what do you think about partial birth abortion?

Answer 1

SICK DISCUSTING LIBERAL MURDER

Answer 2

It is awful!!!!!! If a woman so chooses to have an abortion, then she needs to decide within the first trimester. I am not saying that it is any better, but when they do the partial birth abortions, the baby has a chance to survive, so why not just put it up for adoption. The process is horrifying! Since the baby has a good chance of surviving at the 6th month, I personally believe it should be considered murder.

Answer 3

I'm against abortion of all types, but that's just me. As for the guy that said it made no sense to him, partial bith abortion is when a baby is already developed but still growing. The baby is then flipped over inside the womb so it comes out feet first, when the head is about to come out, they stop it and stick a needle into the back of the head. I'll leave it there, it get's even more graphic.

Answer 4

I don't know of any doctor who does abortions after
9 - 12 weeks, so to make a ridiculous law for something
that very rarely happens, is just some men showing their
dominance over women.
After all, there wasn't one signature from a woman
on this bill.

This issue really has no business being in government.
This should be a personal choice, according to one's beliefs.

Answer 5

does a single person who has answered this question know how many of these are performed a year - i really wonder.

it's my understanding that this procedure is performed perhaps 10 times a year in the entire nation only when the life of the mother is in danger.

this sort of puts a different spin on the true motivations of the meaning of pro-life.

these late term abortions are almost always done in order to save the life of the mother.

lets face it, the last people in the world who should be making this decision are the depraved a**holes in our govt...

Answer 6

I think it is a term that was made up to convince people with little or no background on the subject (like a good majority of the posters on here) to ban something that is done very rarely and only done in cases where the mother is going to DIE!

Did you hear that you "Abortion is always murder" blabbermouths? only if the mother will DIE! so in your zealous effort to "SAVE THE BAYBEEEEEZ!" you are ending two lives instead of just allowing doctors to do their jobs and save women's lives. But of course, in the presence of a fetus, the mother is nothing more than an incubator to you so this shouldn't surprise me.

Answer 7

As any doctor or lawyer will tell you, there is no such medical or legal term as "partial birth abortion".

That is a term made up by the Prolife extremists/terrorists.

Think about the words:

"partial birth".......... abortion.
What does "partial birth" even mean?
Describe a "partial birth"?
It makes no sense to me; partial birth?
I don't get it.

Answer 8

What did abortion cases say about partial birth abortion?

The following is excerpts from Stenberg v. Carhart...

Ok, let's call it D & E, or D & X, like they did in Roe v. Wade.

The following is testimony from the United States Supreme Court Case of Stenberg v. Carhart. The person testifying is Dr. Carhart, he is being questioned about the procedures of D&E and D&X abortions:


"Dr. Carhart: ‘The dismemberment occurs between the traction of … my instrument and the counter-traction of the internal os of the cervix … .

"Counsel: ‘So the dismemberment occurs after you pulled a part of the fetus through the cervix, is that correct?

"Dr. Carhart: ‘Exactly. Because you’re using-The cervix has two strictures or two rings, the internal os and the external os … that’s what’s actually doing the dismembering…

"Counsel: ‘When we talked before or talked before about a D&E, that is not-where there is not intention to do it intact, do you, in that situation, dismember the fetus in utero first, then remove portions?

"Dr. Carhart: ‘I don’t think so. … I don’t know of any way that one could go in and intentionally dismember the fetus in the uterus. … It takes something that restricts the motion of the fetus against what you’re doing before you’re going to get dismemberment.’ "



During the trial Dr. Carhart and Dr. Stubblefield described a variation of the D&E abortion procedure, which was referred to as "intact D&E." It begins like most other D&E abortions, but instead of dismemberment, it involves removing the fetus from the uterus through the cervix "intact," in one pass, rather than in several passes. It is used after sixteen weeks at the earliest, as vacuum aspiration becomes ineffective and the fetal skull becomes too large to pass through the cervix. This abortion procedure proceeds in one of two ways, depending on the presentation of the fetus. If the fetus presents itself head first, known as a vertex presentation, the doctor collapses the skull; if the fetus presents feet first, known as a breech position, the doctor pulls the fetal body through the cervix, collapses the skull, and then extracts the fetus, this is commonly known as D&X, or dilation and extraction abortion Another description of D&X abortion was described by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and describes the D&X procedure in a manner corresponding to a breech-conversion intact D&E, including the following steps:


-1. deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days;
-2. instrumental conversion of the fetus to a footling breech;
-3. breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and
-4. partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a living fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus.



Despite the technical differences we have just described, intact D&E and D&X are sufficiently similar for us to use the terms interchangeably.

And then this from the famed Roe v. Wade...

"Our Law Should Not Be That Rigid."


A truly bold statement. One put forth by Justice Harry Blackmun on the issue of pregnancy and abortion and their acceptance into the halls of justice of the United States Supreme Court as a matter of being justiciable, yet "evading review" because of it's shortness in time. But what or who sets rigidity in our laws? Is it the President, the Congress, the Courts, the mood of the Country, how we feel from day to day as a Nation? I would think not. "Our law should not be that rigid." Where should our laws remain rigid, and where should they become flexible? That is almost an oxymoron, because laws are passed to mean exactly what they say, otherwise why write them? With the aspect and theories of a human court influencing their opinion and interpretation, and reading into the law what they want it to say, instead of reading from the wording of the law what the law is actually saying, our laws become fluid, and our governance unstable. If the letter of the law is not adhered to, virtually everything, every right is laid on the table and open for re-interpretation. Take the First and Second Amendments, which one provides for flexibility, which one remains, and becomes even more rigid as time goes by?
This brings up another subject that reared it's head in argument in Roe v. Wade, that is the one of what constitutes a "person" by definition of the Constitution of these United States. This argument has legitimate concerns, but for those who would view the First Amendment as an all inclusive article to include and protect anything and everything from actual speech to certain physical actions that require no speech or freedom of the press at all is almost clearly a blatantly defined approach to further one's own legislative agenda to liberalize society without societal input.


"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment. The appellant concluded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."
(Section IX, Roe v. Wade)


The Court is pointing out here that if "personhood" of the unborn is ever established, the abortion case would fall apart because the unborn would be protected by the Constitution. They go on to say that "no court case could be cited that held anyone liable for the death of a fetus or that gave the fetus the same rights as a "live" person as granted by the Fourteenth Amendment." But there are cases that have been held since then that has held criminals liable for the death of a fetus, because of the "possibility" of life. Even when that possibility was only a one or two percent chance in one hundred. Almost 25 states have laws permitting some kind of prosecution for the death of the unborn.

Answer 9

Ah, another good question.

Few things:

Partial birth abortion is a made up term by the religious right.

It's actually called 'dilation and evacuation'. We don't have different names for different medical procedures, so this one shouldn't be any different.

It is not used as birth control. It is most often performed in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters when the mother is at risk of death or losing the ability to have children.

This ban puts women at risk for a variety of complications up to and including death.

Not surprising, it looks like people know very little about this outside of accusing people of murder.

I'd suggest to all of you that you look up "dilation and evacuation" before you form an opinion.

If you don't know both sides, your opinion is uneducated at best.

Answer 10

They deliver the baby feet first without delivering the head and stick a scissor-like instrument into the back of the neck, suction out the brain, collapse the skull and finish delivery, hence the name...the baby can feel pain and is almost entirely delivered...this doesn't take much brainpower...babies have rights too, just because they are dependent on their mothers doesn't degrade their rights...

Answer 11

Political smokescreen defined into existance for the sole purpose of being outlawed.