pro-choice - partial birth abortion?

Question

if you are someone who supports abortion rights for women, do you support partial birth abortion? how, without feeling guilty?

there must be some limit, right?

so if the frequency is low, we should ignore it?

zero- I didn't know the techical term, but doesn't really change anything, does it? how many responses do you think I'd get using the technical term in my question?

elliot - who measures 'self-awareness?' that is a very scary standard, in my opinion.

'viable', and 'self-sustaining'? So at two years old, is the child 'self-sustaining'?

Labgrl - "in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Fitzsimmons said." (The New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997)
Ron Fitzsimmons -- who at the time of his comment to the NY Times was the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.

zero - thanks for the feedback. but does the technical term change anything?

Answer 1

I Agree with you it is a horrible procedure... and those of you who are spouting off about shrill anti- abortion stuff.
Why don't you start with educating yourself about just exactly what the procedure involves.

Here it is if your to lazy to look it up:

The "abortion" consists ( please,don't read further if you are unable to read a horrible description)
Preliminary procedures are performed over a period of 2–3 days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a suction curette.[15] All this is done without an anestestia for the baby.


Then for your further edification look up just what a late second or early third trimester baby looks like and how it capable of living outside of the womb.

To see pictures of a baby in the end of the second and beginning of the third go to this :

www.emmasdiary.co.uk/.../image...

http://pregnancysymptoms.biz/wp-content/...




THIS isn't an abortion - this is murder plain and simple

I'm pro- Choice not pro murder

Answer 2

I do believe that it should be a woman's choice... And I only agree with abortions during the early pregnancy..say 8 to 10 wks.. I can not see anyone waiting longer than that.. A woman should know whether she wants to continue the pregnancy by that time in most cases... There is no good reason for a woman who is not capable of taking care of a child, or doesn't want a child, or someone who is pregnant as a result of a rape or incest to continue the pregnancy...
There are way too many children in this world now that are not cared for properly...
Too me..abortion is not murder until the fetus is viable and self-life sustaining,
I do not believe in partial birth abortions...that is cruel... Just because abortion is legal doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some kind of limits...

Answer 3

Wow...Um...well I've just read the answers and I have to say, that I hope "Joa5" isn't a mother, or even a pet owner for that matter. Anyone with that kind of sick, twisted logic shouldn't be left in charge of anything that breathes. How sick are you, Joa5, to think its perfectly acceptable for someone to take a baby, with wiggling fingers and toes, who can CLEARLY feel pain, and stab him or her in the back of the head, and suck the brains out? I dare you to watch one of these procedures being done and see if you still feel that way..and if you still have the same views, then you truly are a heartless human being.

I recently read a story about a woman who was extremely pro choice. She was in the room when a partial birth abortion was about to be performed, and she didn't really think anything of it, until the doctor stabbed the baby in the back of the head with a pair of scissors. She watched, in horror, as the "fetus" clenched his little hands in pain. The woman who witnessed this first hand is pro life now. It makes me sick to think people like Joa5 have no feelings towards innocent babies, whose only crime in life was being born to the wrong people, and for that, they get murdered. I also bet that people with her sick "if it hasnt taken a real breath yet, then its not human" attitude would be outraged, and horrified, if the same types of procedures were performed on puppies or kittens.

Its a sick world we live in when we can disregaurd human life so easily.

As I said in a different answer, if someone were to come along, just seconds after a baby was born, stab it in the back of the head and remove the brains, he'd be thrown in prison for life, have his face all over the media, and be branded a horrible heartless murderer, and hated by the entire world. If that same person put on a white coat and rubber gloves, and got to the baby just seconds before it was completely born, and did the same thing, it'd be dubbed a "medical procedure" and nobody would give it a second thought.

Also, by those same standards, everyone on life support should be pulled off, and left to die. Why? because they're not breathing on their own, and according to Joa5's logic, if someone isn't taking their own breaths, they're not human. Lets just hope that if any of us need to be on life support, our main care takers dont have her same logic, or we're in big trouble.


Be glad your mothers didn't feel this way.

Answer 4

I don't 'support' abortion, I think it's an easily avoidable drain on medical resources. But since self-awareness doesn't develop until some time after birth, there is no logical reason why a partial birth abortion is any more immoral. The only difference is the appearance of the procedure, which is a purely emotional factor.

Answer 5

Before you all go rushing to give me a thumbs down, let me first state I personally could NEVER undergo an abortion. The very idea of it was horrifying to me when carrying both my boys.

BUT..there are extreme cases where to force a woman or girl to go ahead with a pregnancy even in the second or third trimester, is just as morally or ethically wrong as the abortion would be.
I'm not talkng about physical medical reasons, if the womans in medically physical danger there is already a loophole in place to still allow the 'partial abortion' in this case.

What about the case of a raped woman or very young girl? Haps one who was unable to get outside help any earlier, already suffering form the truma of the rape, very very fragle and maybe not one strong enough to get past the rape in her future and move on....and now not even allowed to abort the result?
Is it fair to force her to continue till birth?

Yes you can say, she can have the baby adopted etc, but is it morally or ethically right, to force that girl or woman to live the rest of her life with a living reminder of what she went through?
Yes some survivors of rape will always have reminders of it, and yes you can say even if she aborted she would have this reminder, and by going ahead with the pregnancy and having the child adopted, she's saving the baby and herself.
But the living reminder, the childs very living exsistence, may be a lot more damaging to the womans or girls emotional balance.

You can argue that at least the baby will be loved if it was adopted, but the real issue here, is ethics.
Is it ETHICALLY right to make even one person suffer to save the baby?
What if that baby grew up and somehow found out they were the result of rape? How on earth are the children suppose to cope with that knowledge. It would take some VERY strong parenting to ensure the child itself did not mentally suffer from it.

Ethics..not feelings. for both the child and the mother matter.
Is it ethically or morally right to possibly emotionally damage BOTH the mother and child?

While I could not abort if it was me, I'm horrifed someone else is not given that choice.

Answer 6

Yes, the absolute limit is when the foetus becomes viable, that is self-supporting. In practice the cut-off should be way before that - beyond 8-10 weeks is pushing it as far as I've been able to find out.

I can't imagine anyone is actually "pro" partial birth abortion.

Answer 7

Your question means that abortion is a "all or no longer something" concern, which for sure may be irrational. (your question.. no longer you). life does no longer artwork like that. of direction it relatively is thoroughly obtainable to be "professional decision" AND anti "partial beginning" abortion. clarification.. the legality of abortion has been ruled on by using the very suitable court docket. this skill that the form protects the suitable of a female to verify HER definition. you have the anti abortion persons who define abortion as homicide, yet that's a private view and not the criminal definition. Do I help or sell abortion? No. I help the regulation and the authority of the very suitable court docket. i do no longer impose my view on others. The partial beginning hysteria comes right down to an tried distortion against Obama. in case you do your homework.. the state of Illinois already had regulations bearing directly to this concern, whilst somebody tried to pass new law that could have been in conflict with the unique regulation, and introduced approximately disputes over the reason. questioning from a legislative view.. it relatively is organic stupidity to have 2 regulations on the comparable subject count number, whilst those regulations might carry approximately court docket disputes. it is the reason HE VOTED against the 2d proposed regulation. no longer through fact he promotes "partial beginning abortion" or letting babies die. NO physician might enable this variety of element to ensue. a new child born alive might get medical care. Please be careful of information superhighway sites who provide fake concepts, and attempt to manage your questioning.

Answer 8

I believe that we should end "partial-birth" abortion.

I believe that the best ways to do that would involve ending religious control of sexuality, including all of the efforts to make birth control and sex education difficult (and for many, impossible), and the efforts to ban early term abortions.

Were it not for the anti-abortion movement's ridiculous insistence that "it's a human being from conception", we could have ended late-term abortion a long time ago. The blame for late-term abortion lies squarely on the anti-abortionists' doorstep.

So here's my response: If you are someone who insists that a fertilized egg is a human being, how do you reconcile that with your abhorrence for "partial-birth" abortion? Are you willing to take responsibility for your actions, and accept that your belief is why we still have an abortion problem?

Answer 9

You mean an IDX? Because "partial birth abortion" is NOT the technical term.

*edit* I've already got about as many responses as you did.

Answer 10

I've always been against the partial birth abortion even though I'm generally anti-abortion, pro-choice.

_()_