Gotta admit... Dixie was right.

Darla said:
But it doesn't carry an exemption for the health of the mother Jarod. It can't. Because these kinds of terminations do not take place out of "choice". They take place during wanted pregnancies that have gone horribly wrong. Already, it is more and more difficult for a grieving woman to rid her body of a dead fetus that is poisoning her body as well as her mental health. Not because it's banned, but because the political and societal pressures exterted by a bunch of fanatics who play doctor on message boards and in activist groups, have led to fewer and fewer doctors willing to perform this procedure, and fewer and fewer med students being trained in how to perform this medical procedure.

Since this procedure, rare to begin with, is used to protect the health of the mother, how could they exempt it? They can't. The mythological women who was too stupid or too lazy or too confused to terminate her unwanted pregancy in the first trimester does not statistically exist. This is a medical decision made by doctors, when they are faced with a patient, who was a thrilled mother to be, but who is now in medical and/or mental danger due to catastrophic and unforseen events completely beyond her control.

There is no need to worry that "someday" the government "might" use this to make medical decisions for you. They have already made medical decisions for more than half of this population.
Click to expand...



Under the claim that they are for smaller government...!
 
Well, I am really upset about this decision after reading this woman's opinion below...

I am also listening to the Supreme court case now on C-SPAN and dear God, thw whole world has been deceived on this and Darla is RIGHT in her assessment on this issue.

I am very disturbed that the TRUE MEDICAL INFORMATION on the procedure was not given to all of us and

MOST IMPORTANTLY

We were not told that this procedure is only used by women that WANTED their babies but due to abnormalities that came about it is NECESSARY for her to abort the child....

AND

That NOT ONE LESS ABORTION WILL TAKE PLACE.....NOT ONE....that our government is now telling the woman that she MUST kill her beloved baby to be.... via DISMEMBERMENT inside her womb, which gives this woman WHO WANTED HER BABY, but had complications, only one procedure for the demise of her child....

NOT LEAVING IT UP TO THE WOMAN OF WHICH PROCEDURE to choose for the demise of her child...the DEMISE of her child WILL STILL OCCUR, but those of you that agree with this law, have raised the HEALTH RISK of this woman by forcing her to have her baby to be at 20-24 WKS, dismembered with his/her body only out of the womb feet first to the naval.

got that, out of the womb, feet first to the naval is allowed for this other procedure that you are FORCING HER TO DO, before they begin the dismemberment OF THE HEAD of the child to be that SHE LOVED.

well, F-YOU DIXIE...

F-YOU to the MEDIA for not giving us the full information on this issue and ALLOWING it to be politicized to the point where it can HURT and harm the health of the mother to be, by allowing dismemberment INSIDE THE WOMB to be her only option which can scar her uterus...and prevent her from having children in the future.

article below by some bitch dr.
 
Last edited:
Here's the commentary I spoke about...

Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Supreme Court declares women less intelligent than legislators

Ladies, we're offically second-class citizens. This according to the Supreme Court, which today found that it's constitutional for lawmakers (aka white men) to decide what kind of medical care we need. In short, the Court upheld the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban." Despite the fact that "partial birth abortion" is not a medically recognized term.

What is medically recognized:
- 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester.
- Intact dilation and extraction (also known as IDX, or sometimes just D&X) is used in approximately .17% of all abortions.
- It is probable (though definitive data do not exist) that the majority of IDX procedures are performed because of fetal abnormalities.
- IDX, because it delivers a fetus whole, creates less risk of uterine perforation from bone fragments than other forms of late-term abortion.
- IDX has less risk of infection than other forms of late-term abortion, because it takes less time and requires the insertion of fewer instruments into the uterus.
- IDX (like other late-term abortion procedures) can prevent a woman who has found that her fetus is dead or not viable from having to undergo labor and delivery of a dead fetus.
- IDX can allow women whose fetuses are not viable to view and hold their dead babies after delivery.
- Most IDX procedures are performed between 20-24 weeks gestation--that is, within the second trimester, and before fetal viability.
In cases where a fetus has severe hydrocephalus (water on the brain, which can cause a fetuses head to be grotesquely enlarged), the options to a woman may be IDX or a Cesarean section--that is, a three-day outpatient procedure or major surgery, with attendant potential complications.
- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists explicitly opposed the ban.
The law allows for IDX to be performed to save a woman's life--but not to save, say, her uterus. Because there are other surgical options for late-term abortions, it is highly unlikely that banning IDX will prevent a single abortion. It may, however, prevent some women from having the safest procedure for their particular circumstances.

What the court's decided, in essence, is that a woman's right to make her own medical decisions is less important than preventing legislators from getting an ooky feeling by thinking about fetal heads being punctured. Our safety is less important than their feelings.

Sources consulted:
Salon: "A Doctor's Right to Choose."
Library of Congress Congressional Research Services report 95-1101 SPR: "Abortion Procedures"
Suzanne Batchelor, "Abortion Procedures Ban Limits Endings for Doomed Pregnancies"
Planned Parenthood Federation of America: "PPA Opposes Abortion Ban Legislation"
Religious Tolerance.org: "D&X / PBA Procedures"
Wikipedia entry on Intact Dilation and Extraction
Wikipedia entry on hydrocephalus
Click to expand...
 
I read about this a couple of days ago. Nothing was gained by this decision except some political ends and much was lost.
 
The "right" wingers had to come up with some law restricting abortion in some way to keep political support. Never mind that the law is a mess...
 
uscitizen said:
I read about this a couple of days ago. Nothing was gained by this decision except some political ends and much was lost.
Click to expand...

Justice on this particular debate issue was NOT SERVED, this information that you just read and that I just read should have been out in the Public Arena and part of the discussion on it and precisely how Barbaric the procedure really was COMPARED to dismembering the head of the child to be in the mother's womb which seems much more dangerous to me for the health of the mother....

And it was never emphasized that this procedure was from women that WANTED to have their children, at least to me it was implied that it was just girls that decided to NOT WANT A BABY only in thier 7 month or something similar to that....

care
 
Care4all said:
Well, I am really upset about this decision after reading this woman's opinion below...

I am also listening to the Supreme court case now on C-SPAN and dear God, thw whole world has been deceived on this and Darla is RIGHT in her assessment on this issue.

I am very disturbed that the TRUE MEDICAL INFORMATION on the procedure was not given to all of us and

MOST IMPORTANTLY

We were not told that this procedure is only used by women that WANTED their babies but due to abnormalities that came about it is NECESSARY for her to abort the child....

AND

That NOT ONE LESS ABORTION WILL TAKE PLACE.....NOT ONE....that our government is now telling the woman that she MUST kill her beloved baby to be.... via DISMEMBERMENT inside her womb, which gives this woman WHO WANTED HER BABY, but had complications, only one procedure for the demise of her child....

NOT LEAVING IT UP TO THE WOMAN OF WHICH PROCEDURE to choose for the demise of her child...the DEMISE of her child WILL STILL OCCUR, but those of you that agree with this law, have raised the HEALTH RISK of this woman by forcing her to have her baby to be at 20-24 WKS, dismembered with his/her body only out of the womb feet first to the naval.

got that, out of the womb, feet first to the naval is allowed for this other procedure that you are FORCING HER TO DO, before they begin the dismemberment OF THE HEAD of the child to be that SHE LOVED.

well, F-YOU DIXIE...

F-YOU to the MEDIA for not giving us the full information on this issue and ALLOWING it to be politicized to the point where it can HURT and harm the health of the mother to be, by allowing dismemberment INSIDE THE WOMB to be her only option which can scar her uterus...and prevent her from having children in the future.

article below by some bitch dr.
Click to expand...


I tried to give you all this information but noone would listen to me!
 
Care4all said:
Justice on this particular debate issue was NOT SERVED, this information that you just read and that I just read should have been out in the Public Arena and part of the discussion on it and precisely how Barbaric the procedure really was COMPARED to dismembering the head of the child to be in the mother's womb which seems much more dangerous to me for the health of the mother....

And it was never emphasized that this procedure was from women that WANTED to have their children, at least to me it was implied that it was just girls that decided to NOT WANT A BABY only in thier 7 month or something similar to that....

care
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sorry Care. I can tell that you feel duped. Maybe when I address abortion of any kind, I do it too much from the feminist viewpoint, addressing the correlation between a woman's reproductive rights and her overall stance in society, historically speaking. Further, I have always tended to shy away from abortion threads on this board, because they're filled with men, and, rightly or wrongly, I have a knee-jerk reaction to men pontificating on the subject. I tried to ignore Dixie's post on this issue, because I can actually feel a stroke coming on when I read that ignorant shit.

The Democrats have not gotten this information out there because they're cowards and think that they lose votes by being known as the party of "baby-killers". They've gotten creamed on so-called "nuance" before, and apparently, explaining this procedure to the American people would be a "nuance" thing.

Today on Hardball, they discussed this issue. Howard Fineman did mention that the outlawing of this procedure would not prevent one abortion, and they would be performed using a different procedure. He said it made no difference. He shrugged. That's what our health is now; a shrug. Shrug it off. What difference does it make if a woman has her uterus destroyed and becomes barren because of a catastrophic pregnancy? Shrug. What difference does it make if she suffers complications from the more dangerous procedure and suffers damage to other internal organs? Shrug.

We are a society that operates only within the narrative created for us. No one in the MSM dare to leave that narrative. None of them know about this? Well, I'm willing to concede that Howard Fineman doesn't know, because he's no brainiac, but some of them do. They know. But they dance to the music that is already playing. Conform, or be cast out. That is our punditry class. Our political class...cowards. So who speaks for us? Well, we better.
 
Care4all said:
Well, I am really upset about this decision after reading this woman's opinion below...

I am also listening to the Supreme court case now on C-SPAN and dear God, thw whole world has been deceived on this and Darla is RIGHT in her assessment on this issue.

I am very disturbed that the TRUE MEDICAL INFORMATION on the procedure was not given to all of us and

MOST IMPORTANTLY

We were not told that this procedure is only used by women that WANTED their babies but due to abnormalities that came about it is NECESSARY for her to abort the child....

AND

That NOT ONE LESS ABORTION WILL TAKE PLACE.....NOT ONE....that our government is now telling the woman that she MUST kill her beloved baby to be.... via DISMEMBERMENT inside her womb, which gives this woman WHO WANTED HER BABY, but had complications, only one procedure for the demise of her child....

NOT LEAVING IT UP TO THE WOMAN OF WHICH PROCEDURE to choose for the demise of her child...the DEMISE of her child WILL STILL OCCUR, but those of you that agree with this law, have raised the HEALTH RISK of this woman by forcing her to have her baby to be at 20-24 WKS, dismembered with his/her body only out of the womb feet first to the naval.

got that, out of the womb, feet first to the naval is allowed for this other procedure that you are FORCING HER TO DO, before they begin the dismemberment OF THE HEAD of the child to be that SHE LOVED.

well, F-YOU DIXIE...

F-YOU to the MEDIA for not giving us the full information on this issue and ALLOWING it to be politicized to the point where it can HURT and harm the health of the mother to be, by allowing dismemberment INSIDE THE WOMB to be her only option which can scar her uterus...and prevent her from having children in the future.

article below by some bitch dr.
Click to expand...


Care, honestly you need to stop being shocked that rightwing politicians and activists will play phony games for political gain with their theocratic base. This is the modus operendi
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Some abortions occur because the mother wants the child, obviously.
Click to expand...
Some occur when the woman wants the child because of extenuating circumstances. Ignoring that such may exist to insist that all abortion should be illegal is very convenient, but it isn't reality.

The later the abortion the more the likelihood that such circumstances exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top