They knew her brain was misshapen and she would not have survived. Why just have her be born dead when you can stop the needless suffering? Is it "natural?" I guess you could say cancer is natural, so why cure it?

So, you are saying that a 19-week old fetus can feel pain, Jess?

No I think it's dying and going to die soon though. I was talking about the families pain. The fetus knows nothing. But the mother knows her child's brain growing outside of its head and it will not survive.

My sister-in-law was told that her baby could have a variety of different physical deformities/challenges, and may not have survived. The specialist she was referred to offered to change her due date to make it legal for her to have an abortion in our state. He was that sure--in my opinion, that manipulative. Her son is now almost 3. He has no challenges, and has met every milestone, both physically and mentally. He had an inter-utero growth problem that so far has had no lasting impact.

Her specialist was so sure that she should abort, based on his testing and ultrasounds and the latest in medical science, he basically offered to break the law to get an abortion. Specialists are wrong. Doctors are wrong. My nephew is living proof.

So saying you know how it is all going to turn out, and therefore you should abort is ridiculous. You never know. For that matter, you never know that something might happen to your child later on in life that might cause "pain and suffering" or even a lasting handicap. You just never know, so stop playing God.

You don't always know. But as parents we have to assume they know best. And they did know that the brain was outside of the skull. BTW, I wouldn't want to live if my brain wasn't inside of my head.

I notice that Mosher danced around the question that Knox asked him. If he didn't want to answer questions regarding his daughter, then he shouldn't have volunteered to testify.

Jess-

The brain was "pushed far back in her skull" not outside her head. And, you acknowledged that they were the girl's "parents." I'm a parent to my child, but I wouldn't have them killed, even a so-called mercy-killing, if they ended up handicapped for some reason. Would you?

Jess-

The brain was "pushed far back in her skull" not outside her head. And, you acknowledged that they were the girl's "parents." I'm a parent to my child, but I wouldn't have them killed, even a so-called mercy-killing, if they ended up handicapped for some reason. Would you?

Posted by: EH at February 21, 2008 6:47 PM
.............................................

You view dying to be a handicap? Why endanger the woman's health and ability to gestate in the future by continuing a doomed pregnancy?
By the way, 19 weeks is not late term.

You just never know, so stop playing God.

Posted by: EH at February 21, 2008 6:24 PM
.........................................

Stop playing God by attempting to control the lives of others. If you wish to leave your medical care up to God, it's your choice.

"I wouldn't have them killed, even a so-called mercy-killing, if they ended up handicapped for some reason. Would you?"

If they weren't sentient and were dying inside of my body then yes.

You know what, Jess, you said that the parents made a decision about what was best for the baby. I'm saying that they don't know what was going to happen to that baby, so their justification is wrong. They do not know, and you do not know, and no doctor knows that this baby, or any baby encouraged to be aborted by a medical professional, is "dying inside" someone's body. You just don't know.

Sally, where are you getting that I don't believe in medical care? That's a ridiculous statement to extrapolate from what I said. I'm saying that no doctor or parent knows how long a handicapped baby will live or how much pain and suffering they will endure. They are guessing, and then justifying that guess with merciful overtones to assuage their guilt. If you don't want to say only God knows how that child's life will progress (as I do) fine. Then no one knows. That's my point.

That's my last word on this.

Hi Jess,

a very famous case of this sort of thinking in Canada was called the Robert Latimer case. He carbon-monoxided his severely handicapped daughter, Tracy.
Is not a pro-choice position actually one of judgment ... saying: I am good enough to judge on the worthiness of another (whether or not he/she is inside my body). Where did you get these qualifications?

John

EH,
Excellent posts!
:)

You view dying to be a handicap? Why endanger the woman's health and ability to gestate in the future by continuing a doomed pregnancy?
By the way, 19 weeks is not late term.

Posted by: Sally at February 21, 2008 7:01 PM

Sally,
Not this song and dance again. Give it up. More women have had their fertility taken from them through abortions than women who have carried a "doomed" fetus in their womb. Medical technology has advanced greatly to detect and follow a babies vital signs since your great grannie's - sister in law's - cousin's - daughter carried around a dead fetus back in 1900.

Ever heard of an utrasound??? Fetal monitor?? Doppler?? They have been around for awhile now. Try to stay current.

You know what, Jess, you said that the parents made a decision about what was best for the baby. I'm saying that they don't know what was going to happen to that baby, so their justification is wrong. They do not know, and you do not know, and no doctor knows that this baby, or any baby encouraged to be aborted by a medical professional, is "dying inside" someone's body. You just don't know.

Sally, where are you getting that I don't believe in medical care? That's a ridiculous statement to extrapolate from what I said. I'm saying that no doctor or parent knows how long a handicapped baby will live or how much pain and suffering they will endure. They are guessing, and then justifying that guess with merciful overtones to assuage their guilt. If you don't want to say only God knows how that child's life will progress (as I do) fine. Then no one knows. That's my point.

That's my last word on this.

Posted by: EH at February 21, 2008 7:17 PM
..........................

'I have spoken. I am the all great and all powerful Oz.' Did you stamp your feet while you typed that?
Gestation wasn't invented the day that you learned there was such a thing. People do know through experience and medical technology when a conceptus is incapable of developing to the point of viability. Leave it up to God, and you get dead women.

You view dying to be a handicap? Why endanger the woman's health and ability to gestate in the future by continuing a doomed pregnancy?
By the way, 19 weeks is not late term.

Posted by: Sally at February 21, 2008 7:01 PM

Sally,
Not this song and dance again. Give it up. More women have had their fertility taken from them through abortions than women who have carried a "doomed" fetus in their womb. Medical technology has advanced greatly to detect and follow a babies vital signs since your great grannie's - sister in law's - cousin's - daughter carried around a dead fetus back in 1900.

Ever heard of an utrasound??? Fetal monitor?? Doppler?? They have been around for awhile now. Try to stay current.

Posted by: Sandy at February 21, 2008 8:17 PM
.............................................

My mother carried around a rotting fetus back in 1962. No doubt way before your parents were born. Her experience is no longer necessary since abortion is no longer illegal. And don't give me that abortion has always been legal when I think it should have been legal crap.
And Sandy dear, exactly what do you think ultrasounds, fetal monitors, and all that jazz were invented for? Worship instruments for the all mighty unborn? Not at all. They were invented to spare women from wasting their bodies, their lives for no reward. And that is what pisses you off. Know it all punk.
Pick up your toys and go to your room. You have homework to do.

Sally,

Out of pure love for you, and I mean this with all sincerity:

I see your comments getting more and more over-the-top, and the anger in them is mounting. Many of them seem to not make a bit of sense, and when asked about them, you don't respond.

Sally, please seek help. If you're on a certain medication, please talk to your doctor about seeking an alternative one, or increasing the dosage.

If it's your job that's stressing you...get a different one. It's really not worth inner-self destruction.

I will continue to pray for your emotional healing. These people here are not your enemies, ok? They just see things differently than you do. It's ok....really.

:)

John: Is not a pro-choice position actually one of judgment ... saying: I am good enough to judge on the worthiness of another (whether or not he/she is inside my body).

I'd say Pro-Choice is leaving the judgment to the other person. Being inside the body of a person pretty much means there's no conception of these matters nor judgment in the first place.

If a doctor tells you that you should get an abortion, you should go to another doctor and get a second opinion. Sometimes doctors are wrong. Sometimes they see only what they want to see. Sometimes they are blinded by ideology and think that abortion is nothing to women, and that if only women could experience it, they would see that it's no big deal and become pro-choice. Or they try to manipulate women into abortions who wouldn't otherwise have them, because they are on a power trip, or because they don't think the woman is in a good position to have the baby (never mind what the woman thinks). Or maybe they are worried about overpopulation. All of these ways of thinking are wrong. They oppress women by imposing abortion on her when she doesn't want it.
I will say it again, if you are told that your baby is sick, or deformed, or would die anyway, or any number of other reasons why abortion might be called for, get a second opinion. If the second doctor says the same thing, get a third opinion. Better yet, seek out pro-life doctors.

I think the dude pictured was on the Colbert Report.

I will continue to pray for your emotional healing. These people here are not your enemies, ok? They just see things differently than you do. It's ok....really.

:)

Posted by: Anonymous at February 21, 2008 8:56 PM

Hey Anon,
I just asked that we all pray for FF tonight too on another thread.

Sandy,
I will definately pray for her also.
:)

God bless you, Sandy!

My mother carried around a rotting fetus back in 1962. No doubt way before your parents were born. Her experience is no longer necessary since abortion is no longer illegal. And don't give me that abortion has always been legal when I think it should have been legal crap.
And Sandy dear, exactly what do you think ultrasounds, fetal monitors, and all that jazz were invented for? Worship instruments for the all mighty unborn? Not at all. They were invented to spare women from wasting their bodies, their lives for no reward. And that is what pisses you off. Know it all punk.
Pick up your toys and go to your room. You have homework to do.

Posted by: Sally at February 21, 2008 8:45 PM

If your mother was carrying a rotting fetus in her womb, it would not have been an illegal abortion she needed. Earth to Sally. Hello???
What group of women do you think would want another woman to carry around a dead fetus which has started to rot and not seek medical treatment??????
She could have walked into ANY hospital and been treated. Why do you think removing a dead fetus equates to removing a living fetus?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

How many times do we have to cover this with you.
Here. Repeat this statement 100 times to yourself and maybe it will help you remember.

Removing a dead rotting baby from a womb good.
Removing a live baby from a womb bad.

And Sandy dear, exactly what do you think ultrasounds, fetal monitors, and all that jazz were invented for? Worship instruments for the all mighty unborn? Not at all. They were invented to spare women from wasting their bodies, their lives for no reward.
Posted by: Sally at February 21, 2008 8:45 PM

Sal,
You really lost me here. Can you put the bottle down and go get a cup of coffee and explain this
statement, cuzz.....

You guys pray for us, and we'll think for you. Sound good?

Stop playing God by attempting to control the lives of others.

That's a very telling statement for someone who supports "playing God" when it comes to the matter of those diagnosed with disabilities. Who are we to decide who lives and who dies based on our biases and perception of their quality of life?

Cont...
Keep in mind that I work with children and adults with moderate to severe developmental disabilities everyday.
Usually, in the case of an adverse fetal diagnosis (such as Down Syndrome or Anecephaly), the fetus is adversly affected and it's condition does not put the mother's health at risk, although in such cases an emergency C-section can be preformed. I partially agree with what EH said, doctors aren't infalliable and even with today's genetic testing and ultrasound, after a diagnosis the severity and extent to which a child will have disabilities is uncertain and will be unknown until birth.

Erin,
You're implying that we can't think or ration and that's insulting...

Erin,
You're implying that we can't think or ration (because our differing views?) and that's insulting...

We are all forgetting somthing very important here. A "fetus" can have surgery to correct or relieve spina bifida. Why not give the baby a chance with surgery?

What kind of ultra sound was used is my biggest question here. If it was a typical 2D ultra sound then there is no way to say 100% what is going on with the brain. There are so many chances of 'shadows' making a diagnosis incorrect. I'm surprised that no one here has said that we should give the baby a chance at life with inutero surgery.

Sally -

"My mother carried around a rotting fetus back in 1962. No doubt way before your parents were born. Her experience is no longer necessary since abortion is no longer illegal. And don't give me that abortion has always been legal when I think it should have been legal crap. "

Even in the early 1800's induced labor to remove a dead baby from a mother's uterus was done. If the baby is already dead, it is no longer an abortion if the baby is dead - actually the only way the removal of a dead baby is considered an abortion is if the baby died within that day. If your mother was carrying a rotting fetus around than she needed to go to a different doctor.

My Mother was born in 1942 and was working at Mount Carmel Hospital in Columbus Ohio as a student Nurse in 1962. Your Mother would have been induced into labor if the baby had died. No hospital in 1962 would not have removed a baby that had died. Abortion would not have even been a word used due to the FACT that it would not be an abortion.

Erin -

I hope you dont' mind me stepping in here....and correct me if I am wrong.

Rachel -

I think Erin may be implying that not everyone believes in God. So for those people they "think good thoughts" for the person in need. It is a positive energy/negative energy idea. To some saying "I'll pray for you" is an insult.

However, if you are right in thinking she meant we can't think,....then I agree with your comments..

;-)

On a side note, speaking of work, I've got to leave in 5 minutes and go back for mandatory sex education training...blech(I got enough of it in highschool between my health class and child development class, thank you!) It's part of our CEUs (Continuing Educational Units) of which we have to have something like 24 a year, covering a variety of subjects including mood disorders.

Erin,
Were those your sentiments when you were asking us to pray for you after your car accident?

Once again Sally returns to the memories of rotting flesh from having sex.
Have sex, make death.
A family tradition, from a family klan that produced more death from sex acts, then any other deathsex cult family, known to humankind.
Add to that a rightous bigotry of anti-Catholicism, and you have the perfect enviroment and heredity that made Sally, the right person, at the right time to assure more sex is death through her advocating others join her deathsex cult by abortion.

Antichoicers - THEY arent the ones dealing with the pregnancy - THEY wont be the ones watching their child slowly die - THEY wont be the ones watching a child exist in a hospital room it will never leave - THEY wont be the ones dealing with the stress or pain or expense - THEIR families wont be making the sacrifices needed - but they are so sure THEY KNOW what 'everyone else' is SUPPOSED to do. THEY are so certain THEY should be making the decisions and everyone else has some obligation to live through pain and suffering because it makes the antichoicers feel GOOD about themselves. What typical arrogance - nothing but self centered self absorbed egocentric megalomania from the antichoice side.

@Doug,

"John: Is not a pro-choice position actually one of judgment ... saying: I am good enough to judge on the worthiness of another (whether or not he/she is inside my body).

I'd say Pro-Choice is leaving the judgment to the other person. Being inside the body of a person pretty much means there's no conception of these matters nor judgment in the first place.
Posted by: Doug at February 21, 2008 9:15 PM"

.......

Sorry to say, (because choice = judgment) but I did not understand your words and presume they are supposed to mean that PC is a NEUTRAL moral position. However, there is no such thing: neutrality itself IS a moral position ... clarified at the Nuremberg trials after WWII.

The aspect of judgment is revealing here since professional courtroom judgment always has the notion that a good judge will recuse himself/herself from decision if they are in any way personally involved. In such circumstances they are exactly opposite your take that the pregnant woman knows 'best'.

There is an additional spiritual aspect to this: Mother Teresa used to contend that if you judged, it left no room to love.

TexasRed -

There are many of THEM that have done all you say THEY haven't.

As a matter of fact, for the majority of human history family's didn't have a choice because the technology wasn't there to detect these things and those families survived it. Although heartache is horrible and I don't wish this kind of heartache on my enemies - it is a fact of life.

Sandy 10:50, I just love you. lol

Antichoicers - THEY arent the ones dealing with the pregnancy - THEY wont be the ones watching their child slowly die - THEY wont be the ones watching a child exist in a hospital room it will never leave - THEY wont be the ones dealing with the stress or pain or expense - THEIR families wont be making the sacrifices needed - but they are so sure THEY KNOW what 'everyone else' is SUPPOSED to do. THEY are so certain THEY should be making the decisions and everyone else has some obligation to live through pain and suffering because it makes the antichoicers feel GOOD about themselves. What typical arrogance - nothing but self centered self absorbed egocentric megalomania from the antichoice side.

Texas Red, you're just talking bull.

There are a number of pro-life women who have had an adverse prental diagnosis and had to made the decision, as they face the same life challenges as everyone else. They have carried to term and are grateful for being able to hold their child, name their child, say goodbye, and to have found piece, visit the Be Not Afraid website. They also may have chosen abortion for these reasons before they became pro-life, see Ashli's story, who choose a late-term abortion because of her hyperemesis gravidarum. They are also women who've experienced a stillbirth or miscarriage. They know the pain, the loss, the grief. They are also ones who've raised their own children with disabilities or have worked directly with children with disabilities (through teaching or health care) and know the sacrifices and challenges involved. Don't be so quick to assume.

Mods, got a post in que, thanks (and I hope you don't mind me doing this, it just gets noticed and posted sooner this way)

No problem, Rachel..just published it for you. ;)

Oh and actually we prefer it if you announce it...because sometimes we miss them if you don't. ;-)

The rest of the Topeka Capital-Journal article is worth reading, here is another excerpt:

...The back-and-forth between Mosher and legislators veered from the contents of the bills. One measure would, among other provisions, allow those affected by illegal late-term abortions to sue for damages, would require doctors to provide patients with a statement on the viability of the unborn fetus 30 minutes prior to the procedure and offer the patient a chance to see the ultrasound.

The other proposal would tighten the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's specific requirements to report late-term abortions.

Neither of the bills would have prevented Mosher's wife from undergoing an abortion.

"A statement of viability", along with a view of the ultrasound sound like a great ideas. I also think it would be important for parents to be given accurate information on ultrasound technology so they can make an educated decision themselves if a situation such as this arises. We shouldn't take the doctors' advice alone.

Sally, please seek help. If you're on a certain medication, please talk to your doctor about seeking an alternative one, or increasing the dosage.

**********************************
More idiocy from the antichoice side - but looking like an imbecile allows antichoicers to avoid dealing with what is actually said. If Nonny COULD defend the antichoice side without relying so heavily on looking like a fool no doubt he/she would.

TexasRed -

There are many of THEM that have done all you say THEY haven't.

As a matter of fact, for the majority of human history family's didn't have a choice because the technology wasn't there to detect these things and those families survived it. Although heartache is horrible and I don't wish this kind of heartache on my enemies - it is a fact of life.

Posted by: valerie at February 22, 2008 10:05 AM
*****************************************
Deal with reality. No one is trying to tell YOU what YOU 'should' do regarding YOUR pregnancies. YOU are the ones trying to pretend YOU have 'all the answers' for everyone else and THEIR perspectives dont matter even though THEY will be the ones dealing with the day to day reality of a doomed pregnancy. Whimpering 'Well maybe SOME antichoicers MAY have had to deal with this SOMETIME' is idiotic. YOURE not the one pregnant but you are certain YOU should be making all the decisions. Thats inexcusable egocentricity and megalomania.

what the hell is a conceptus any how? Another piece of anti-life, culture of death jargon to hide the truth - it's a BABY!!!!
Better not call it a baby, or we just might know what we're doing when we have a TERMINATION!!

Texas Red, you're just talking bull.

There are a number of pro-life women who have had an adverse prental diagnosis and had to made the decision, as they face the same life challenges as everyone else. They have carried to term and are grateful for being able to hold their child, name their child, say goodbye, and to have found piece, visit the Be Not Afraid website. They also may have chosen abortion for these reasons before they became pro-life, see Ashli's story, who choose a late-term abortion because of her hyperemesis gravidarum. They are also women who've experienced a stillbirth or miscarriage. They know the pain, the loss, the grief. They are also ones who've raised their own children with disabilities or have worked directly with children with disabilities (through teaching or health care) and know the sacrifices and challenges involved. Don't be so quick to assume.

Posted by: Rachael at February 22, 2008 10:41 AM
**************************
No 'bull' involved except from the antichoice side. No one is trying to pretend women should be forced to have an abortion agaist their will. NO ONE is telling YOU what to do where YOUR pregnancies are concerned. But you dont have the integrity to extend that courtesy to other individuals. Whimpering 'but SOME antichoicers may have had to face this decision' is laughable. YOU harbor the delusion that YOU should be making a decision for someone else and THEIR opinion is somehow meaningless. Thats sheer egocentricity and megalomania.

Erin,
You're implying that we can't think or ration (because our differing views?) and that's insulting...

Posted by: Rachael at February 22, 2008 7:02 AM
***********************
Its insulting for antichoicers to pretend they have the right to THINK for other people, and that is exactly what they do. For the antichoicers here to pretend they are some how intellectually or morally "superior" is hilarious. Their advice on what flavor of ice cream to buy would be worthless, let alone on more significant matters. And I think you mean "reason" instead of "ration".

Well TR, we have to think for you anti-lifers because your position is inconsistent, irrational and illogical.
For example,
How can you support abortion at 24 weeks on one floor of a hospital and support the saving of a "wanted" baby the same gestational age on another floor. This is irrational and inconsistent. It's irrational because the two views cannot be both morally correct. One must be wrong.

Well TR, we have to think for you anti-lifers because your position is inconsistent, irrational and illogical.
For example,
How can you support abortion at 24 weeks on one floor of a hospital and support the saving of a "wanted" baby the same gestational age on another floor. This is irrational and inconsistent. It's irrational because the two views cannot be both morally correct. One must be wrong.

Posted by: Patricia at February 22, 2008 1:30 PM
****************************
There are no 'anti lifers' and your inventions and assumptions and fabrications dont mean a thing. Slobbering and gibbering 'well one just MUST be wrong' may be your OPINION but your opinion isnt worth anything if youre not the one pregnant. One womans decision to end a pregnancy doesnt have a single solitary thing to do with another womans decision to continue a pregnancy. Each decision can be right for the woman making the decision. Whimpering that one "must" be wrong is laughably idiotic. What is wrong is the delusion that YOU should be making the decision for someone else.

TR, your post merely shows how irrational you are in your writing and thinking.
It doesn't matter what the circumstances are surrounding the pregnancy - either a 24 wk old baby is a human baby with the right to live or it is not. The right to life cannot be based on location, age, size, ability or lack thereof and so forth.
It cannot be so in one circumstance and not in another. This is not consistent and it is not rational.

NO ONE is telling YOU what to do where YOUR pregnancies are concerned. But you dont have the integrity to extend that courtesy to other individuals. Whimpering 'but SOME antichoicers may have had to face this decision' is laughable. YOU harbor the delusion that YOU should be making a decision for someone else and THEIR opinion is somehow meaningless. Thats sheer egocentricity and megalomania.

Posted by: TexasRed at February 22, 2008 1:15 PM

TR,
Are freaking joking me?????????
Women are directed allllllll theeeeeeee tiiiiiiimmmmee to abort children that the great pubas of the medical community deem are unworthy.

Story. Listen up. Turn your ears on.

A man I met told the story of his baby boy that was diagnosed with Potters syndrome. The second the Dr. found out he advised them strongly to abort. They were too far along in my state so he suggested they go out of state.
They weren't given any counseling, no sympathy, just told to abort.
They decided to continue the pregnancy because to them, every day their baby was alive and kicking was another day they had with their son.

Every week they went in for ultrasounds to make sure their son was still alive. It was their time to see their baby knowing that he could die anytime.

Every week the rotating perinatologist would come in and tell them to abort and basically told them they were living in reality and were fools for wanting to give their son more time.

The kind hearted nurses finally posted in big letters on the front of their chart to DO NOT MENTION TERMINIATION TO THIS COUPLE.

They delivered their son and he lived for one hour. They were able to hold him, love him and take photos that they will cherish forever.

His wife was later diagnosed with cancer and due to treatments will never be able to conceive again. This couple were parents for one hour. He said it was the greatest hour of their lives.
Had they listened to the almighty drs. they would have never been able to spend that precious hour with their son.

So don't go and pretend that the pro-aborts don't try and tell women what to do with their pregnancies. It happens everyday.
A perinatologist clinic in my city will not even continue working with patients who decide to keep their pregnancies until natural death. These women get kicked out of their practice and are left to find someone else who will attend to them during their pregnancies. It's like the mother's opinion is somehow I don't know "meaningless".

I guess you can say "thats sheer egocentricity and megalomania."

Not to mention that while some women choose to abort because their doctors direct them to, they have no idea what the emotional ramifications are because they followed that piece of medical advice. They need to live with that choice the rest of their lives, meanwhile the doctors go on about their business and could care less what happens to these women.

BTW, TR there were so many families who were directed to abort by the medical community in my city and were not given any support when they wanted to continue their pregnancies they started a support group of their own.

TR, your post merely shows how irrational you are in your writing and thinking.
It doesn't matter what the circumstances are surrounding the pregnancy - either a 24 wk old baby is a human baby with the right to live or it is not. The right to life cannot be based on location, age, size, ability or lack thereof and so forth.
It cannot be so in one circumstance and not in another. This is not consistent and it is not rational.

Posted by: Patricia at February 22, 2008 1:57 PM
******************
Get over your delusions. Gibbering and drooling 'its irrational' just makes you look stupid. There is nothing irrational about it. The right decision for one woman has nothing to do with the right decision for another woman. What is the best option for one woman will be the worst option for someone else. An inability to comprehend this obvious fact indicates very limited intellect.

TexasRed -

Explain how it is an opinion.

The doctor must stop the heart beating before (completely) removing the fetus from the uterus. How is that not murder when that heart can survive outside of the uterus?

How can 'choice' miraculously make a fetus someone's property or a fetus someone's baby when nothing has changed in the structure?

How can 'choice' miraculously make it a termination when one person says unwanted or make it murder when one person says wanted?

Nothing changes in the fetus/baby. Just a thought. Just a thought changes the rights of the fetus/baby. How can that be logical.

Are freaking joking me?????????
Women are directed allllllll theeeeeeee tiiiiiiimmmmee to abort children that the great pubas of the medical community deem are unworthy.
*********************
Yeah, sure they are. Abortion is an option. Trying to pretend that pointing this out is telling the woman she 'has to' or 'should' abort is laughable. No one is doing that.

Whether you have the integrity to admit it or not, the decision to end or continue a pregnancy remains with the woman. She has every bit as much right to continue her pregnancy as she does to end it. The only ones trying to force her to do something she disagrees with is the antichoice side.

Let me spell it out for you TR:
It cannot be rational for doctors to tear limb by limb a baby at say, 18 wks on one floor of a hospital (therefore saying that this baby has no rights) and on another floor have doctors fighting desperately to save a baby at 18 weeks (oh it does have right to life afterall).
You cannot have 2 morally correct views - one must be wrong. Either all babies at 18 wks are persons protected by the law and have the right to life or they are not!
What you want TR and others like you is situation ethics - when you need to kill the baby - you want that right. If you want the baby, then you want help to keep it. Babies should have right to life not because of their age, or whether the mom wants them, or where they are. All babies should have this right to life. This is the morally consistent.
Makes me wonder what the rest of your life is like.

It would be difficult not to notice that you totally avoided answering that question directly, TR.

The only "slobbering and gibbering" seems to be coming from you. Everyone else appears to be pretty calm.

It might help if you have a little wine, then come back and see if you have calmed down enough to have an adult discussion with the rest of us.

TexasRed -

Explain how it is an opinion.

The doctor must stop the heart beating before (completely) removing the fetus from the uterus. How is that not murder when that heart can survive outside of the uterus?

How can 'choice' miraculously make a fetus someone's property or a fetus someone's baby when nothing has changed in the structure?

How can 'choice' miraculously make it a termination when one person says unwanted or make it murder when one person says wanted?

Nothing changes in the fetus/baby. Just a thought. Just a thought changes the rights of the fetus/baby. How can that be logical.

Posted by: valerie at February 22, 2008 2:04 PM
**********************************
Easy. Your opinion doesnt mean a thing when youre not the one pregnant and its only your opinion that "its not logical". Whimpering "its not logical" is just your way of whining that youre not able to understand and people shouldnt be allowed to disagree with you or see things differently from you. The choice to continue a pregnancy with an anencephalic fetus is no more 'right' than the choice to end that pregnancy. It depends on the woman who is pregnant.

Trying to pretend that pointing this out is telling the woman she 'has to' or 'should' abort is laughable. No one is doing that.

Actually, trying to pretend that no one is doing that is laughable. Or, well, it would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

Whimpering "its not logical" is just your way of whining that youre not able to understand and people shouldnt be allowed to disagree with you or see things differently from you

Whimpering about your perception that the post is "whimpering" is just your way of avoiding really discussing the issue.

Once a woman becomes pregnant she has no right to take the life of her baby.
The fact that we have a law on the books (or no law) saying she does, does not make this morally correct. Whether a thing is morally correct is not determined by a poll.
If a woman does not want to get pregnant she should refrain from sex.
If she is raped, she should be offered the support necessary to give birth and to cope with the trauma. That is what a just society would do and that is what the "feminista's" should work towards. The baby is an innocent (as is the woman) but should not have to pay for the rape with it's life.

The problem here is that the proaborts do not want a woman to be forced into carrying a baby. Well, I've got news for you. We ALL have something we are forced to do in this life - some worse than others. It's part of being an adult and dealing with these things. The point is to help each other is an affirming, healing manner. Killing a baby has never affirmed or healed any woman that I know of.

Let me spell it out for you TR:
It cannot be rational for doctors to tear limb by limb a baby at say, 18 wks on one floor of a hospital (therefore saying that this baby has no rights) and on another floor have doctors fighting desperately to save a baby at 18 weeks (oh it does have right to life afterall).
You cannot have 2 morally correct views - one must be wrong. Either all babies at 18 wks are persons protected by the law and have the right to life or they are not!
What you want TR and others like you is situation ethics - when you need to kill the baby - you want that right. If you want the baby, then you want help to keep it. Babies should have right to life not because of their age, or whether the mom wants them, or where they are. All babies should have this right to life. This is the morally consistent.
Makes me wonder what the rest of your life is like.

Posted by: Patricia at February 22, 2008 2:14 PM
************************
Tearing apart an 18 week old baby is illegal. What kind of idiot isnt aware of that fact? If youre talking about a fetus at 18 weeks gestation please dont tell me youre stupid enough to think there is any chance of viability that early. Yes, you most certainly can have two morally correct views. What is a good choice for one woman is going to be a bad choice for someone else. Your inability to grasp that, your inability to come to terms with that doesnt negate the fact. Women have a right to do what they think is best. Whimpering 'its not moral' to disagree with YOU is laughable. As for your comments about 'the rest of my life' I will consider the source. Antichoicers need to make up lies about people who are pro choice. They dont have the integrity to come to terms with reality.

Yeah, sure they are. Abortion is an option. Trying to pretend that pointing this out is telling the woman she 'has to' or 'should' abort is laughable. No one is doing that.

Posted by: TexasRed at February 22, 2008 2:09 PM

TR,
Read my post again. The couple in my story were told they "should" abort by every doctor that came in to do their ultrasound. Women are kicked out of a perinatoligist practice in my city for wanting to keep their babies. Can't you read??

*******************
Whether you have the integrity to admit it or not, the decision to end or continue a pregnancy remains with the woman. She has every bit as much right to continue her pregnancy as she does to end it. The only ones trying to force her to do something she disagrees with is the antichoice side.

Posted by: TexasRed at February 22, 2008 2:09 PM

TR:
You are so blind. Unfortunatley patients still look up to their doctors like they are the almighty end all, be alls. They look to them for guidance and medical advice. These women trust their doctors and naively follow their advice to abort and then greatly regret it afterwards. This happens all the time.

What about all the teen girls who are driven to the clinics by their parents who clearly don't want to abort their babies, but will be abaonded if they keep they continue their pregnancies??

What about the women who are hauled into the clinics by their boyfrieds who threaten to kill them if they keep their babies??

Where are the clinic counselers to help these girls and women with support and understanding and resources when they state their decision would be to keep their babies?? NO WHERE

Where are all the PCers when women change their minds at the last minute and are given knock out gas so the procedure can continue against their will???? NO WHERE

Where are all the PCers for women who were "counseled" at the clinic by workers who are trained to use tactics to get them to abort.
NO WHERE

Where are the PCers rallying the choice for a woman to see the ultrasound of her baby before the procedure?
NO WHERE

It might help if you have a little wine, then come back and see if you have calmed down enough to have an adult discussion with the rest of us.

Posted by: Bethany at February 22, 2008 2:16 PM
*************
Bethany, what would you know about having an adult conversation? I dont drink but it doesnt surprise me to hear you apparently need to rely on alcohol to cope with the world. I never expect honesty from you. I never expect you to tell the truth. I never expect you to show any integrity. You taught me those lessons long ago.

Tearing apart an 18 week old baby is illegal. What kind of idiot isnt aware of that fact? If youre talking about a fetus at 18 weeks gestation please dont tell me youre stupid enough to think there is any chance of viability that early. Yes, you most certainly can have two morally correct views. What is a good choice for one woman is going to be a bad choice for someone else. Your inability to grasp that, your inability to come to terms with that doesnt negate the fact. Women have a right to do what they think is best. Whimpering 'its not moral' to disagree with YOU is laughable. As for your comments about 'the rest of my life' I will consider the source. Antichoicers need to make up lies about people who are pro choice. They dont have the integrity to come to terms with reality.

Now you want to respond to the question? Odd how you wouldn't respond to it when she was talking about two 24 week unborn babies. Is it your opinion that this doesn't happen that late in gestation?

OH TR, explain how the best option for a woman can be the death of her baby!?
If that isn't irrational, I can't see what is!
That is the knee-jerk reaction to a difficult personal problem.
Again, if you care about the plight of women in these situations use your voice to develop and put in place programs to support women through difficult pregnancies rather than getting them to kill their babies.
What I suspect is that the feminist response to abortion is based on a dislike of the female body and it's life giving capablilities.

Bethany, what would you know about having an adult conversation? I dont drink but it doesnt surprise me to hear you apparently need to rely on alcohol to cope with the world. I never expect honesty from you. I never expect you to tell the truth. I never expect you to show any integrity. You taught me those lessons long ago.

I thought it might help calm you down. You obviously sound a little tense..I have heard that wine has the ability to calm and relax a person.

There, there, it'll be okay.

Bethany, what would you know about having an adult conversation? I dont drink but it doesnt surprise me to hear you apparently need to rely on alcohol to cope with the world. I never expect honesty from you. I never expect you to tell the truth. I never expect you to show any integrity. You taught me those lessons long ago.

Posted by: TexasRed at February 22, 2008 2:26 PM

TR,
What would you know about having an adult conversation? I dont drink but it doesnt surprise me to hear you apparently need to rely on alcohol to cope with the world. I never expect honesty from you. I never expect you to tell the truth. I never expect you to show any integrity. You taught me those lessons long ago.

What I suspect is that the feminist response to abortion is based on a dislike of the female body and it's life giving capabilities.

Absolutely.

lol Sandy.

Once a woman becomes pregnant she has no right to take the life of her baby.
The fact that we have a law on the books (or no law) saying she does, does not make this morally correct. Whether a thing is morally correct is not determined by a poll.
If a woman does not want to get pregnant she should refrain from sex.
If she is raped, she should be offered the support necessary to give birth and to cope with the trauma. That is what a just society would do and that is what the "feminista's" should work towards. The baby is an innocent (as is the woman) but should not have to pay for the rape with it's life.

The problem here is that the proaborts do not want a woman to be forced into carrying a baby. Well, I've got news for you. We ALL have something we are forced to do in this life - some worse than others. It's part of being an adult and dealing with these things. The point is to help each other is an affirming, healing manner. Killing a baby has never affirmed or healed any woman that I know of.

Posted by: Patricia at February 22, 2008 2:22 PM
***********************
Taking the life of a baby is against the law. Ending a pregnancy is legal. One has nothing to do with the other. YOU have nothing to say about what someone elses decisions - if youre not the one pregnant then you arent part of the decision making process. "Dont have sex if youre not willing to follow my rules" just makes you look ridiculous and more than a little stupid. That you would compell a woman to continue a pregnancy even as a result of rape shows just how sickeningly misogynistic your attitudes really are. Ive got news for YOU. Your disgusting attitudes about other people suffering dont mean a thing, fortunately. But they are repulsive. If you know anyone who has killed a baby then call the police. Your refusal to face the fact that ending a pregnancy can be a womans best option doesnt negate that fact. Reality has never been a friend to the antichoice side.

Whimpering "its not logical" is just your way of whining that youre not able to understand and people shouldnt be allowed to disagree with you or see things differently from you

Whimpering about your perception that the post is "whimpering" is just your way of avoiding really discussing the issue.

Posted by: Bethany at February 22, 2008 2:19 PM
******************************
Keep looking stupid Bethany. You've had so much practice and youre so very very good at it.

TR,

You taught me those lessons long ago.

Out of curiosity, who are you referring to when you say things like this? I mean, how could anyone here possibly have taught you something "long ago"? You've only been on here for a few months. Are you projecting from something that happened in the past concerning abortion and prolifers?

Seriously, it's confusing to me.

(I'll save you the trouble..Well Cheyenne, it's no wonder it's confusing. You're an egotistical, idiot who whines about things that YOU have no right to WHINE about. Because YOU aren't GOD and YOU don't have any integrity...blah, blah, blah)

How bout just an answer?

If you know anyone who has killed a baby then call the police.

Tsk tsk tsk...ran out of material and had to pull out one of Laura's dead jokes...

TR,

Keep looking stupid Bethany. You've had so much practice and youre so very very good at it.

Great comeback.

Honestly, do have these things in your hard drive and you just push a button and they pop up willy nilly? You're killin' me here. Do you have an argument? Do you even know what the topic is? Do you even know what day it is?

First of all tearing up an 18 wk baby is legal in the US and Canada. In fact, in Canada, you can tear up a 38 wk old baby if you are so inclined.
I was not specifically speaking of birthing an 18 wk baby but certainly 18 wk babies can be treated in utero for various ailments.
TR as much as you want to say so - you CANNOT have two views which are both morally correct. Only one can be morally correct.
Any ethicist will tell you this. If you do otherwise then you are into situation ethics and utilitarianism. Soon it won't be just 18 week babies but 80 year old women with senility.

If you are irrational in your thinking on this major life issue, chances are that irrationality will affect other aspects of your life, TR.

Let's see...I wonder if Texas Red's next post might have anything to do with what a whimpering, megalomaniacal, idiotic, whimpering, slobbering, anti-choicer I or someone else supposedly is... How much you wanna bet?

Honestly, do have these things in your hard drive and you just push a button and they pop up willy nilly? You're killin' me here. Do you have an argument? Do you even know what the topic is? Do you even know what day it is?

i'm on the same page as you, MK! LOL

Soon it won't be just 18 week babies but 80 year old women with senility.

Now, now Patricia. No need to threaten TR. *snicker*

Bethany,

She might even be interesting if she'd lose the attitude. Might be a perfectly nice person. But we'll never know. At least Laura and Sally show their human sides once in awhile, and earn respect. Laura is kind to animals and Sally loves her family, and gardens and cooks...TR just spews...

Well,

Our work here is done. She's crawled back into her cave. And now I'll have to go to confession and admit I enjoyed that!

I agree, Marykay.

.

NO WHERE

Posted by: Sandy at February 22, 2008 2:24 PM
***********
Where is the honesty in your post? NO WHERE

Reality has never been a friend to the antichoice side.

Posted by: TexasRed at February 22, 2008 2:33 PM

TR,
Reality? I just gave you reality using a real-life couple and their real lives with their real life fatal diagnosis of their real baby. The real dr.s in the real story recommended a real abortion. These real drs. scoffed at this couple for wanting to continue their pregnancy and give their baby a chance to be born and die a natural death.
You deny this happens.

I gave you a real example of a real perinatoligist clinic who deals with the reality of diagnosing real fatal anomolies. the really do kick their real patients out of their real practice so they are left to fend for themselves.
You continue to deny this happens.

Who is not dealing with reality TR????

Our work here is done. She's crawled back into her cave. And now I'll have to go to confession and admit I enjoyed that!

TR its a case of using words again to manipulate the discussion.
It's a baby and not a pregnancy. Pregnancy is the condition of carrying a baby. And they are very much related.
I'd like to see a woman who is pregnant but not with a baby? What is she pregnant with? Fetus/embryo/conceptus are all medical terms which refer to the baby and are used by the proaborts to depersonalize and dehumanize the baby.

Once pregnant there can be no decision about the baby other than that which is life affirming. The choice should have been made responsibly before sex.

Seriously TR,

All sarcasm aside. If you would just slow down, and try to express your thoughts more carefully, we'd be more than willing to listen.

It's just really hard because we can't get past the insults to hear what you are actually trying to say.

It's to your benefit. We don't really want to laugh at you. We'd prefer to laugh with you.

But you've go to give us something to work with.

I'm off to a movie now. Be back in awhile.

TexasRed -

"Your opinion doesnt mean a thing when youre not the one pregnant and its only your opinion that "its not logical". Whimpering "its not logical" is just your way of whining...."

I didn't give an opinion. I asked for your opinion. This really isn't that difficult. I'll ask the questions again and I will number them, maybe that will make it easier for you to actually answer a question instead of complaining that I am whimpering.

1. How can 'choice' miraculously make a fetus someone's property or a fetus someone's baby when nothing has changed in the structure?

2. How can 'choice' miraculously make it a termination when one person says unwanted or make it murder when one person says wanted?

3. Nothing changes in the fetus/baby. Just a thought. Just a thought changes the rights of the fetus/baby. How can that be logical.

Now, just so you remember, we were discussing how you can say 2 polar opposites can both be considered moral.

Where is the honesty in your post? NO WHERE

Posted by: TexasRed at February 22, 2008 2:46 PM

Where have I not been honest?

Now you want to respond to the question? Odd how you wouldn't respond to it when she was talking about two 24 week unborn babies. Is it your opinion that this doesn't happen that late in gestation?

Posted by: Bethany at February 22, 2008 2:27 PM
************************************
I didnt respond to her post? Your reading comprehension skills are so very limited. Or is it your integrity thats lacking? Or maybe both? Antichoices like to pretend that women typically abort a healthy viable fetus for no reason at all. You insist it happens 'all the time'. The thing is, youve never been able to give any evidence that it does happen at all. Now bray that Im just 'blind' and 'cant face the facts' when facts are what youve never provided. I dont have any problem at all with current restrictions on third trimester abortions. I also know that according to the JAMA there are about 500 to 600 third trimester abortions performed in the US per year and those are for atypical reasons. If you have facts to the contrary from an objective valid source then please provide them.

Where is the honesty in your post? NO WHERE

I didnt respond to her post? Your reading comprehension skills are so very limited. Or is it your integrity thats lacking? Or maybe both? Antichoices like to pretend that women typically abort a healthy viable fetus for no reason at all. You insist it happens 'all the time'. The thing is, youve never been able to give any evidence that it does happen at all. Now bray that Im just 'blind' and 'cant face the facts' when facts are what youve never provided. I dont have any problem at all with current restrictions on third trimester abortions. I also know that according to the JAMA there are about 500 to 600 third trimester abortions performed in the US per year and those are for atypical reasons. If you have facts to the contrary from an objective valid source then please provide them.

How in the world is any of that relevant to her question? Tell me, TR, if my born children are terminally ill, should I have a right to take them to the doctor to euthanise them?

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3]

* 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
* 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
* 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
* 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
* 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
* 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
* 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
* 6% Woman didn't know timing is important
* 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
* 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
* 11% Other

Antichoices like to pretend that women typically abort a healthy viable fetus for no reason at all.
Posted by: TexasRed at February 22, 2008 2:53 PM

So the 500,000,000 babies aborted since 1973 have all been diagnosed as unhealthy or non-vaiable. Is that really what you are saying??
This just gets better by the minute?
Who is not dealing in reality here????

Look at the stats from the Gutenschalger web site. I think you will find women abort mostly because the pregnancy is an inconvenience in their lives, want to continue school or career, or can't afford it. Where does the category of unhealthy fetus show up on the site??? NO WHERE.

Among women who provided additional information relating to
three specific reasons for having abortions at 16 or more weeks'
gestation, percentage who gave various detailed reasons for delay.

Woman failed to recognize pregancy or misjudged gestation (N=277)

50% She didn't feel physical changes
50 She hoped she was not pregnant
33 She had irregular periods
32 She thought she had her period
20 Her MD underestimated gestation
20 She was practicing contraception
9 Her pregnancy test was negative
7 She didn't know where or how to get a pregnancy test

Woman found it hard to make arrangements for an abortion (N=185)

60% She needed time to raise money
32 She tried to get an abortion from a different clinic or MD
26 She had to arrange transportation because there was no nearby provider
20 She didn't know where to get an abortion
16 She couldn't get an earlier appointment
11 She took time to notify her parents or get their consent
9 She needed child care or a Medicaid card
0 She needed time to obtain court permission

Woman took time to decide to have an abortion (N=74)

78% She found having an abortion to be a difficult decision
19 She had religious or moral reasons for waiting
11 She talked with her parents/husband/partner

High Five Bethany!!!!

You read my mind!

OH TR, explain how the best option for a woman can be the death of her baby!?
If that isn't irrational, I can't see what is!
That is the knee-jerk reaction to a difficult personal problem.
Again, if you care about the plight of women in these situations use your voice to develop and put in place programs to support women through difficult pregnancies rather than getting them to kill their babies.
What I suspect is that the feminist response to abortion is based on a dislike of the female body and it's life giving capablilities.

Posted by: Patricia at February 22, 2008 2:29 PM
******************************
Suspicions based on irrational idiocy really dont mean much. Trying to pretend a woman who doesnt want to be pregnant must 'hate being a woman' just makes you look stupid. Your delusion that any woman who IS pregnant doesnt "really" want an abortion and "really" just needs 'you' to 'help them understand' makes you look pretty stupid as well. Your control freak misogynistic comments about the victims of rape and your delusion that women have some obligation to 'tough it out' just to keep you happy make my skin crawl. By the way, killing a baby is against the law. But ending an unwanted pregnancy may be the best thing a woman can do. It depends on the woman. You may not like it, but its still the truth.

Sandy:

I thought it might help calm you down. You obviously sound a little tense..I have heard that wine has the ability to calm and relax a person.

There, there, it'll be okay.

Posted by: Bethany at February 22, 2008 2:31 PM
******************
The lies you need to tell yourself or try to tell others really dont mean much, Bethany. That you DO lie, and are so willing and ready to lie says a great deal about you, though.

TR,
What would you know about having an adult conversation? I dont drink but it doesnt surprise me to hear you apparently need to rely on alcohol to cope with the world. I never expect honesty from you. I never expect you to tell the truth. I never expect you to show any integrity. You taught me those lessons long ago.

Posted by: Sandy at February 22, 2008 2:32 PM
*************
Sandy, thank you for going out of your way to look like an idiot. I find it amusing - stupidity is always the preferred route for most antichoicers.

The lies you need to tell yourself or try to tell others really dont mean much, Bethany. That you DO lie, and are so willing and ready to lie says a great deal about you, though.

I notice you never post any sources to prove that I've lied...you just say it and assume that your saying it proves it. lol

Why not post some sources, and actually specify where I lied, and try to make an actual argument?

"You're an idiot", "you're delusional", :You're mysogynistic", etc...I'm sorry TR, but it gets a little old after a while. Look, if it will make anything better, I can buy you a thesaurus. I don't mind you insulting me as long as you do it with a little creativity.

Our work here is done. She's crawled back into her cave. And now I'll have to go to confession and admit I enjoyed that!

Posted by: mk at February 22, 2008 2:45 PM
****************
Yes, MK - you enjoy looking like an idiot. Youve proven that over and over again.

Sandy, thank you for going out of your way to look like an idiot. I find it amusing - stupidity is always the preferred route for most antichoicers.

She called her own argument stupid, Sandy! lol

Yes, MK - you enjoy looking like an idiot. Youve proven that over and over again.

i'm on the same page as you, MK! LOL

Posted by: Bethany at February 22, 2008 2:40 PM
**************
Of course you are. It keeps both of you from having to look in the mirror.

What I suspect is that the feminist response to abortion is based on a dislike of the female body and it's life giving capabilities.

Absolutely.

Posted by: Bethany at February 22, 2008 2:32 PM
*******************************
Maybe according to a neurotic imbecile ....

Of course you are. It keeps both of you from having to look in the mirror.

How bout just an answer?

Posted by: mk at February 22, 2008 2:35 PM
******************
Answer what? Your demented delusions and inventions and fabrications and hallucinations? They have nothing to do with me.

Sandy, MK, Patricia...I'm having fun with these smilies. I found TR:

First of all tearing up an 18 wk baby is legal in the US and Canada. In fact, in Canada, you can tear up a 38 wk old baby if you are so inclined.
I was not specifically speaking of birthing an 18 wk baby but certainly 18 wk babies can be treated in utero for various ailments.
TR as much as you want to say so - you CANNOT have two views which are both morally correct. Only one can be morally correct.
Any ethicist will tell you this. If you do otherwise then you are into situation ethics and utilitarianism. Soon it won't be just 18 week babies but 80 year old women with senility.

If you are irrational in your thinking on this major life issue, chances are that irrationality will affect other aspects of your life, TR.

Posted by: Patricia at February 22, 2008 2:38 PM
***********************
When an 80 year old woman is attached to someones body against their will then you may have an argument. Until then youre looking stupid again. Yes, cretin, I most certainly CAN recognize that what is right for one woman is going to be wrong for someone else. Whether you like it or not, I can recognize that fact. What is irrational is your megalomaniacal delusion that YOU can decide what is 'right' for everyone else in the world and if they dont agree they are 'irrational'. Your egocentricity and delusions of grandeur are as irrational as it gets.

Answer what? Your demented delusions and inventions and fabrications and hallucinations? They have nothing to do with me.

Uh, the questions.... maybe? just a guess.

Here, I copied and pasted them again for you:

1. How can 'choice' miraculously make a fetus someone's property or a fetus someone's baby when nothing has changed in the structure?

2. How can 'choice' miraculously make it a termination when one person says unwanted or make it murder when one person says wanted?

3. Nothing changes in the fetus/baby. Just a thought. Just a thought changes the rights of the fetus/baby. How can that be logical.

Who is not dealing with reality TR????

Posted by: Sandy at February 22, 2008 2:46 PM
****************************
Sandy, "because I said it happened" isnt worth jack diddly squat.

TR,
Destroying an unborn baby is completely against the nature of a woman. It is anti-feminine.
Only a woman who rejects her nature is able to do this. It is completely against the nature of woman, whose special feminine genius is the openness to accepting the gift of life and giving life.
This is why women are so negatively affected by abortion.
I never stated that a pregnant woman may not want an abortion - but if she does, society has an obligation to help her carry this child to term.
Whether a baby is ripped apart inside the uterus or outside the woman, it doesn't change the fact that a baby has died. Only the location is different.
Another inconsistency.

Bethany,

She might even be interesting if she'd lose the attitude. Might be a perfectly nice person. But we'll never know. At least Laura and Sally show their human sides once in awhile, and earn respect. Laura is kind to animals and Sally loves her family, and gardens and cooks...TR just spews...

Posted by: mk at February 22, 2008 2:43 PM
***************
As I said - you and bethany both - look in the mirror and remember the parable of the mote and the beam. Neither one of you have a hairs bredth worth of room to talk.

It's to your benefit. We don't really want to laugh at you. We'd prefer to laugh with you.

************
No one is laughing as hard as I laugh at the entire hysterical antichoice rant - and how quickly youre reduced to showing yourself to be immature tantrum throwing petulant little chiennes

Here AGAIN:

I copied and pasted them again for you:

1. How can 'choice' miraculously make a fetus someone's property or a fetus someone's baby when nothing has changed in the structure?

2. How can 'choice' miraculously make it a termination when one person says unwanted or make it murder when one person says wanted?

3. Nothing changes in the fetus/baby. Just a thought. Just a thought changes the rights of the fetus/baby. How can that be logical.

TR
you absolutely refuse to engage me on the level of discussing the morality of an action - namely aborting and therefore killing an unborn baby.
All you do is call me names.
Again, let me spell it out for you:
If we can kill an 18 wk unborn child because of it's location or age or ability/development then there is nothing to stop doctors and caregivers (analgous to a pregnant woman who is the caregiver of her unborn baby) from killing an 80 year old woman because of her location, age, or ability/development.
However, I suspect that you realize this, but simply don't want to accept the full extension of you (il)logic.
Too bad for you.

TexasRed:

"Antichoices like to pretend that women typically abort a healthy viable fetus for no reason at all. You insist it happens 'all the time'. The thing is, youve never been able to give any evidence that it does happen at all."

Really? I've provided that information many times. And here it is again.

The CDC reports www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5609.pdf that in 2004 there were 8,365 abortions over 21 weeks gestation. This is for only 44 out of 51 reporting area's. (Usually it is 52 reporting area's but in 2004 Nebraska's data showed more than 15% unknown gestational age which would throw all the stats off needlessly.)

Now in order to "estimate" for the states that did not report what is done is you take the number of abortions that year and divide by the average percentage of abortions at or after viability. That is approx 170 more late term abortions at or after viability per state. So that would add 1,190 more abortions making a total of 9,555 for 2004.

Now, how about if you provide us with the JAMA information showing 500 to 600?

No one is laughing as hard as I laugh at the entire hysterical antichoice rant - and how quickly youre reduced to showing yourself to be immature tantrum throwing petulant little chiennes

You're such a sweet and positive influence over us, TR. We should definitely take some pointers from you on how to be truly happy.

1. How can 'choice' miraculously make a fetus someone's property or a fetus someone's baby when nothing has changed in the structure?

2. How can 'choice' miraculously make it a termination when one person says unwanted or make it murder when one person says wanted?

3. Nothing changes in the fetus/baby. Just a thought. Just a thought changes the rights of the fetus/baby. How can that be logical.

Now, just so you remember, we were discussing how you can say 2 polar opposites can both be considered moral.

Posted by: valerie at February 22, 2008 2:49 PM
*************************
1) because youre not talking about the same fetus, for starters - and its every womans right to decide if she values her pregnancy and wants to continue it or she doesnt

2) abortion is legal even in states which have laws against feticide - the womans right to end her pregnancy is still recognized

3) Youre not talking about the same pregnancy - the same woman is not pregnant. For a woman to say she values her pregnancy and "loves her baby" and then say she doesnt value her pregnancy and wants to end it - thats illogical. But there is nothing illogical about one woman wanting to continue a pregnancy and another woman wanting to end it.

What is the right choice for one woman can be the wrong choice for someone else. Whining 'its not logical' just shows that youre not capable of facing that fact. Your refusal to face it doesnt make it any less true.

Sandy, thank you for going out of your way to look like an idiot. I find it amusing - stupidity is always the preferred route for most antichoicers.

She called her own argument stupid, Sandy! lol

High Five again Bethany!
Posted by: Bethany at February 22, 2008 3:08 PM

How in the world is any of that relevant to her question? Tell me, TR, if my born children are terminally ill, should I have a right to take them to the doctor to euthanise them?

Posted by: Bethany at February 22, 2008 2:55 PM
*********************
What in the world does that have to do with this discussion? Now whine 'There isnt any difference!' Yes, there is. If you couldnt take care of your child then someone else could step in and take over for you. No one can take over a pregnancy. And if a woman doesnt choose to continue a doomed pregnancy then thats her right. Youre not part of the decision making process. Youre not the one pregnant. Youre not the one who will deal the emotional impact of either choosing to end the pregnancy or choosing to continue it. That you want to sit in judgment of the woman making this decision just shows that nasty little streak of misogyny and hatred that runs so deep in you.

If you couldnt take care of your child then someone else could step in and take over for you.

What if no one wanted to step in and take care of my child? Then could I euthanize him/her?

The results were as follows
*******
And? By 16 weeks about 97% of abortions have already been performed, so youre only talking about 3% of abortions to begin with.

And? By 16 weeks about 97% of abortions have already been performed, so youre only talking about 3% of abortions to begin with.

And your point is, what?
OF the women who choose to abort late, those are the reasons they abort. Fetal abnormality is at the bottom of the list, at 2 percent!

So the 500,000,000 babies aborted since 1973 have all been diagnosed as unhealthy or non-vaiable. Is that really what you are saying??
This just gets better by the minute?
Who is not dealing in reality here????

Look at the stats from the Gutenschalger web site. I think you will find women abort mostly because the pregnancy is an inconvenience in their lives, want to continue school or career, or can't afford it. Where does the category of unhealthy fetus show up on the site??? NO WHERE.

Posted by: Sandy at February 22, 2008 3:00 PM
*******************
Is someone just too stupid to know what the term nonviable means when its used to describe a fetus? And yes, fetal defect and genetic anomalies ARE reasons why women choose to end a pregnancy and Guttmacher DOES address that.

TexasRed -

In courts there is something called precedent. Do you honestly believe saying one murder isn't the same as another murder because it isn't the same body would work?

That would get you laughed out of court.

Lets try it again shall we?

It doesn't matter if it is the same fetus or not and that is actually the point (which I should have pointed out, but I thought that was obvious.) It actually has to be different fetus or you would be comparing something to itself which isn't possible in the real world. What matters is that in one circumstance it is murder but in another circumstance it is not murder based on one persons idea of wantedness. The fetus: size, age, shape, location etc. are all the same.

Now try reading the questions again based on the reality of those questions.

I notice you never post any sources to prove that I've lied...you just say it and assume that your saying it proves it. lol

*****************
Youre lying about me, Bethany. Thanks for proving your inabilit to come to terms with your own words and accusations, yet again.

Is someone just too stupid to know what the term nonviable means when its used to describe a fetus? And yes, fetal defect and genetic anomalies ARE reasons why women choose to end a pregnancy and Guttmacher DOES address that.

Uh, yeah. 2 percent of the 3 percent of women who have abortions have them because of a fetal abnormality (just repeating your stats back at you).
That means that 98 percent of the 3 percent of women who have abortions have them because of CONVENIENCE. That is GUTTMACHER'S STATS.

Youre lying about me, Bethany. Thanks for proving your inabilit to come to terms with your own words and accusations, yet again.

Um, you still haven't specified one lie, TR.

"You're an idiot", "you're delusional", :You're mysogynistic", etc...I'm sorry TR, but it gets a little old after a while. Look, if it will make anything better, I can buy you a thesaurus. I don't mind you insulting me as long as you do it with a little creativity.

Posted by: Bethany at February 22, 2008 3:07 PM
******************
And how old do you imagine the incessant antichoice whine of 'killing babies' 'tearing babies apart' 'only for convenience' 'innocent baby' 'irresponsible women' 'hate being a woman' ad infinitum ad nausem gets Bethany? I dont expect creativity from antichoicers. You lack the capacity. I DO expect dishonesty, stupdity, misogyny, ignorance, incompetence, and hysterics and you never disappoint me.

And how old do you imagine the incessant antichoice whine of 'killing babies' 'tearing babies apart' 'only for convenience' 'innocent baby' 'irresponsible women' 'hate being a woman' ad infinitum ad nausem gets Bethany?

Well, no one's forcing you to stay here, TR. Something brings you back.

Sandy, thank you for going out of your way to look like an idiot. I find it amusing - stupidity is always the preferred route for most antichoicers.

She called her own argument stupid, Sandy! lol

Posted by: Bethany at February 22, 2008 3:08 PM
***************
No, Bethany, I said her ploy was stupid, and she was stupid for trying to use it.

Sandy, MK, Patricia...I'm having fun with these smilies. I found TR:

Posted by: Bethany at February 22, 2008 3:12 PM
******************
back to your lies bethany - when Bethany cant think of anything else, she can always try to look like a chienne ....

Answer what? Your demented delusions and inventions and fabrications and hallucinations? They have nothing to do with me.

Uh, the questions.... maybe? just a guess. (thank you for your dishonsty with copying an pasting Bethany - that comment had nothing to do with the questions you quoted)

Here, I copied and pasted them again for you:

1. How can 'choice' miraculously make a fetus someone's property or a fetus someone's baby when nothing has changed in the structure?

2. How can 'choice' miraculously make it a termination when one person says unwanted or make it murder when one person says wanted?

3. Nothing changes in the fetus/baby. Just a thought. Just a thought changes the rights of the fetus/baby. How can that be logical.

Posted by: Bethany at February 22, 2008 3:16 PM
*******************
I answered all three of those *questions* Bethany.

TR,
Destroying an unborn baby is completely against the nature of a woman. It is anti-feminine.
Only a woman who rejects her nature is able to do this. It is completely against the nature of woman, whose special feminine genius is the openness to accepting the gift of life and giving life.
This is why women are so negatively affected by abortion.
I never stated that a pregnant woman may not want an abortion - but if she does, society has an obligation to help her carry this child to term.
Whether a baby is ripped apart inside the uterus or outside the woman, it doesn't change the fact that a baby has died. Only the location is different.
Another inconsistency.

Posted by: Patricia at February 22, 2008 3:17 PM
************************
You are so full of sh*t.

BWAAAAHAAAAAA!

She asked you those questions at 3:16. Your answers didn't post until 3:27!

Whose the liar now? Why not stay with facts and stop playing make believe.

I answered all three of those *questions* Bethany.

And the question still remains. I appreciate the effot, though, TR...It does look like you actually tried that time, yet you avoided acknowledging the fact that Valerie did post proof of what she claimed. Go and check out all the posts by Valerie after your *answers*.

Bethany, Sandy & Patricia,
(sorry to interrupt)
You guys are maintaining your composure beautifully!

I found PROOF that you guys aren't idiots (not that I ever thought you were)

A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control. - Proverbs 29:11

TR
you absolutely refuse to engage me on the level of discussing the morality of an action - namely aborting and therefore killing an unborn baby.
All you do is call me names.
Again, let me spell it out for you:
If we can kill an 18 wk unborn child because of it's location or age or ability/development then there is nothing to stop doctors and caregivers (analgous to a pregnant woman who is the caregiver of her unborn baby) from killing an 80 year old woman because of her location, age, or ability/development.
However, I suspect that you realize this, but simply don't want to accept the full extension of you (il)logic.
Too bad for you.

Posted by: Patricia at February 22, 2008 3:24 PM
************************************
What is illogical are your delusions of grandeur. And since Ive pointed out the idiocy of your arguments obviously Ive done more than 'call you names'. Trying to draw parallells between an 80 year old woman and an 18 week old fetus is simple minded stupidity. You refuse to face the fact of the WOMAN who is pregnant and her CHOICE to end her pregnancy. And that is the real issue - the womans right to have a fetus removed from her body if she does not want it to be there. Your 'if / then' is imbecilic. When an 80 year old woman is attached to someones body then they will have the right to sever that attachment. If that doesnt happen then 80 year old women have nothing to do with this discussion.

Valerie, right! I think that TR has gotten so behind on the posts though that she didn't even notice that was an old question?

Now, how about if you provide us with the JAMA information showing 500 to 600?

Posted by: valerie at February 22, 2008 3:25 PM
***************
JAMA - August 1998 - I'll see if I can find a copy of the actual article on line

Anonymous

Vol. 280, pp. 724-729, Aug. 26, 1998

Late-term Abortion
Janet E. Gans Epner, PhD; Harry S. Jonas, MD; Daniel L. Seckinger, MD

Recent proposed federal legislation banning certain abortion procedures, particularly intact dilatation and extraction, would modify the US Criminal Code such that physicians performing these procedures would be liable for monetary and statutory damages. Clarification of medical procedures is important because some of the procedures used to induce abortion prior to viability are identical or similar to postviability procedures. This article reviews the scientific and medical information on late-term abortion and late-term abortion techniques and includes data on the prevalence of late-term abortion, abortion-related mortality and morbidity rates, and legal issues regarding fetal viability and the balance of maternal and fetal interests. According to enacted American Medical Association (AMA) policy, the use of appropriate medical terminology is critical in defining late-term abortion procedures, particularly intact dilatation and extraction, which is a variant of but distinct from dilatation and evacuation. The AMA recommends that the intact dilatation and extraction procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman and that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Major medical societies are urged to collaborate on clinical guidelines on late-term abortion techniques and circumstances that conform to standards of good medical practice. More research on the advantages and disadvantages of specific abortion procedures would help physicians make informed choices about specific abortion procedures. Expanded ongoing data surveillance systems estimating the prevalence of abortion are also needed.

JAMA. 1998;280:724-729

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions of Trimesters and Viability
Prevalence of Induced
Abortion
Reasons for Induced
Abortion
Procedures Used to Induce Abortion
Abortion-Related Mortality
Abortion-Related Morbidity
Legal Context
of Medical Decisions
Policies of Major Medical Societies
References
In recent years, public debate on abortion has focused on surgical procedures used to induce abortion during the second and third trimesters. This was most clearly demonstrated through proposed federal legislation on so-called partial birth abortion.[2] The legislation would modify the US Criminal Code to make it a federal crime for a physician or other individuals legally authorized by the state to perform an abortion that would "deliberately and intentionally deliver into the vagina a living fetus, or a substantial portion thereof, for the purpose of performing a procedure the physician knows will kill the fetus, and kills the fetus,"[2] unless the procedure was performed to save the life of the woman and there were no other alternative methods available. The physician would also be liable for monetary and statutory damages to the father of the fetus or the maternal grandparents of the fetus if the mother was younger than 18 years. The debate over this legislation generated heated controversy over the prevalence of late-term abortion, the specific procedures used to perform them, the reasons late-term abortions are performed, and the risk of death and complications for the woman related to late-term abortion.

This article presents scientific and medical information on late-term abortion and late-term abortion techniques. A discussion of the prevalence of induced abortion and limitations of data on abortion is followed by a description of reasons for late-term abortion. Procedures used to induce abortion at earlier and later stages of pregnancy are described, abortion-related mortality and morbidity are discussed, Supreme Court decisions on abortion are summarized, and policies of major medical societies on late-term abortion are presented.

Data on the prevalence of induced abortion were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Ga, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), New York, NY, and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Washington, DC. Information on induced-abortion procedures and related complications is derived from English-language peer reviewed medical journals and medical textbooks, some of which were identified through computerized databases. Data on policies of major medical societies regarding late-term abortion were obtained from each of the medical societies.

Definitions of Trimesters and Viability
In this article, early second-trimester abortion procedures refer to those performed at 13 through 15 weeks of gestation. Mid second-trimester abortion procedures are those performed at 16 through 19 weeks of gestation. Late second-trimester abortions refer to procedures performed at 20 through 27 weeks of gestation. Late-term abortions refer to procedures performed during the third trimester, defined as 27 weeks of gestation or more. Weeks of gestation are defined in terms of the first day of the last menstrual period. However, gestational age may vary depending on whether the stage of pregnancy is calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period, from the estimated time of fertilization, or from the estimated time of implementation.[3,4] Such distinctions are important when regulations or legal provisions refer to weeks of gestation or trimesters.

Viability is presumed to exist after 27 weeks of gestation (assuming an otherwise healthy fetus) and is presumed not to exist prior to 20 weeks.[5,6,7] The time between 20 and 27 weeks is a "gray zone" in which some fetuses may be viable and others are not. The definition of viability used herein is the same as that used by the US Supreme Court: "the capacity for meaningful life outside the womb, albeit with artificial aid," and not just momentary survival.[8] The distinction between measuring viability in terms of weeks of gestation vs "meaningful life outside the womb, albeit with artificial aid" is important with respect to late-term abortion. It is not clear whether the proposed federal legislation would ban all third-trimester abortions or all postviability procedures, some of which may occur during the second trimester. Some medical procedures used to induce abortion prior to viability are identical or very similar to postviability abortion procedures.

Table of Contents

Prevalence of Induced Abortion
The CDC defines an induced abortion as "a procedure intended to terminate a suspected or known intrauterine pregnancy and to produce a nonviable fetus at any gestational age."[9] A molar pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, or fetal death diagnosed before any intervention are not regarded as an induced abortion.

The most scientifically reliable national data on the incidence of abortion in the United States come from the CDC and the AGI. The AGI is an independent, nonprofit corporation for research, policy analysis, and public education. Because the number of late-term abortions performed annually has been questioned in the popular press, it is worth describing the type of national abortion statistics collected in the United States and methods of data collection. Both the CDC and AGI collect data on the number of abortions in the United States. The CDC data are derived primarily from reports by state health departments, whereas the AGI collects data directly from abortion providers. For many years, AGI estimates of the number of abortions performed in the United States each year have been higher and considered to be more accurate than CDC estimates.[10,11] However, AGI collects national abortion data on a periodic basis, whereas the CDC has collected abortion-related data annually since 1970. Furthermore, the AGI does not collect data on gestational age. Instead, it uses CDC data on the number of abortions performed at various gestational ages and makes statistical adjustments for discrepancies between AGI and CDC data when publishing its estimates.

Because the CDC collects annual data on abortion primarily from state health departments, the data have limitations. First, some states—Alaska, California, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma—neither collect nor report abortion-related information to the CDC. For these states, the CDC conducts limited surveys of abortion providers or estimates the number of abortions.[10] Second, some state health departments lack information on 40% to 50% of abortions performed in the state.[11,12] Third, categories used by the CDC to report second-trimester abortion methods differentiate between dilatation and evacuation (D&E) (also referred to as dilation and evacuation), labor induction procedures, and hysterotomy or hysterectomy, but they do not have a separate category for dilatation and extraction (D&X) (also referred to as dilation and extraction). Fourth, states vary in how gestational age is recorded. Some use the number of weeks since the first day of the woman's last menstrual period, while others record the physician's estimate of gestational age. Finally, although the CDC reports abortion data by gestational age, it neither compiles nor reports a detailed breakdown of abortions performed at 21 weeks and beyond. Despite these limitations, the CDC and AGI are the most reliable sources of national data on abortion.


Table 1—
Induced Abortion, 1992

Table 2—
Estimated Number
of Late Induced Abortions, 1992 The vast majority (95%) of induced abortions are performed at or before 15 weeks' gestation, in the first or very early second trimester (Table 1).[12] The estimated number of induced abortions at 21 weeks or more is shown in Table 2.[12] These estimates are based on CDC abortion surveillance reports, data collected by the NCHS from 14 states, and AGI survey data. Estimates were calculated by the AGI but must be viewed cautiously. First, the data were collected from 14 states that may not be representative of the nation as a whole, and reporting by these states may be incomplete. Second, assuming that the number of clinicians who perform late-term abortions is relatively small,[12] they may have relatively large caseloads. The number of late-term abortions would be underestimated if these clinicians were not in the NCHS sample or overestimated if they were overrepresented in the sample. Third, random error in coding gestational age could substantially inflate the estimated number of abortions performed beyond 26 weeks because these procedures constitute such a small proportion of abortions overall. Fourth, clinician errors in estimating gestational age could bias the data in unknown ways. Finally, natural fetal deaths beyond 20 weeks of gestation reported to the NCHS may be miscounted as abortions if the fetus were removed using procedures used to induce abortion.[13]

According to these estimates, two thirds of abortions beyond 20 weeks are performed between 21 and 22 weeks. The number of abortions performed after 26 weeks nationwide is estimated between 320 and 600. An estimated 83% of abortions performed later than 20 weeks of gestation are performed by D&E and most others by inducing labor.[12] It is not possible to quantify the type of D&E procedure used in these circumstances.

In 1994, teenagers were more likely than older women to have an abortion at 16 weeks of gestation or later.[10] Seventeen percent of women 19 years of age or younger who had an abortion in 1994 had the procedure performed at 13 weeks of gestation or later, compared with 11% of women 20 years of age and older.[10] Among women who had an abortion in 1994, 15% of women who were black or of other races had the procedure during the second or third trimester, compared with 10% of white women who did so. There were no differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic women (12.8% and 12.6%, respectively).[10]

Table of Contents

Reasons for Induced Abortion
Little research has been done on reasons for induced abortion in the second trimester. In 1987, the AGI conducted a survey of patients in 30 abortion facilities in which at least 400 abortions were performed annually and in which they performed abortions at 16 or more weeks of gestation.[14] The 30 abortion facilities represented each of the 4 regions of the country and the average patient response rate was 80%. Of the 1900 women in the survey, 420 (22.1%) had been pregnant for 16 weeks or more. When asked about the most important reasons for their delay in having an abortion, 71% reported that they did not recognize that they were pregnant or misjudged gestational age. Forty-eight percent had difficulty arranging for the abortion (particularly raising money), 33% were afraid to tell their parents or partner, and 24% reported great difficulty deciding to have an abortion. Women having an abortion later in pregnancy were also more likely to report personal health problems, possible fetal health problems, rape, or incest.

Some second-trimester abortions result from medical conditions that threaten a woman's health or life. The condition may have existed prior to the pregnancy, may have arisen during the pregnancy, or could have resulted from the pregnancy itself. Other second-trimester abortions result from the detection of serious fetal abnormalities, many of which are not diagnosed until the second trimester. Amniocentesis is usually performed between the 14th and 18th weeks of pregnancy, and results usually are not available for another 2 to 3 weeks.[15] Chorionic villus sampling (CVS) can be performed between the 10th and 12th weeks of pregnancy.[15] Preliminary results of CVS are usually available within 48 hours and confirmatory final results typically take a maximum of 7 to 10 days.[15] An induced abortion prompted by the discovery of fetal anomalies through CVS or amniocentesis is almost certain to occur after the first trimester.

Table of Contents

Procedures Used to Induce Abortion

Table 3—
Percentage of Reported Legal Abortions...
The procedure used to induce abortion depends, in part, on gestational age, commonly defined as the number of weeks since the first day of the last menstrual period, based on a 28-day menstrual cycle.[4] The percentage of reported legal abortions by weeks of gestation and type of procedure is shown in Table 3.[10] The most common procedures used to induce abortion in the United States (99%) are suction or sharp curettage and D&E. The D&E procedure is the most common method used in the second trimester, although about 6% of abortions at 16 to 20 weeks and 9% of those past 20 weeks are performed using labor induction techniques. Hysterotomy and hysterectomy are rare regardless of gestational age.

First Trimester.—Since the 1970s, vacuum aspiration, also referred to as suction curettage, has been the most common procedure used to induce abortion in the first trimester (ie, through the 12th week of gestation).[9-11] Menstrual regulation, also known as menstrual extraction, is a type of early suction curettage that can be performed no later than 42 to 50 days from the last menstrual period.[16] Neither anesthesia nor dilation is usually necessary.

Pharmaceutical agents also have been used in first-trimester abortions. Mifepristone (RU-486), a synthetic hormone, can be used within 9 weeks of the last menstrual period. To induce abortion, the woman takes 1 oral dose of mifepristone followed a few days later by misoprostol to stimulate uterine contractions and expel the products of conception.[15] Methotrexate used with misoprostol represents a second pharmaceutical approach.[17] First-trimester procedures are typically performed on an outpatient basis.

Early Second Trimester.—The most common procedure to induce abortion during the second trimester is D&E, which refers generically to transcervical procedures performed at 13 weeks of gestation or later.[10,18,19,20] Labor-induction techniques are also used during the second trimester but are more common in the late second and third trimesters.

The D&E procedure is similar to vacuum aspiration except that the cervix must be dilated more widely (usually with osmotic dilators) because surgical instruments are used to remove larger pieces of tissue. Ultrasonography frequently is used to avoid underestimating gestational age.[16,21,22,23,24] Intravenous fluids and an analgesic or sedative may be administered; a local anesthetic such as a paracervical block may be used. Dilating agents are removed before instruments are inserted through the cervix and into the uterus to remove fetal and placental tissue. A curette is used to remove remaining tissue from the uterine walls. In pregnancies beyond 14 weeks, oxytocin may be given intravenously to stimulate the uterus to contract and shrink.[15,16,25]

Mid Second Trimester and Third Trimester.—By the 16th to 24th week of gestation, several procedures can be used to induce abortion, although some are more common than others. These include D&E, D&X (a variant of D&E), labor induction, hysterotomy, and hysterectomy.

By the 16th week of gestation, ultrasonography should be used to verify gestational age.[16,21-24] The D&E procedure is usually performed under local anesthesia, using sedation and paracervical block. Surgical instruments are used to extract the products of conception, followed by subsequent curettage.[16,19,20] Because the fetus is larger (particularly the head) and because bones are more rigid at this stage of gestation, destructive procedures are more likely to be required than at earlier gestational ages. Some physicians use intrafetal or intra-amniotic administration of potassium chloride or digoxin to induce fetal demise prior to a late D&E (after 20 weeks) to facilitate evacuation.[25] Other physicians do not induce fetal demise through injection because of concern that it might expose some women to a small but unnecessary risk.

To minimize uterine or cervical perforation from instruments or from laceration by fetal parts, some physicians use a form of D&E that has been referred to as intact D&X. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), intact D&X consists of the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body except the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a living fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus.[26] However, there may be variations of D&X that depart from this protocol, such as when an identical procedure is performed without converting the fetus to a footling breech or using decompression without suction evacuation of the cranial contents. Intact D&X may minimize trauma to the woman's uterus, cervix, and other vital organs. Some physicians may use intact D&X when the fetus has been diagnosed as having anomalies incompatible with life outside the womb. However, some physicians have suggested that the procedure may increase complications, such as cervical incompetence.[27] In the absence of controlled studies, the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown.

As gestational age increases, particularly during the 16th to 24th weeks, the proportion of abortions involving labor-induction techniques increases.[10,20] Labor-induction techniques can be subdivided by the type of abortifacient used (intra-amniotic hypertonic solutions, such as urea or saline) and prostaglandin inductions (eg, prostaglandin E2 suppositories).[16,23,28] The use of hypertonic solutions typically produces fetal death from osmotic insult and labor usually follows. In a saline abortion, a needle is inserted through the abdomen, the amniotic sac is injected with a concentrated salt solution, and this results in fetal demise and uterine contractions. Over several hours, the contractions cause the cervix to dilate and the contents of the uterus to be expelled. Alternatively, urea (a nitrogen-based solution that causes fetal demise when injected into the amniotic sac) may be used with subsequent administration of prostaglandins to induce contractions of the uterus and to expel its contents.[15] Unlike saline instillation, urea does not cause maceration of fetal tissues which would interfere with the histologic diagnosis of some fetal abnormalities.[29]

Hysterotomy and hysterectomy are used rarely to induce abortion because of the significantly greater maternal mortality and morbidity associated with these procedures compared with other abortion procedures.[10,11,20,30,31] Hysterotomy involves the surgical delivery of the fetus through an incision in the uterine wall and abdomen. Anesthesia is administered through epidural, spinal, or general anesthesia. Hysterotomy involves major surgery, must be done in a hospital, and lengthens a woman's hospital stay and recovery.[15] Hysterectomy may be appropriate in cases involving a preexisting pathologic condition, such as large uterine leiomyomas or carcinoma in situ of the cervix.[16]

Table of Contents

Abortion-Related Mortality
Abortion-related mortality refers to the death of the pregnant woman due to an abortion.[19] Abortion mortality may result from a legal, illegal, or spontaneous abortion or an abortion of unknown circumstances. The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with gestational age. In 1991, the overall case-fatality rate associated with legal abortions was 0.8 per 100,000 abortions.[10] The risk of mortality from induced abortion at 8 weeks' gestation or less was 0.2 per 100,000 procedures and by 16 to 20 weeks increased to 5.9 per 100,000 procedures.[32] At 21 weeks or more, the mortality rate was 16.7 per 100,000 procedures[32] and exceeded the risk of maternal death from childbirth, which was 6.7 per 100,000 deliveries,[33,34] although the difference was not statistically significant.


Table 4—
Abortion-Related Mortality Rates...
Abortion-related mortality rates associated with D&E, labor induction, and hysterectomy or hysterotomy at 13 weeks' gestation or later are shown in Table 4.[35] For all types of procedures, mortality rates increase with gestational age, but they are significantly greater for hysterectomy and hysterotomy, regardless of gestational age. Mortality rates, overall, are higher for abortion-related labor induction than D&E (7.1 and 3.7, respectively) but are comparable for induced abortions performed at 21 weeks or more (11.9 and 10.3, respectively).

Table of Contents

Abortion-Related Morbidity
It is difficult to estimate abortion-related morbidity because definitions of what constitutes a complication vary widely and because in the United States national data on abortion-related morbidity have not been collected on a systematic, ongoing basis. The best available national data on complications were collected during the 1970s by the Joint Program for the Study of Abortion (JPSA), sponsored by the Population Council, New York, NY, and the CDC.[36] The JPSA consisted of 3 prospective studies of abortion between 1971 and 1978, involved a sample of hospitals and clinics throughout the United States, and included 73,000 to 84,000 women in each phase of the research program.

The most common indicator of abortion-related morbidity is hospital admission. This excludes minor physical sequelae but includes more serious maternal consequences of induced abortion. The JPSA studies defined major complications from induced abortion as those that result in major unintended surgery, hemorrhage requiring a blood transfusion, hospitalization of 11 days or more, or temperature of at least 38.0°C (100.4°F) that lasts for 3 or more days.[37]

Between 1970 and 1990, the overall risk of major complications from abortion-related procedures declined dramatically. From 1970 to 1971 there were 8 major complications per 1000 patients who had abortions but who did not have a preexisting medical condition or did not undergo concurrent sterilization.[38] Between 1975 and 1978, the rate decreased to 5 major complications per 1000 abortions,[38] and by 1990, the National Abortion Federation, Washington, DC, estimated that there was 1 major complication per 1000 abortions.[39] The overall decline in complication rates probably can be attributed to an increased proportion of procedures being performed earlier in the pregnancy and improvements in medical technology, medical training, and the experience and skill of those performing the procedure.

The risk of complications is related to abortion method. Between 1975 and 1978, the last years of the JPSA, the complication rate associated with vacuum aspiration was 2 per 1000 procedures, and the complication rate for D&E was 7 per 1000 procedures. Procedures that induced labor (saline or prostaglandin instillation) had a higher rate (21 and 25 per 1000 procedures, respectively), and those involving major surgery had the highest rate of complications.[38]

The risk of complications and complication rates from induced abortion are also related to gestational age. From 1975 to 1978, there were between 1 and 4 major complications per 1000 procedures performed through the 12th week of gestation,[16] 6 major complications per 1000 procedures performed in weeks 13 to 14, 13 per 1000 in weeks 15 to 16, and 19 per 1000 in weeks 17 to 20.[16]

More recent international data also have shown that complication rates still increase with gestational age. Direct comparisons of abortion-related complication rates between countries must be made cautiously due to differences in the definition and measurement of complications. Data from 1988 for Denmark, Germany, and New York State and from 1987 for Canada, England, and Wales showed complication rates ranging from 0.4% to 3.4% for first-trimester abortions and from 1.1% to 8.7% for second-trimester abortions.[40]

Cervical incompetence and compromised subsequent pregnancies are important but unresolved concerns related to second- or third-trimester abortions. Little research exists on whether these complications are more likely to result from D&E (or intact D&X) or from labor-induction techniques. For second-trimester abortions, some physicians prefer D&E over labor-induction methods because D&E has a lower mortality rate, takes less time, is less expensive, can be done on an outpatient basis, and takes less of a psychological toll on some women because it does not imitate labor.[17,20,41,42] Other physicians prefer to induce labor because they find the labor induction method less distasteful.[41] Still others prefer the labor induction method because they feel that it interferes less with the diagnosis of cytogenetic, anatomical, or DNA abnormalities in the fetus, particularly if saline instillation is avoided.[43] However, a study involving 60 patients who underwent D&E at 14 to 22 weeks of gestation after fetal abnormalities were detected found that D&E successfully and consistently confirmed abnormal prenatal diagnoses.[29]

Abortion-related morbidity is lower for D&E procedures than for labor-induction methods used in second-trimester abortions. However, the rates are similar for procedures performed at 20 weeks' gestation and beyond. More research on complications and complication rates associated with various procedures and by gestational age is needed before firm conclusions about the relative safety of procedures can be drawn.

Table of Contents

Legal Context of Medical Decisions
Induced abortion through the first trimester was legal under common law in the United States until the middle of the 19th century.[44] By 1965, abortion and abortion attempts at all stages of pregnancy were prohibited by law, although in 46 states and the District of Columbia abortion was permitted to save the life of the pregnant woman. Similar exceptions to the statutory prohibition were made through judicial interpretation in 2 other states.[45] During the late 1960s, state legislatures began to reconsider the legalization of abortion, and, in January 1973, abortion became legal on a national basis as a result of US Supreme Court decisions in Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, (410 US 179 [1973]).

In Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, the US Supreme Court held that states could not interfere with the physician-patient decision about abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. After the first trimester and prior to fetal viability, the state could promote its interest in the health of the mother by regulating the abortion procedure in ways reasonably related to maternal health. Maternal health included physical, emotional, and psychological well-being, familial factors, and the woman's age.[46]

In Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court noted that the timing of viability can be difficult to establish precisely. The Court defined viability as "the capacity for meaningful life outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," and not just momentary survival. The Court noted that viability usually occurred at approximately 28 weeks but could occur as early as 24 weeks.[8] The Court stated that it is the professional responsibility of the physician to determine whether the fetus has the capacity for meaningful life and not merely temporary survival. For the stage subsequent to viability, the Court determined that the state could regulate and even proscribe abortion unless it was deemed by medical judgment to be necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.[8]

In Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v Danforth (428 US 52 [1976]), the Court stated that "[t]he time when viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy, and the determination of whether a particular fetus is viable is, and must be, a matter for the judgment of the responsible attending physician."[47] The Court rejected the argument that state legislation should specify a number of weeks as the point of viability, reaffirming that the onset of viability was essentially a medical concept, not an issue for legislative determination.[47]

However, in Webster v Reproductive Health Services (492 US 490 [1989]), the Supreme Court upheld a state statute that created "what is essentially a presumption of viability at 20 weeks, which the physician must rebut with tests indicating that the fetus is not viable prior to performing an abortion."[48] In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, (505 U.S. 833 [1992]), the Court acknowledged that advances in neonatal care moved viability to a point somewhat earlier than when Roe v Wade was decided but noted that this had "no bearing on the validity of Roe's central holding, that viability marks the earliest point at which the State's interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions."[49]

In Colautti v Franklin (439 US 379 [1979]), the Supreme Court struck down a statute subjecting physicians who performed an abortion to potential criminal liability if they failed to attempt to preserve the life of a viable or potentially viable fetus. The Court expressed uncertainty as to whether the statute permitted physicians to consider their duty to the patient to be paramount to their duty to the fetus or whether it required physicians to make a "trade-off" between the woman's health and additional percentage points of fetal survival. The Court held that where conflicting duties of this magnitude are involved, the state must proceed with greater precision before subjecting a physician to possible criminal sanctions.

The Court also addressed the balance of maternal and fetal interests in Thornburgh v American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (476 US 747 [1986]). The Supreme Court struck down a provision requiring every person who performs a postviability abortion to exercise the degree of care required to preserve the life and health of any unborn child intended to be born and not aborted. It also invalidated a provision requiring that the abortion technique used would maximize the likelihood that the unborn child would be aborted alive unless, in the judgment of the physician, that technique significantly increased medical risks to the life or health of the pregnant woman. The statute was found to be unconstitutional because it could be construed to require the mother to bear an increased medical risk in order to save her viable fetus.

Table of Contents

Policies of Major Medical Societies
Some medical societies have developed specific policies regarding late-term abortion. ACOG was the first medical specialty society to oppose the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 1995 and develop policy on intact D&X. In November 1995, ACOG released a statement expressing its disappointment that Congress "has attempted to regulate medical decision-making...by passing a bill on so-called 'partial-birth' abortion...[T]he College finds...very disturbing...any action by Congress that would supersede the medical judgment of trained physicians and that would criminalize medical procedures that may be necessary to save the life of a woman."[50] In January 1997, ACOG released a Statement of Policy on Intact D&X, which explained that intact D&X contains 4 specific elements (see "Procedures to Induce Abortion, Mid Second Trimester and Third Trimester" section).[26] The policy noted that "because these elements are part of established obstetric techniques, ... unless all four elements are present in sequence, the procedure is not an intact D&X."[26] Furthermore,

when abortion is performed after 16 weeks, intact D&X is one method of terminating a pregnancy. The physician, in consultation with the patient, must choose the most appropriate method based on the patient's individual circumstances. . . Terminating a pregnancy is performed in some circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. Intact D&X is one of the methods available in some of these situations. A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific medical practices, such as intact D&X, may outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision-making is inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous.[26]

In June 1997, the AMA House of Delegates adopted recommendations on late-term abortion and abortion techniques.[1] The recommendations reaffirmed AMA policies regarding abortion (5.990, 5.993, and 5.995) that state that the early termination of pregnancy is a medical matter between the patient and physician subject to the physician's clinical judgment, the patient's informed consent, and the availability of appropriate facilities. The AMA policy also states that abortion is a medical procedure and should be performed by a physician in conformance with standards of good medical practice and that support of or opposition to abortion is a matter for members of the AMA to decide individually, based on personal values or beliefs. The AMA will take no action that may be construed as an attempt to alter or influence the personal views of individual physicians regarding abortion procedures. Also reaffirmed was the policy that neither physician, hospital, nor hospital personnel shall be required to perform any act violative of personally held moral principles (Amended Resolution 158, A-90); (Resolution 49, I-89) (Substitute Resolution 43, A-73; Reaffirmed: I-86; Reaffirmed: Sunset Report, I-96; Reaffirmed by Substitute Resolution 208, I-96).

Additional recommendations were also adopted. First, the AMA noted that because partial birth abortion is not a medical term the AMA would not use it. Instead, the term intact dilatation and extraction (or intact D&X) should be used when referring to a specific procedure comprising the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body except the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the living fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus. This procedure is distinct from D&E procedures, which are more commonly used to induce abortion after the first trimester.

Second, the AMA recommended that the intact D&X procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. It is the physician, however, who must retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient.

Third, because the viability of the fetus and the time when viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy, it is the physician who should determine the viability of a specific fetus, using the latest available diagnostic technology. In addition, the AMA recommended that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. According to the recommendation, except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors that demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery.

The AMA also resolved to work with ACOG to develop clinical guidelines for induced abortion after the 22nd week of gestation and the American Academy of Pediatrics to develop clinical guidelines with respect to fetal viability during gestation and its impact on this procedure.

The AMA urged the CDC as well as state health department officials to develop expanded, ongoing data surveillance systems of induced abortion. Finally, the AMA resolved to work with appropriate medical specialty societies, government agencies, private foundations, and other interested groups to educate the public regarding pregnancy prevention strategies, with special attention to at-risk populations, which would minimize or preclude the need for abortions.

As of December 1997, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics had not issued policies on late-term abortion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the Group on Science, Technology, and Public Health, American Medical Association, Chicago, Ill.

This article is not intended to be construed or to serve as a standard of medical care. Standards of medical care are determined on the basis of all the facts and circumstances involved in an individual case and are subject to change as scientific knowledge and technology advance and patterns of practice evolve. This article was derived from the American Medical Association (AMA) Board of Trustees[1] 1997 Report 26 "Late-term Pregnancy Termination Techniques," which was approved by the AMA House of Delegates in June 1997. A copy of the full report, which includes information about the study group convened by the AMA on this subject, as well as appendices on legal and ethical considerations, is available on request from the authors. This article reflects the scientific literature as of December 1997. Responsibility for the content of this article rests solely with the authors.

Reprints: The Group on Science, Technology, and Public Health, American Medical Association, 515 N State St, Chicago, IL 60610.

Corresponding authors: Harry S. Jonas, MD, and Janet E. Gans Epner, PhD, American Medical Association, 515 N State St, Chicago, IL 60610.

Table of Contents

References
1. American Medical Association Board of Trustees. Late-term Pregnancy Termination Techniques. Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association; 1997. Report 26.

2. Partial Birth Abortion Act of 1995. HR1833, US Congress.

3. Cunningham FG, MacDonald PC, Gant NF, et al, eds. Williams Obstetrics. 20th ed. Stamford, Conn: Appleton & Lange; 1997:chap 7.

4. Santee B, Henshaw SK. The abortion debate. Fam Plann Perspect. 1992;24:172-173.

5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice, American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Perinatal Care at the Threshold of Viability. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; November 1995. Committee Opinion No. 163.

6. Copper RL, Goldenberg RL, Creasy RK, et al. A multicenter study of preterm birthweight and gestational-age specific neonatal mortality. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168:78-84.

7. Cunningham FG, MacDonald PC, Gant NF, et al, eds. Williams Obstetrics. 20th ed. Stamford, Conn: Appleton & Lange; 1997:chap 34.

8. Roe v Wade, 410 US 113 (1973).

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Abortion Surveillance, 1981. Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1985.

10. Koonin LM, Smith JC, Ramick M, Strauss LT, Hopkins FW. Abortion surveillance—United States, 1993 and 1994. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997;46(SS-4):37-99.

11. Atrash HK, Lawson HW, Smith JC. Legal abortion in the US: trends and mortality. Contemp OB/GYN. 1990;35:58-69.

12. The Alan Guttmacher Institute. Issues in Brief: the Limitations of US Statistics on Abortion. New York, NY: the Alan Guttmacher Institute; 1997.

13. Spitz AM, Lee NC, Grimes DA, et al. Third-trimester induced abortion in Georgia, 1979 and 1980. Am J Public Health. 1983;73:594-595.

14. Torres A, Forrest JD. Why do women have abortions? Fam Plann Perspect. 1988;20:169-176.

15. Slupik RI, ed. American Medical Association Complete Guide to Women's Health. New York, NY: Random House Inc; 1996.

16. Grimes D. Management of abortion. In: Rock JA, Thompson JD, eds. Te Linde's Operative Gynecology. 8th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott-Raven; 1997:chap 23.

17. Shulman LP, Grimes DA, Stubblefield PG. Abortion. In: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Update. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 1997;22:1-9.

18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Abortion Surveillance, 1978. Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1980.

19. Cates W Jr, Schulz KF, Grimes DA, et al. Dilatation and evacuation procedures and second-trimester abortions. JAMA. 1982;248:559-563.

20. Hern WM. Abortion Practice. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott; 1990.

21. Sabbagha R. Ultrasonic evaluation. In: Berger GS, Brenner WE, Deith LG, eds. Second-Trimester Abortion. Boston, Mass: John Wright/PSG; 1981:57-67.

22. Cates W Jr, Grimes DA. Deaths from second-trimester abortion by dilatation and evacuation. Obstet Gynecol. 1981;58:401-408.

23. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Morbidity and mortality from second-trimester abortions. J Reprod Med. 1985;30:505-514.

24. Hern WM. Correlation of fetal age and measurements between 10 and 26 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63:26-32.

25. Policar MJ, Pollack AE, eds. Clinical Training Curriculum in Abortion Practice. Washington, DC: National Abortion Federation; 1995.

26. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Statement on Intact Dilatation and Extraction. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; January 1997.

27. Golan A, Barman R, Wexler S, Langer R, Bukovsky I, David MP. Incompetence of the uterine cervix. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1989;44:96-107.

28. Hern WM. Use of prostaglandins as abortifacients. In: Sciarra JW, ed. Gynecology and Obstetrics. Philadelphia, Pa: Harper & Row; 1988.

29. Shulman LP, Ling FW, Meyers CM, Shanklin DR, Simpson JL, Elias S. Dilation and evacuation for second-trimester genetic pregnancy termination. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;75:1037-1040.

30. Grimes DA. Second-trimester abortions in the United States. Fam Plann Perspect. 1984;16:260-266.

31. Atrash HK, Peterson B, Cates W Jr, Grimes DA. The risk of death from combined abortion-sterilization procedures. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;142:269.

32. The Alan Guttmacher Institute. Facts in Brief: Induced Abortion. New York, NY: the Alan Guttmacher Institute; 1996.

33. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Statistics of the United States, 1991. Washington, DC: US Public Health Service; 1991:2.

34. National Center for Health Statistics. Advance Report of Final Natality Statistics, 1991. Washington DC: US Public Health Service; 1993. Monthly Vital Statistics Report 42.

35. Lawson HW, Frye A, Atrash HK, et al. Abortion mortality, United States, 1972 through 1987. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171:1365.

36. Binkin N. Trends in induced legal abortion morbidity and mortality. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1986;13:83-93.

37. Cates W Jr, Grimes DA. Morbidity and mortality of abortion in the United States. In: Hodgson JE, ed. Abortion and Sterilization: Medical and Social Aspects. New York, NY: Academic Press Inc; 1981:155-180.

38. Tietze C, Henshaw SK. Induced Abortion: A World View, 1986. New York, NY: the Alan Guttmacher Institute; 1986.

39. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Induced termination of pregnancy before and after Roe v Wade: trends in the mortality and morbidity of women. JAMA. 1992;268:3231-3239.

40. Henshaw SK. Induced abortion: a world view, 1990. Fam Plann Perspect. 1990;22:76-89.

41. Kaltreider NB, Goldsmith S, Margolis AJ. The impact of midtrimester abortion techniques on patients and staff. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1979;135:235-238.

42. Crist T, Williams P, Lee SH, Hulka JF. Midtrimester pregnancy termination. N C Med J. 1983;44:549-551.

43. Rhoads GG, Jackson LG, Schlesselman SE, et al. The safety and efficacy of chorionic villus sampling for early prenatal diagnosis of cytogenetic abnormalities. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:609-616.

44. Mohr JC. Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800-1900. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc; 1978.

45. Finnis JM. Abortion: legal aspects. In: Reich WT, ed. Encyclopedia of Bioethics. New York, NY: Free Press; 1978:28.

46. Doe v Bolton. 410 US 179, 193 (1973).

47. Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v Danforth. 428 US 52, 64 (1976).

48. Webster v Reproductive Health Services. 492 US 490, 515 (1989).

49. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey. 505 US 833, 835-36 (1992).

50. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Statement on HR1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; November 1, 1995.

Table of Contents

http://eileen.250x.com/Main/PBAinfo/jsc80006.htm

and one more for the road.....

2 Corinthians 4:7-10

7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;

9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;

10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.

I love you guys!!!!

According to these estimates, two thirds of abortions beyond 20 weeks are performed between 21 and 22 weeks. The number of abortions performed after 26 weeks nationwide is estimated between 320 and 600. An estimated 83% of abortions performed later than 20 weeks of gestation are performed by D&E and most others by inducing labor.[12] It is not possible to quantify the type of D&E procedure used in these circumstances.

Hey, TR, I like the article you posted. There are a lot of things that I saw in there that kind of confirmed our side on things... such as:

"It is difficult to estimate abortion-related morbidity because definitions of what constitutes a complication vary widely and because in the United States national data on abortion-related morbidity have not been collected on a systematic, ongoing basis."

So how can anyone really know that abortion is safer than childbirth? Truth is, they can't, and they don't.
*************

Anonymous, we love you too!

Bethany, Sandy & Patricia,
(sorry to interrupt)
You guys are maintaining your composure beautifully! (You are such a liar)

I found PROOF that you guys aren't idiots (not that I ever thought you were)

A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control. - Proverbs 29:11

Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2008 3:53 PM
************
You found 'proof' of nothing. But I found proof of what a liar you are - yet again.

Hey Anon,
Thanks!! Dittos!

The CDC reports www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5609.pdf that in 2004 there were 8,365 abortions over 21 weeks gestation. This is for only 44 out of 51 reporting area's. (Usually it is 52 reporting area's but in 2004 Nebraska's data showed more than 15% unknown gestational age which would throw all the stats off needlessly.)

**********************
21 weeks isnt 'viable'. Even at 23 weeks the chance of viability is only 15%. I posted the JAMA article.

TR
The difference between us is that you believe a baby is not human being with a right to life or you believe that someone else's right to convenience, comfort etc (the woman's right usually) trumps the baby's right to live.
But a baby cannot have a right to life in some instances and in other situations not.
Otherwise, this argument can be applied to any life situation - this is known as utilitarianism.
If the person is wanted or useful they have rights. If not, we can kill them.

You found 'proof' of nothing. But I found proof of what a liar you are - yet again.

Apparently TR cannot distinguish each poster from another.

No one is laughing as hard as I laugh at the entire hysterical antichoice rant - and how quickly youre reduced to showing yourself to be immature tantrum throwing petulant little chiennes

You're such a sweet and positive influence over us, TR. We should definitely take some pointers from you on how to be truly happy.

Posted by: Bethany at February 22, 2008 3:25 PM
****************
Im a sweet and positive influence over people who matter, Bethany. And you'd be a lot happier if you werent so full of resentment and hatred and control freak misogyny.

21 weeks isnt 'viable'. Even at 23 weeks the chance of viability is only 15%. I posted the JAMA article.

London, England (LifeNews.com) -- A new study by British researchers finds that almost half of the unborn children who are born at 23 weeks into the pregnancy survive the premature birth. The results may prompt British lawmakers to move back limits on late-term abortions and could be used to strengthen laws in other countries.

The study appears to confirm the thesis that advancements in medical science and technology are making it easier for doctors to treat babies who are born prematurely and to do so at earlier ages.

Researchers at University College Hospital London found that 42 percent of the babies born at 23 weeks survived and 72 percent of the babies born at 24 weeks into pregnancy survived the birthing process as well.

Read the rest here:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1473.html

Im a sweet and positive influence over people who matter, Bethany. And you'd be a lot happier if you werent so full of resentment and hatred and control freak misogyny.

I don't resent you or anyone here, TR. I do think you're amusing, but I'd be more than happy to be friends and engage in friendly debate if you'd be kind enough to drop the insults.

Im a sweet and positive influence over people who matter, Bethany. And you'd be a lot happier if you werent so full of resentment and hatred and control freak misogyny.

Posted by: TexasRed at February 22, 2008 4:10 PM

Who's the unhappy one here TR?
I think you would be a lot happier if you yank the cacti prickles out of your behind and soak in a tub with some epsom salts for awhile.

TexasRed -

First of all, you should read what you post.

"Estimates were calculated by the AGI but must be viewed cautiously. First, the data were collected from 14 states that may not be representative of the nation as a whole, and reporting by these states may be incomplete. Second, assuming that the number of clinicians who perform late-term abortions is relatively small,[12] they may have relatively large caseloads. The number of late-term abortions would be underestimated if these clinicians were not in the NCHS sample or overestimated if they were overrepresented in the sample. Third, random error in coding gestational age could substantially inflate the estimated number of abortions performed beyond 26 weeks because these procedures constitute such a small proportion of abortions overall. Fourth, clinician errors in estimating gestational age could bias the data in unknown ways. Finally, natural fetal deaths beyond 20 weeks of gestation reported to the NCHS may be miscounted as abortions if the fetus were removed using procedures used to induce abortion.[13] "

"Because the CDC collects annual data on abortion primarily from state health departments, the data have limitations. First, some states—Alaska, California, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma—neither collect nor report abortion-related information to the CDC. For these states, the CDC conducts limited surveys of abortion providers or estimates the number of abortions.[10] Second, some state health departments lack information on 40% to 50% of abortions performed in the state.[11,12] Third, categories used by the CDC to report second-trimester abortion methods differentiate between dilatation and evacuation (D&E) (also referred to as dilation and evacuation), labor induction procedures, and hysterotomy or hysterectomy, but they do not have a separate category for dilatation and extraction (D&X) (also referred to as dilation and extraction). Fourth, states vary in how gestational age is recorded. Some use the number of weeks since the first day of the woman's last menstrual period, while others record the physician's estimate of gestational age. Finally, although the CDC reports abortion data by gestational age, it neither compiles nor reports a detailed breakdown of abortions performed at 21 weeks and beyond. "

They admit that there numbers are not accurate.

Also you are quoting from a 10 year old article that is listing stats from 1992 and earlier. Those stats are out of date.

The article you posted had viability at 27 weeks but that has been changed to 24 weeks with discussions about moving it to 22 weeks.

The stats I posted are based on the most current information the CDC has. I stand by them.

TR
The difference between us is that you believe a baby is not human being with a right to life or you believe that someone else's right to convenience, comfort etc (the woman's right usually) trumps the baby's right to live.
But a baby cannot have a right to life in some instances and in other situations not.
Otherwise, this argument can be applied to any life situation - this is known as utilitarianism.
If the person is wanted or useful they have rights. If not, we can kill them.

Posted by: Patricia at February 22, 2008 4:07 PM
**********************
Mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure is not a 'baby' and whining about 'convenience' is only a way to try to belittle demean and denigrate the woman who is pregnant and her reasons for ending a pregnancy. Mindless nonviable tissue does not have "rights" nor should it have. However, the woman has the right to continue a pregnancy or end it. Youre not part of her decision making process. Trying to pretend there is 'no difference' between a fetus and an 80 year old woman just makes you look stupid.

Valerie, you are the best.

Sandy you crack me up.

Mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure is not a 'baby' and whining about 'convenience' is only a way to try to belittle demean and denigrate the woman who is pregnant and her reasons for ending a pregnancy.

it's not Patricia's claim, TR. It's Guttmacher's.

So how can anyone really know that abortion is safer than childbirth? Truth is, they can't, and they don't.
*************
Of course we can. A typical abortion is safer than gestation and birth.

Trying to pretend there is 'no difference' between a fetus and an 80 year old woman just makes you look stupid.

No one said there is no difference in a fetus and an 80 year old woman.
I certainly can see a difference in a newborn baby and an 80 year old woman but they have one thing in common: their humanity.
I certainly can see the difference in an unborn child and an 80 year old woman, but they have one thing in common: their humanity.

Of course we can. A typical abortion is safer than gestation and birth.

WOW! You proved me wrong, TR. You said it, so it must be true!

TexasRed:

"Of course we can. A typical abortion is safer than gestation and birth. "

Prove it.

It's also likely that if more effort and money were put into help unborn children and less on destroying them, chances of viability at earlier ages and also the ability to treat problems would be greatly enhanced.
The lowering of viability age is why many politicians, doctors and the general public are becoming more and more skeptical of the proabort rhetoric.
It's just possible that the general public's been sold a lie to the detriment of women and babies.
Remember when the proaborts wandered around aimlessly telling young women that at 6 weeks it was just a blob of tissue.
Many women, however, from their own personal experiences know better.

Patricia, 4:20 Amen.

hee-hee-hee

I just noticed the title of this post:

"Querying a paternal psychopath"

ah...the irony

Mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure is not a 'baby'
Really, TR you need a lesson in prenatal biology. By 8wks gestation a baby has a central nervous system, a brain, working heart, limbs and therefore is definitely organized. It's tissue is living and cellular processes are occurring.

Where's TR?

She must have gone to start running the bath water.

I think she's stumped trying to answer Valerie:

"Prove that a typical abortion is safer than gestation and birth"

google is smokin'!

it's been a slice ladies
have to take my gals to music lessons
have a nice illogical evening TR

Wow,

You guys did great...What a character.

I wonder what would be left in a post if we deleted all the insults? Should we try one for fun?

Let's try this one...

More idiocy from the antichoice side - but looking like an imbecile allows antichoicers to avoid dealing with what is actually said. If Nonny COULD defend the antichoice side without relying so heavily on looking like a fool no doubt he/she would.
Posted by: TexasRed at February 22, 2008 1:04 PM

Now we take out all the insults....and we're left with.....

Ummmm, nothing.

Okay, lets try another one:

Answer what? Your demented delusions and inventions and fabrications and hallucinations? They have nothing to do with me.
Posted by: TexasRed at February 22, 2008 3:12 PM

Nope, that's no good either.

Okay, one more...

Im a sweet and positive influence over people who matter, Bethany. And you'd be a lot happier if you werent so full of resentment and hatred and control freak misogyny.
Posted by: TexasRed at February 22, 2008 4:10 PM

All right...I think we got one...remove the insults and you're left with:

I'm a sweet and positive influence over people.

Well, there aren't any insults now, but tears are running down my cheeks from laughing so hard...

Oh well. It was worth a shot.

LOL

MK -

You are too funny!

sweet mk! I didn't mind the insults, just tried to call her in on every thing she said.
She's very irrational. It was good to go to music lessons where everything is well ordered and people think in an organized way.
Peace
Patricia

Patricia,

I don't mind her insults either, except they get in the way of what she is trying to say. The way people who say "like" every other word do. I feel sorry for her, because she is so passionate, yet unable to express herself...

Ahhh well, she's entertaining if you don't take her personally.

yllas: Add to that a rightous bigotry of anti-Catholicism, and you have the perfect enviroment and heredity that made Sally, the right person

Good grief, yllas, if there is somebody giving Catholicism a bad name, look in the mirror.

Anonymous: Sorry to say, (because choice = judgment) but I did not understand your words and presume they are supposed to mean that PC is a NEUTRAL moral position. However, there is no such thing: neutrality itself IS a moral position ... clarified at the Nuremberg trials after WWII.

My point was the the Pro-Choice position is not judging, but leaving it up to the person actually in the situation, the pregnant woman. If somebody says, "that woman's fetus should be aborted," then that is not being Pro-Choice.

Pro-Choice is saying that the greater good is to allow women the freedom they have.
.......

The aspect of judgment is revealing here since professional courtroom judgment always has the notion that a good judge will recuse himself/herself from decision if they are in any way personally involved. In such circumstances they are exactly opposite your take that the pregnant woman knows 'best'.

What the heck is that? The judge can recuse himself because somebody else can do the judging. The woman is the one pregnant; it's up to her.
......

There is an additional spiritual aspect to this: Mother Teresa used to contend that if you judged, it left no room to love.

No big argument there. I get what she is saying. If anything I'd add that love can be there with (some) judging, anyway.

Doug

great pubas of the medical community

Ouch. "Grand Poobah"

Patricia: What is she pregnant with? Fetus/embryo/conceptus are all medical terms which refer to the baby and are used to depersonalize and dehumanize the baby.

"Baby" is subjective. Heck, call it anything, call it a fruitpie if you want, but embryo and fetus are strictly correct, and not subjective.

The embryo or fetus in this debate is just as human as you & me, Patricia, no "dehumanizing" going on.

Doug

A fool gives full vent to his anger, but a wise man keeps himself under control. - Proverbs 29:11

Anonymous, pretty good. It has a decent beat and you can dance to it.

Another one I like is from good ol' G.K. Chesterton.

"Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly."

TexasRed: According to these estimates, two thirds of abortions beyond 20 weeks are performed between 21 and 22 weeks. The number of abortions performed after 26 weeks nationwide is estimated between 320 and 600. An estimated 83% of abortions performed later than 20 weeks of gestation are performed by D&E and most others by inducing labor.[12] It is not possible to quantify the type of D&E procedure used in these circumstances.

Right - and this fits with there being around 1,000 abortion per year at 24 weeks and later in the US.

TexasRed: A typical abortion is safer than gestation and birth.

It's over half of all abortions that are done at less than nine weeks past the last menstrual period, isn't it? Last I saw from CDC, AGI, etc. was 59%, I think.

For those abortions it's like 70 times safer than continuing the pregnancy and giving birth.

Doug, 9:58pm

LOL!!!

You (usually) put a smile on my face...Thanks!

:)

Texas Red:

You are a walking billboard for EVERYTHING that is wrong with our country.

Abortion is not safe..it's a deception, for God will require a reckoning for the shedding of blood of 50,000,000 unborn babies. Eternity is a long time, an unending time, forever.

You should be trembling.

That Doug, trying to turn the corner and make the argument into Catholics giving Catholics a bad name, is such a old time mainline Protestant gambit.
Look mommy a bigoted anti-Catholic, Know Nothing,deathsex family klan daughter,named Sally, is posting again at the message board, where anti-Catholicism is being defended by Doug,a disciple of the God that murders babies in the womb.
Yes, son, when you have no argument, accuse, give, name the opponent something "bad", to make them defend your fake argument about them being "bad", and then look in the mirror and think that the bigot your defending, is not really a anti Catholic bigot, named Sally.
Did you hear Doug? Guy Fawkes tryed to blow up the White House too? Given enough time, Doug would believe in that myth too, along with Sally knowing it gives Catholics a bad name.
Try again Doug, you anti-Catholic defending atheist.

Doug -

"For those abortions it's like 70 times safer than continuing the pregnancy and giving birth. "

Please provide a link to your source or title of document. I've never seen anything as being 70 times safer than anything on the CDC or Allan Guttmacher Institute.

As I've PROVEN a number of times. Your BLAAH BLAHH times safer is in FRACTIONS!!

I asked before and I don't think you answered. Name me any other medical procedure that would claim to be safer than another procedure when the difference in safety is in FRACTIONS!

Both have a less than 1% chance of maternal death and both have minimal chances of maternal complications. Actually, as I've shown many times before, abortion complications are soley for the mother and are usually serious. However the statistics of complications on pregnancy and childbirth are for both child and mother and the child has more of a chance of complications.

Yllas -

Being a Cradle Catholic I believe I can say this with as much respect as I can muster.

I agree with Doug, your words do not represent the Catholic Faith. I have never been taught the hatred towards other faiths as you have wrote on several posts in the past couple days.

Yllas, I'm partially repeating my response to you from another post:

I don't know what has gotten in to you, but knock off the Protestant bashing. We conservative Christians are fighting liberals in all our churches. A significant portion of Catholics are pro-abortion, just like Protestants. Imperfect Catholics have grievously cooperated with the taking of human life throughout history, just like Protestants.

yllas: That Doug, trying to turn the corner and make the argument into Catholics giving Catholics a bad name, is such a old time mainline Protestant gambit.

Nonsense. I have no problem with Catholics or Protestants. You're not a good example of a religious person, period.

Heck, call yourself anything but don't pretend you have a good reason for taking away the freedom that women have in the matter of continuing pregnancies or ending them.

"For those abortions it's like 70 times safer than continuing the pregnancy and giving birth. "

Valerie: Please provide a link to your source or title of document. I've never seen anything as being 70 times safer than anything on the CDC or Allan Guttmacher Institute.

Not rocket science, Valerie. The is from the AGI site.
....

Patricia,

I don't mind her insults either, except they get in the way of what she is trying to say. The way people who say "like" every other word do. I feel sorry for her, because she is so passionate, yet unable to express herself...

Ahhh well, she's entertaining if you don't take her personally.

Posted by: mk at February 22, 2008 9:11 PM
**********************
You are such a hypocrite and a liar.