Still Hating America.

[Shape Shifter]

How's Gonzo doing? Was he adequately prepared?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
? Most partial birth abortions are performed between the 20th and 26th weeks -- between the 5th and 6th months.

ETA: to be clear about what we're talking about -- the Partial Birth Abortion is the procedure where the 5th or 6th month old fetus is delivered by a doctor and only the head is kept inside the woman's body so that when the doctor ends the life of the fetus, it can be said that the life ended in utero:



Like I said, I'm pro-choice, but having friends who've delivered live kids at 5 1/2 months, I start thinking about whether the baby could even be heard crying during the above procedure.

I'm not entirely convinced, especially given where it came from, that that image is an accurate representation of what happens with this procedure.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm not entirely convinced, especially given where it came from, that that image is an accurate representation of what happens with this procedure.

Before the law was passed and the S. Ct. upheld it, was it legal to abort a viable fetus?

The only case I've read in any detail since (I think) Roe in law school (possibly I didn't read it, who knows, but most likely I did) is the 1999 Hope Clinic case, and that was back in 1999 or 2000.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
How's Gonzo doing? Was he adequately prepared?

What would you say?

• Schumer, one of the most outspoken lawmakers calling for Gonzales' resignation, homed in on an apparent discrepancy between Gonzales and Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., in a conversation in early December.
  
  Pryor has said that Gonzales promised not to use a temporary measure found in the U.S.A. Patriot Act to install U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. One of the attorneys dismissed is Bud Cummins of Arkansas.
  
  Schumer pointed to an e-mail by former Gonzales chief of staff Kyle Sampson, which laid out a plan to use the provision to circumvent the confirmation process.
  
  "So which is it? Again, did Kyle Sampson put out this memo completely on his own? ... If your chief of staff is implementing a major plan that contradicts what you told the U.S. senator from that state, in my view, you shouldn't be attorney general. And if on the other hand, what you said to Senator Pryor contradicts the plan, you also shouldn't be attorney general," Schumer said.
  
  Gonzales replied: "Mr. Sampson also testified 15 to 20 times in various ways that I either rejected this plan, I never liked this plan, thought it was a bad idea, never considered it, would not have considered it."
  
  "Who's running the department?" Schumer asked.
  
  "Senator, I wasn't aware of this email, but again, I want to be very, very clear about this. I never liked this plan," Gonzales said.

what a douche.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm not entirely convinced, especially given where it came from, that that image is an accurate representation of what happens with this procedure.

Yeah, a lot of these images are on jesus this or that dot com. But...it still seems to show what is actually done in PB abortions, except that the doctor uses ultra sound to see what he/she is grabbing onto when moving the fetus down. Here's an account from a nurse. http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/215.htm I would love to hear an account or description that contradicted this image (I mean that, really), so please share.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm not entirely convinced, especially given where it came from, that that image is an accurate representation of what happens with this procedure.

It's close, and it ain't helping me get down this sandwich.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
? Most partial birth abortions are performed between the 20th and 26th weeks -- between the 5th and 6th months.

ETA: to be clear about what we're talking about -- the Partial Birth Abortion is the procedure where the 5th or 6th month old fetus is delivered by a doctor and only the head is kept inside the woman's body so that when the doctor ends the life of the fetus, it can be said that the life ended in utero:



Like I said, I'm pro-choice, but having friends who've delivered live kids at 5 1/2 months, I start thinking about whether the baby could even be heard crying during the above procedure.

Wouldn't a non-intact D&E be essentially the same? In terms of the picture? Except no part of the fetus would be outside, it would be inside, and curled up rather than stretched out.

ETA reading the summary of the S Ct decision, it sounds like intact D&E could also involve having the head out and the rest in? Not sure if that is less common, or something. Seems to depend on the presentation.

And, that picture seems deceptive (in a cutesy warm fuzzy way) in that the uterus etc. etc. seem to have immediately retracted down around the fetus's head. People I have seen who have given birth or had a late miscarriage seem to be all distended and stuff even days afterwards. But that would be far less attractive.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It's close, and it ain't helping me get down this sandwich.

Bathing suit season. You could probably use a little less sandwich.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not keen on abortion past the point of viability, but I didn't think that was at issue.

So your keen on it up until viability?

"Why, he-llo Mister Slothrop. How are you today?"

"Just doing a little gardening Mrs. Smith. How are you?"

"Well, my pelvis is a bit touchy. Just had an abortion yesterday. But otherwise fine. Really looking forward to Spring."

"That's swell. Good time of year for an abortion. Nasty weather and not much else to do. You have a good day now."

"Keen" makes the List with "tummy", "belly" and "country club."

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Wouldn't a non-intact D&E be essentially the same? In terms of the picture? Except no part of the fetus would be outside, it would be inside, and curled up rather than stretched out.

Yes. Which is why I think the anti PB abortion movement will next take aim at the D&E procedure. Even though some supported the PB restriction by saying "Hey but a woman still has the D&E option." http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...245#post311245

To those posters on here that opposed PB abortions -- are you okay with the same procedure except that the chopping all gets done inside the woman's body? Does that make it okay for you?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Bathing suit season. You could probably use a little less sandwich.

Yeh, sausage and peppers in marinara never works with this discussion.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton

Like I said, I'm pro-choice, but having friends who've delivered live kids at 5 1/2 months, I start thinking about whether the baby could even be heard crying during the above procedure.

I think that is pretty unlikely as it would not yet be breathing air (if it is capable of that at that stage).

But again, I think that at most this would be an agrument that the fetus is viable at this stage and a ban would be consistent with Roe. Given that the pro life crowd is not making that argument, there must be some difficulty with it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is actually pretty mindblowing to me. It seems self evident that we should be able to protect a baby (or life or whatever) once it, he, she touches the world outside of the woman. I would actually protect it earlier, but I think the outside the woman standard is a no-brainer.

As far as viability, I just don't agree. Medical science is able to keep a baby viable at earlier and earlier stages in its development. Go check out the primi-ward sometime. It's pretty amazing.

I don't get the obsession with it being OK to terminate a fetus that is completely inside (or, not "past the point of breech" or whatever the language is) but not OK to terminate the exact same one if someone has yanked part of it out. It's not like the woman has naturally gone into labor and is delivering. What you are essentially saying is that you'd rather have sharp instruments (hey, maybe like a coat hanger!) jabbing around in a crowded area, possibly hurting the uterus and endangering the mother, than having the same result w/r/t the fetus, but less of a chance of surgical complications.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Yes. Which is why I think the anti PB abortion movement will next take aim at the D&E procedure. Even though some supported the PB restriction by saying "Hey but a woman still has the D&E option." http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...245#post311245

To those posters on here that opposed PB abortions -- are you okay with the same procedure except that the chopping all gets done inside the woman's body? Does that make it okay for you?

Oh, shit. Look. It's an ugly procedure from all angles and something no woman treads into lightly. Trying to start a fight over where the line is drawn is going nowhere.

I'd say the thing has to be decided on a case by case basis, factoring in the mother's health and the viability of the fetus and leave it at that. Yes, I'm opaque there on purpose. Why? because there are two utterly irreconilable propositions here. You can't square a woman's right to choose with a "right to life" of a fetus, so this thing has to go back where it always belonged - in a doctor's office, between a woman and a physician.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Adder
I think that is pretty unlikely as it would not yet be breathing air (if it is capable of that at that stage).

But again, I think that at most this would be an agrument that the fetus is viable at this stage and a ban would be consistent with Roe. Given that the pro life crowd is not making that argument, there must be some difficulty with it.

That's essentially my thinking. I have no problems with a ban that's consistent with Roe.