Still Hating America.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
By "birth" I mean exiting the vagina while not "dead."
I understand your point, but as I said before, this whole debate has become 1 big line drawing exercise, and it seems to me that my definition of birth is something everyone should be able to agree with.

The trouble with all abortion discussions is that they are line drawing exercises and everyone tend to think that everyone else should be able to agree with their definitions of things.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
The trouble with all abortion discussions is that they are line drawing exercises and everyone tend to think that everyone else should be able to agree with their definitions of things.

But don't you think my conception is at the far end of the spectrum?

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But don't you think my conception is at the far end of the spectrum?

Sorry, you have lost me. Are you asking if I think your description of birth is on the non-controversial end of possible definitions?

I guess so, but honestly, I have not put a lot of thought into defining birth. But I think your formulation could conceivably bring in some miscarriages (although I am no expert).

And I know you think that viability is hard to define, but I actually think it is easier to define, and with more input from the medical community, than pretty much any of the other concepts at play in the abortion debate.

[Adder]

crap wrong button

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
But aren't there plenty of kids born at 6 months gestation who survive? Even 5 1/2, I thought.

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

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
Sorry, you have lost me. Are you asking if I think your description of birth is on the non-controversial end of possible definitions?

I guess so, but honestly, I have not put a lot of thought into defining birth. But I think your formulation could conceivably bring in some miscarriages (although I am no expert).

And I know you think that viability is hard to define, but I actually think it is easier to define, and with more input from the medical community, than pretty much any of the other concepts at play in the abortion debate.

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.

[Adder]

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.

Let's say a fetus finds itself outside the woman at say, 6 weeks. Maybe it is a miscarriage, maybe it is a particular abortion procedure, or whatever. There is nothing medical science can do for it, right? And even if some miracle happened, does the fact that it happened once, beyond all bounds of medical expectation, and likely only with the application of extraordinary medical intervention, I am not sure that changes the concept of viability to me.

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.

If we want to count survival via the application of our most advanced medical science as "viability" (something I am unsure about), then to me this observation is only an argument that the line for when an abortion is allowed should shift with the current state of medicine.

But for perspective, it is pretty mindblowing to me that some folks see a frozen fetus that was created under a microscope and never implanted in a woman is a life, so, again, there is plenty of confusion to go around.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder

If we want to count survival via the application of our most advanced medical science as "viability" (something I am unsure about), then to me this observation is only an argument that the line for when an abortion is allowed should shift with the current state of medicine.

This is exactly my position.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is exactly my position.

I'm not reading cases again, but isn't that the Sup. Ct. definition?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I'm not reading cases again, but isn't that the Sup. Ct. definition?

I had thought so.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Search engine by zip code for donations to the primary races. Mitt Romney seems to be doing well around here.

The Mittster dominates my zip, of course. And a lot of those people are walking around town with their arms all twisted up.

On the Dem side, most of the big donors in the area haven't given, and those who have split up pretty widely.

But for those who give because they have to, the choice is clear.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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.

I agree with this. I have to read the case at some point, but I don't mind the outcome; it's just a question as to whether the logic is set up in a way to set up a later revisiting of Roe v. Wade or is based on a close reading and upholding of Roe v. Wade.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
see, I don't think Penske has the discipline to stay in character like this.

Certainly not as a Democrat

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Adder
I don't really know. But to me that would be an argument in favor of banning abortion at that stage of pregnancy (that would be consistent with Roe), not an argument against this particular procedure.

True. Which ties into a related issue, IMHO:

Opponents of Partial Birth abortion argue, "Hey -- you don't need to do PB abortions b/c you can still use the Dilation and Extraction Method". They win this argument, and Partial Birth abortions are banned. Then, a few years later, these same opponents can easily trot out the following argument:

"The PB abortion method, which is outlawed, is almost exactly the same as the Dilation and Extraction Method, the only difference being that the fetus has its head chopped off while in the woman's body and with the PB abortion method, the same thing happens except that its legs happen to be dangling outside the uterus when the head gets chopped off Therefore, since you've already outlawed PB, you should outlaw Dilation and Extraction".

If successful, then late term abortions are effectively outlawed.

[Diane_Keaton]

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.

? 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.