abortion.

Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, said, "I see where this is going: A couple of votes here or there in the next election, you can kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye."

 

Now you don't have to agree with those reasons, but they are valid reasons to oppose the bill if you do believe them.

 

Oh and Tom, I'd be more concerned about innocent children being murdered than a bunch of detainees in an American prison.

You might be more concerned about preventing doctors from carrying out a rare surgical procedue, in extreme cases, when they deem it necessary for the health of the mother, than watching the USA set an example of inhumane treatment, unlawful imprisonment without trial and torture of innocent children. I'm not.

Deal with it.

 

Heck I'd worry more about political prisoners in the hands of dictatorships, not the US.... but you know that already.

But how can I tell the dictatorships to stop imprisoning people without trial, in inhumane conditions and torturing them when they can just say "but the USA does it - so you have no grounds to criticise us"???

[edlib]

Name one Liberal that has denounced this vile component of our medical establishment.

Just name one, this issue really makes the left squirm.

Let me make sure I have this straight: So, in your view, we only have 2 choices on these types of issues: To either be actively denouncing and campaigning against it; or total, unconditional (albeit, in this case, tacit...) support. No degrees of moral ambiguity; no possible shades of grey...

 

Since I have never personally attended an anti-war rally, then that must mean (by that logic) that I completely support the War in Iraq. And,.. since I have never attended an anti-abortion rally, and have in the past supported left-wing candidates, then I'm a baby-hating monster.

 

Well, that was easy! While that actually makes my political position pretty difficult to pigeon-hole... that really clears things up for me, personally. Here I was, thinking the world is a complex, difficult-to-balance moral quagmire.

 

 

As soon as the Democrats (or even the Republicans for that matter...) offer up a reasonable, pro-choice candidate that has no problem doing away with this particular practice (without touching the rest,) but with whom I also see eye-to-eye with on all the other issues as well, then I'll vote for that person. In a heartbeat.

 

As of yet, however, (in my voting life to-date,) I haven't been offered those choices. Both sides play to the most extreme positions of thier base: total right-to-life right-wingers; or unrestricted pro-choicers.

 

I have found that I tend to match better with those that are the pro-choicers on the rest of the issues than those that identify themeselves as pro-lifers. This one issue just isn't a make-or-break-the-deal issue with me, I'm afraid.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Let me make sure I have this straight: So, in your view, we only have 2 choices on these types of issues: To either be actively denouncing and campaigning against it; or total, unconditional (albeit, in this case, tacit...) support. No degrees of moral ambiguity; no possible shades of grey...

Personally, I've got school to go to and I'm looking forward to join the Red Cross visitation service (my training course starts in November). I'm also active in a teen activity group (which is also run by the ICRC).

 

So even if I opposed partial-birth abortion, what the Heck was I supposed to do about it? I go to school (a 45-minute bus ride away), do homework, and volunteer for the Red Cross. I need things such as "spare time" and "sleep".

 

I agree that the world would be a better place if everyone who has the time did something for their community or for the ICRC, Human Rights Watch, etc., but to say that "if you're not fighting against something, you're for it or part of it" is to pull that principle out of proportion.

[toms]

Hmm, math was never my strong point but:

 

Partial birth abortion = now illegal.

Number of people who would have had partial brith abortion now having late term abotion instead = all of them.

Number of babies saved from murderous rampaging doctors and liberals = none.

 

Still, i'm sure all those babies being aborted inside the womb instead of outside the womb are grateful for all those politicians help.

[edlib]

Are there any statistics on how often these procedures are being used as sheer birth-control rather than life-saving procedures?

 

Seems to me that waiting until the last trimester to get an abortion, where the procedure carries almost all the same risks as giving birth is a pretty reckless and risky way to go about things. I can't logically imagine a lot of women who are aware they have unwanted, unplanned pregnancies waiting around that 5 or 6 months to get it taken care of.

[Jae Onasi]

Let me make sure I have this straight: So, in your view, we only have 2 choices on these types of issues: To either be actively denouncing and campaigning against it; or total, unconditional (albeit, in this case, tacit...) support. No degrees of moral ambiguity; no possible shades of grey...

 

 

I've had 2 kids. I work in the medical field and understand the procedure. You can't miss being pregnant after about 5 months--babies kick very nicely, thank you. The procedure itself is barbaric. I see no reason to do that procedure instead of just delivering the baby and putting the child up for adoption. There's no difference in the health risks to the mother.

 

A lot of us who are centrists can't stomach the procedure but also can't stomach the idea of just letting a mother flounder with the decision to carry a child to term when she's unwell, the baby's unwell, the baby's a product of rape/incest, and all those other arguments for allowing abortions late-term.

 

Third choice--how about finding reasonable ways to help encourage women to carry the child to term while banning this particular procedure? And not all of this has to be government help--charities could and should step in to take up some of the slack. Help with adopting out (with real legal protections for adoptive parents and making it much easier to adopt), help the mom with the baby, other alternatives I haven't thought of, etc. If we don't like this procedure, how do we identify what causes a woman to decide to do this, and how do we help address those problems/issues in an alternative way?

 

And in soapbox mode: Those of us who are opposed to this procedure should be putting our money where our mouths are and supporting pregnancy care centers (or other groups that help women and infants) by donating funds, materials (clothing, diapers, etc.), and/or time. I know people feel the need to organize and protest anything, and that sometimes it's the only way to get things done. However, I also think of how much time is wasted doing that instead of helping answer phones, talk to women, help out in whatever way at the pregnancy care centers. And, I'll get off the soapbox now....

[Emperor Devon]

I myself am completely for abortion. I think it should be the woman's choice if she wants to expel a several pound object from between her legs. Not only does not having the child help curb overpopulation, it also solves the problem of the woman not being able to pay for her time in the hospital, and the no doubt unpleasant process of giving birth.

[CapNColostomy]

Agreed. Also, charity for whoring it up is only not offensive to me because I find it laughable.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Because?

She needs money, diapers, baby-food, whatever, so let's give it to her. If we were to neglect every person who in some way did something we found to be "stupid", heck, all I can say is we'd save a lot of money and effort.

 

And isn't "whoring it up" a slightly vulgar term?

[toms]

I've had 2 kids. I work in the medical field and understand the procedure. You can't miss being pregnant after about 5 months--babies kick very nicely, thank you. The procedure itself is barbaric. I see no reason to do that procedure instead of just delivering the baby and putting the child up for adoption. There's no difference in the health risks to the mother.

 

But at 5 months babies aren't really viable. So its not a case of just poppong them out and hey presto, problem solved. Simply delivering all the fetuses at 20-24 weeks would be immesurably cruel. The majority would die.. but they'd suffer first. The mother would have to know that somewhere in the hostpital there was a slowly dying fetus. The whole idea seems designed to inflict as much cruelty and torture on the participants as possible.

 

Making the mother carry the baby to full term seems fairer.. though that WOULD have increased risks for the mother.. (not even talking into account the fact that anyone considering a late term abortion is likely to have complications anyways).

 

I (and most here by the sound of it) actually agree that medical science has advanced, and so viability occurs sooner now, and so maybe they should consider lowering the limit. But i don't see why they need a specific law for a specific procedure.

 

Lower the limit for all procedures, if that is what you feel is right, don't outlaw one procedure, but allow another that has the exact same result. That is simply a publicity stunt to gain votes.

 

NB: Late term abortions are those taking place between 20 weeks and 24 weeks. (plus i guess a few emergency ones at later times, but that is a different matter of extreme circumstance).

Only 1.4% of abortions are late term abrtions - because anyone who decides to have an abortion is likely to have it sooner rather than later. Of those only 15% are (were) partial birth abortions.

[edlib]

You can't miss being pregnant after about 5 months--babies kick very nicely, thank you. The procedure itself is barbaric. I see no reason to do that procedure instead of just delivering the baby and putting the child up for adoption. There's no difference in the health risks to the mother.

A lot of us who are centrists can't stomach the procedure but also can't stomach the idea of just letting a mother flounder with the decision to carry a child to term when she's unwell, the baby's unwell, the baby's a product of rape/incest, and all those other arguments for allowing abortions late-term.

I'm basically with you all the way on this one, Jae. I just really didn't care for the way G.S.K. had moved to frame the debate. No situation this morally and emotionally complex can ever be summed up in a dichotomy that simplistic.

 

In any situation other than emergency life-saving of the mother, I'm personally opposed to abortions near, at, or past the point of viability. This particular procedure seems unnecessary since there are so rare already, and there are others that work as well. (And actually, in the interest of full self-disclosure: I'm personally opposed to all abortions... but don't feel it's politically right for me to force my moral views on anyone else who may not share that viewpoint, so I remain steadfastly pro-choice. But that's a topic that's already been explored more fully in at least one other thread...)

 

But I also don't imagine many of these late-term procedures are being used out of sheer selfishness on the part of the mother, either. (As with the proverbial "I have to be able to fit into my prom dress..." account.)

I imagine that a decision to abort a pregnancy that late must be a truly agonizing decision for the mother, and devastating emotionally for everyone involved, and must be for very damn good reasons if it's deemed by a physician that it must happen.

 

So is singling out this one procedure and making it totally illegal in every possible situation the only way to go? I don't know... Seems like the world could get by with not having it. I cannot personally support the technique, so perhaps we are better off with it banned...

 

But since the outlawing this one procedure is clearly seen by many as a stepping-stone to restricting or banning all abortion choices, it's hard for me to get behind the elimination of it, politically.

 

And therein lies the dilemma for many of us...

 

I sometimes truly wish I could make myself see the world in the black-and-white moral choices I often find myself presented with... I really do.

[Jae Onasi]

I myself am completely for abortion. I think it should be the woman's choice if she wants to expel a several pound object from between her legs. Not only does not having the child help curb overpopulation, it also solves the problem of the woman not being able to pay for her time in the hospital, and the no doubt unpleasant process of giving birth.

 

Abortions are not pain free. They're done under anesthesia, and while most women go home the same day after that, some do not for a variety of reasons. They give women narcotic pain relievers after the procedure because the cramps are bad. Later term ones a woman's body is doing what it does for any birth, so there's no difference. She ends up in the hospital for a day or two either way.

 

This is one situation where medical science has thrown the whole abortion/right-to-life issue for a loop. Since we can now save babies born at 21 or 22 weeks (and yes, complications are much higher the earlier they're born), it seems really weird to allow partial-birth abortions through week 40. I'm suggesting alternatives should be explored more fully, especially after week 28 or so. I recognize that it's far more rare after about 20 weeks, but that's irrelevent.

 

Charity for screwing around? No, charity/help for those who decide carrying to term/giving the child up for adoption or deciding to raise the child is a better idea. a. People make mistakes. It only takes one time. Even the smartest and wisest make stupid mistakes sometimes. b. It takes 2 to tango. The guy's contributing to the 'whoring', isn't he? Shouldn't he either be more responsible for preventing it from happening in the first place or take more responsibility for putting the bun in the oven? But that's getting into another topic.... c. She may not have had a choice.

[Emperor Devon]

Abortions are not pain free.

 

True. But there always is chemical abortion.

 

Later term ones a woman's body is doing what it does for any birth, so there's no difference. She ends up in the hospital for a day or two either way.

 

Later term abortions do seem odd to me, since you'd think that the woman would go for the least painful type of abortion available, which is of course earlier rather than later. But we do live in a country that promises freedom and justice to all, so if women should be allowed to have abortions, they should be able to choose the date as well, even if it is a loopy one.

 

As someone who's had kids, Jae, you no doubt realize how unpleasant the process can be. Should something like that be subjected on a teenager? When I was in high school, a few girls got pregnant for incredibly stupid reasons, and chose to have abortions. Should a 15-year old have to go through labor and have a child? That's ten years too early at least.

[toms]

I think that Partial Birth Abortions take several days in hospital, because they have to give the woman drugs to artificially dilate her.. so it isn't simply a quick 5 minute procedure.

 

In truth I suspect that are are alternatives that can be subsitiuted. However I don't liek the way the anti-abortion radicals try to use it as some sort of weapon to demonise doctors and all abortions. I also don't think its right for the government to be stepping in and telling the doctors which procedures they should use in specific cases.

 

Doctors are on scene, they have the facts in each individual case, and their priority is the welfare of the mother. Politicians deal in black and white generalisations and popularity contests. Therefore if a doctor feels that a PBA is the best option for a particular case then i'd assume he has his reasons.

 

It seems to me to be a non-issue.. drummed up for publicity and votes. And a bad precedent for the government interfering in the doctor/patient relationship. So i'm not going to fight tooth and nail to defend the procedure, but i'm also not going to join in the witchhunt against it.

[Jae Onasi]

True. But there always is chemical abortion.

It doesn't matter the means of abortion--the uterus has to contract to expel the fetus and return to its normal pre-pregnancy size. Those contractions/cramps are what hurt.

 

 

As someone who's had kids, Jae, you no doubt realize how unpleasant the process can be. Should something like that be subjected on a teenger? When I was in high school, a few girls got pregnant for incredibly stupid reasons, and chose to have abortions. Should a 15-year old have to go through labor and have a child? That's ten years too early at least.

 

If she has a very late term abortion, she will experience labor--that's the only way, besides a c-section, that the baby's going to get out. The sole difference in this case is whether she births a live child or a dead one. She will have to go through contractions to dilate and push the baby out in either case.

 

Yes, birthing is messy. It's like running a marathon because it's long, it's hard work, and it's painful. Thank God for epidurals. However, when I got to see my babies' faces for the first time and then hold them, those days were some of the best days of my entire life.

[Emperor Devon]

It doesn't matter the means of abortion--the uterus has to contract to expel the fetus and return to its normal pre-pregnancy size. Those contractions/cramps are what hurt.

 

At very early stages, though, pills can be taken. Best to use those.

 

If she has a very late term abortion, she will experience labor--that's the only way, besides a c-section, that the baby's going to get out. The sole difference in this case is whether she births a live child or a dead one.

 

It would be quite repulsice to know you expelled a hunk of dead flesh from your body.

 

Yes, birthing is messy. It's like running a marathon because it's long, it's hard work, and it's painful.

 

I would imagine so. All the less reason to impose it on such young people.

 

However, when I got to see my babies' faces for the first time and then hold them, those days were some of the best days of my entire life.

 

Those girls had, like most other females, wanted to have children at some point in their lives. Having one years early and by accident and then giving it away (with their families being unable and unwilling to have another child) would surely diminish such a normally wonderful memory.

[Jae Onasi]

Those girls had, like most other females, wanted to have children at some point in their lives. Having one years early and by accident and then giving it away (with their families being unable and unwilling to have another child) would surely diminish such a normally wonderful memory.

 

I didn't say carry all of them to term, though I would prefer that option whenever possible. For purposes of this thread, I'm opposed to the very late term 'partial birth abortion' procedure.

 

With respect, you're making a value judgment on those girls' lives. You're assuming that having a baby and giving him/her up for adoption would be automatically bad for the girl. How do any of us know that for sure? Couldn't it be possible also that the girl realizes that giving her baby up for adoption will be a blessing to that family, and derive some happiness that way?

 

The 'pills'--the 'morning after pills' only work to prevent pregnancy. Once the pregnancy is started, terminating it results in the same symptoms as miscarriages or births.

[Emperor Devon]

With respect, you're making a value judgment on those girls' lives. You're assuming that having a baby and giving him/her up for adoption would be automatically bad for the girl. How do any of us know that for sure? Couldn't it be possible also that the girl realizes that giving her baby up for adoption will be a blessing to that family, and derive some happiness that way?

 

After carrying children inside themselves for nine months and going through labor, I imagine those girls were very curious as to what happened to the children they gave away. After giving birth to a child, I imagine no one could simply give it up and forget the matter. Wouldn't you speculate to the fate of a human you gave life to and then sent off to who knows where? It doesn't strike me as something easy.

 

Most adults would derive pleasure from knowing they'd just given a childless couple (or person) a baby, but since their levels of wisdom and intellect rivaled those of 13-year olds, I don't think that realization would be as gratifying to them as it would be to other people.