IDIOT STATEMENT: If you dont want to make it illegal, you support and condone it!

"Driving on the wrong side of the freeway is clearly dangerous to your health and life, and regardless of the situation, there are safer alternatives that can be taken. "

True. A very good analogy. Because 99.9% of the time there are safer alternatives. But in EMERGENCY situations... driving on the wrong side may be necessary and deemed the less risky move. Which is why in a time of crisis, fire trucks, police and other rescue workers will drive on the wrong side of the road... and the discretion of when to do so is left up to them.
 
Dixie said:
Super, the AMA maintains a level of professionalism, and avoids getting entangled in political debate. This is a highly-charged political issue, of which they have no interest in becoming the center of. They carefully chose the words they chose, to avoid becoming part of the controversy... they copped out... they should be expected to on highly-charged political issues! This is not unusual, this is perfectly reasonable, given the nature of the issue at hand. They are not about to release a statement of absolute condemnation, unless there is a complete consensus across the political spectrum... In other words, on an issue like 'smoking', they may issue such a statement, it is widely accepted that smoking is bad, and not a political hot-button issue.

Partial birth is a procedure. It is not the only procedure available for aborting a late-term fetus. There are other ways to perform abortions, and all of them are substantially less risky to the health and life of the mother. This is why the procedure is NEVER required for the health or life of the mother, because there are alternative procedures which would ALWAYS be used, if the life or health were an issue.

I agree, at first blush it's easy for a layman to assume that this procedure might be needed at some point to save the mother's life, but that is just not factually accurate, and the medical community has said as much. If the mother's life or health were in jeopardy, an emergency C-section would be less risky than partial birth, and a better medical alternative for the health of the patient. Allowing a 'health/life exemption' for partial birth, is equivalent to saying... you can't drive on the wrong side of the freeway, unless it's a matter of urgency. The risk associated with such an action is far greater than any alternative, and the reasoning is seriously flawed. Driving on the wrong side of the freeway is clearly dangerous to your health and life, and regardless of the situation, there are safer alternatives that can be taken.

I'll be happy to go try and find statements from doctors, if that will satisfy you here, but I think the text I posted is fairly truthful and accurate, or it wouldn't have been included in the bill passed by Congress.
Click to expand...


When did Dixie get his M.D.?

Dixie has made errouious bold face statements on this cite consistantly for years. 9 times out of 10 when you ask him to back them up he cant. He will ususally provide some wording that does not say what he claims, but say, well if you interperate it, it does say what I said.....
 
super...where do you stand on rape and incest, regarding this issue? illegal for them to abort also?

where do you stand on a 10 yr old getting an abortion...there was a case not too long ago with a 10 year old that was raped by her older brother and got pregnant?
 
"super...where do you stand on rape and incest, regarding this issue? illegal for them to abort also?"

"where do you stand on a 10 yr old getting an abortion...there was a case not too long ago with a 10 year old that was raped by her older brother and got pregnant?"

Care... so now you are going to change the subject to the extreme cases and the ones that are rare relative to the number of abortions? Admit you mis-quoted me and mis-represented what I said and then we can continue.
 
i don't believe i misquoted you anywhere on this thread...i didn't use your quotes.... or twist them, i interpreted them to mean that at some point, if it were a life or death manner, that you have chosen to allow the death of the unborn over the death of the mother, if the mother chooses to save herself under those conditions.

so, you most certainly made a decision where the life and will of the mother is of greater importance than the life of the unborn.

and, though rape is less than 1% of the cases, you have chosen to allow the unborn to be terminated in this case also....which also makes the baby of lesser value than that of the mother's....even if this does occur seldom.

this is a little confusing, it is almost as though you want to punish the women that has had sex by forcing her to have the product of her mistake, while the unborn's life can be terminated if the woman was not at fault for having sex.... this is kind of sadistic...no?

the unborn can not be killed if the woman enjoyed the sex but it can be killed if the woman was forced to have sex?

here is an old post of yours....

"Super a man will never be forced to carry to term against their will because they felt horny and banged someone. "

I understand that Desh. But if a man gets horny and bangs someone (as you put it) and the woman gets pregnant and does not have an abortion, then the man is forced to take responsibility for his actions and support the child.

With the exception of rape, a man and woman CHOOSE to have sex (knowing that sex can result in pregnancy) and they CHOOSE whether to use birth control or not (knowing that they are not 100% effective). If you become pregnant after that, then you should accept responsibility for your actions. Again, just my opinion as I obviously believe that an unborn child should be afforded basic human rights.
Click to expand...

I know you did not say it was okay that terminating the pregnancy of someone raped is surely implied.

All I am saying is that EVERYONE has their own opinion of when a fetus can be terminated...for you, it is when a mother's life may be in danger, and maybe if she is raped....?

care
 
Last edited:
Care....

you misrepresented what I said with this..... (which you said several times)

"but the Fact of the matter is, you have chosen a point, in the life of the unborn, where the unborn has less worth than the living mother...YOU can dance around that ALL you want."

That is NOT what I said. I said very clearly that they two are equal. In the case where one of the two will die then someone has to make a decision. That does not make the two lives or their rights any less equal.

But if you are not going to acknowledge that, then we are done.
 
Read it again Care....

"Ok care, try to follow along. AT NO TIME ARE THEIR LIVES of any less importance. None. At no time does the mothers life automatically supercede that of the unborn child. HOWEVER, and do try to pay attention this time. IF it is a situation where one must die... SOMEONE has to make a decision on who to save. The unborn child cannot speak, thus the child cannot be the one to make the decision. The physician can tell the woman his/her medical opinion, but cannot make the decision FOR the woman and child. So who else to make the decision? Unless the mother is also unable to make the decision, then it should be her decision. That doesn't mean she should automatically choose herself. Bottom line, if the situation is one or the other, someone has to choose which to save. That does not mean they are unequal or that one is of lesser value than the other. It simply means a decision is required. That is it."

How the hell do you get from the above that the two lives are unequal or that I am giving preference to the woman over the child?
 
"this is a little confusing, it is almost as though you want to punish the women that has had sex by forcing her to have the product of her mistake, while the unborn's life can be terminated if the woman was not at fault for having sex.... this is kind of sadistic...no?"

This makes no sense at all. How the fuck did you derive THAT from what I said? Never mind. You are clearly using selective reading glasses.
 
Superfreak said:
"Driving on the wrong side of the freeway is clearly dangerous to your health and life, and regardless of the situation, there are safer alternatives that can be taken. "

True. A very good analogy. Because 99.9% of the time there are safer alternatives. But in EMERGENCY situations... driving on the wrong side may be necessary and deemed the less risky move. Which is why in a time of crisis, fire trucks, police and other rescue workers will drive on the wrong side of the road... and the discretion of when to do so is left up to them.
Click to expand...

No, I am sorry, but it is never "safer" to drive on the wrong side of the freeway. The fact that it is an emergency is irrelevant to the safety of such action. Read carefully, I didn't say "road" in my example, I said "freeway" as in a 'controlled access highway', where you can't simply move back over to the right side if cars are coming. We would not allow firemen and police to drive up the wrong side of the freeway, it's inherently more dangerous than any number of other alternatives. My example was an example, it isn't intended to pick apart and find flaw with, it is given to demonstrate a point, and if you just want to intentionally disregard the point I was trying to make with the example, just throw it out and forget it, I assumed you were objective and not a pinhead, my bad.
 
To act as though passing Congress somehow makes it truthful and accurate is extremely funny.

I didn't "act as though" I presented the actual text of the bill. This said clearly that compelling and overwhelming evidence had been considered. I didn't assume it said that, I didn't read that into it, I didn't parse the words, it clearly says what it says, and I trust that it's accurate or it wouldn't have ever passed committee, much less been included in the text of the bill.
 
And Super? When I find and post the testimony from doctors before congress, what will you have to say then? Will you agree with me, or will you pinheadedly claim that these handful of doctors don't count? Just because they said it, doesn't make it so! Is that going to be your angle? Because I really have no desire to go look it all up and post it, if you are just going to dismiss it and try to continue insisting you are right.

I've about had it with you. What you are doing here is no different than the rest of the pinhead idiot liberals here, who are void of intellectual honesty. You are stubbornly trying to maintain your argument by repudiating anything that disagrees with your wrongheaded views, and not even trying to be objective.
 
"We would not allow firemen and police to drive up the wrong side of the freeway, it's inherently more dangerous than any number of other alternatives. "

Actually, they do have that ability and that discretion. If it is quicker to get to a wreck on the southbound by driving up an exit ramp and driving the wrong way on the interstate they will certainly do so. Obviously they take precautions to make that as safe as they possibly can (that is why they turn on their lights and sirens when doing so). If you truly believe this does not happen then you may as well discontinue the discussion before you truly prove yourself a moron.
 
"I've about had it with you. What you are doing here is no different than the rest of the pinhead idiot liberals here, who are void of intellectual honesty. You are stubbornly trying to maintain your argument by repudiating anything that disagrees with your wrongheaded views, and not even trying to be objective."

This is rather funny. Because I posted what the AMA actually said. You have politicians. Yet to you I am the one that is being stubborn. The point in fact is that the AMA has said clearly that the discretion should be left up to the doctor.... not the government.
 
Dixie said:
PBA is used to remove a fetus that has suffered death in the womb or which can NOT survive outside the womb.

This is factually inaccurate. The procedure would not be required on a dead fetus in the womb, a simple DNX would suffice. There is absolutely no reason to partially birth a dead fetus and suck its brain out of its skull, unless you are just morbid and sick.
Click to expand...
"Required" - perhaps not, but do you know what a simple D&X entails? It entails 'chopping up' the dead fetus into small chunks, while still in the womb, and then extracting these chunks from the uterus by suction or traction. NEITHER a simple D&X nor an "intact D&X," which is what the AMA terms PBA, is pleasant; both border on the morbid.

So, the idea that the alternative should be given preference because it is less gruesome is incorrect.



(P.S. just for clarity's sake, when I used the term non-viable, I use it in the sense of unable to survive due to anomalies.)
 
"And Super? When I find and post the testimony from doctors before congress, what will you have to say then? "

As I already said Dixie... if you provide the exact testimony of the doctors that says that there are NEVER any circumstances for this procedure, that I would appologize. But I am still waiting.... while you keep stalling...
 
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju80553.000/hju80553_0.HTM

The above is the testimony. Dixie... take a look at STATEMENT OF KATHI AULTMAN, M.D....

This is just a part of it....

"The ban on partial-birth abortion would not endanger a woman's health because it isn't medically necessary and there are standard alternative methods available at every gestational age. There's also an exception if her life is truly threatened."


So as I have said... while abhorrent and something that should be avoided... even one of the doctors testifying said that there is an exception if her life is truly threatened.
 
Dixie said:
Well Super, they said it before Congress, when they were holding extensive hearings in the 103rd, 104th, 105th, and 106th. It was part of the clear and compelling evidence considered by our representatives before they made an informed decision and cast their votes. Should we go find the transcripts to those hearings and see? I'm sure they are posted somewhere online, and I'm fairly sure you or I could probably go look them up, if that is necessary. I happen to think the text from the bill will suffice as a "shred of evidence" to support my position, but golly gee... I don't see a single solitary thing to support your contention to the contrary! Where are all these doctors who claim the procedure could be necessary for the health or life of the mother?

Again, the AMA stated they opposed the procedure, and that it posed a risk to the health of women it was performed on. They seldom ever tie the hands of the doctor with absolutes, it's generally not what they do. Of course, you can cling to this as some intellectually dishonest way to make a point, but that makes you no different than any other pinhead out there. Is that what you want to be?
Click to expand...

A select group of doctors made those statements, not the AMA. here's waht the AMA wrote in 1997 -
***********************************
May 19, 1997

The Honorable Rick Santorum
United States Senate
120 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Santorum:
The American Medical Association (AMA) is writing to support HR 1122, "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997," as amended. Although our general policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. HR 1122 now meets both those tests.

Our support of this legislation is based on three specific principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician's judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. Second, the bill would clearly define the prohibited procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation what act is to be banned. Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced. In this manner, the bill would provide a formal role for valuable medical peer determination in any enforcement proceeding.

The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will be on notice as to the exact nature of the prohibited conduct.

Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.

Sincerely,
P. John Seward, MD
Executive Vice President, American Medical Association
*************************************************
 
" The Physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within the standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."

AMA
 
If the AMA is so sure there is a safer alternative to the D&X procedure... Why must Physician "retain the discretion to make that judgment"???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top