Partial Birth Abortion Ban Upheld

1356712

Comments

  • jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post


    Do aborted foetues go directly to heaven, after all they must be completely without sin?



    Nope. Original Sin gets ya every time. \
  • marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post


    Nope. Original Sin gets ya every time. \



    Thanks for the quick reply. Now we know exactyl what sort of person you are.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post


    Thanks for the quick reply. Now we know exactyl what sort of person you are.



    And we know you are the type who asks a religious question and then complains about getting a religious answer.



    If you ask about a fetus going to heaven, shouldn't you expect something religious in the nature of the answer?



    Nick
  • frank777frank777 Posts: 5,705member
    Don't bother Nick.



    Marc isn't even bright enough to understand that his first point and his second point are unrelated.



    Jubelum was likely addressing the glaring inaccuracy of the second statement.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member


    Artman what you are bringing up is actually moronic, stupid, religious twaddle. The woman choose, in opposition the beliefs of her church to terminate her pregnancy in a more risky manner in order to preserve the fetus for a religious ceremony.



    The party in your article went against what was recommended medically because of their religious convictions.



    Nick
  • marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    And we know you are the type who asks a religious question and then complains about getting a religious answer.



    If you ask about a fetus going to heaven, shouldn't you expect something religious in the nature of the answer?



    Nick



    um no, I was expecting a religious answer. And it was very telling too, so whatever religion Jubelum follows, or werever he spiritually got his answer from, ie the one that tells us how to live our lives and tells us the opinion we should have on the subject of Abortion is something the rest of us need to avoid.



    Plague.
  • lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Sounds like a question posed to you in another thread, and you were not able to answer it as effectively as Lundy.



    Lundy: what is your specialty? Emergency room doc?



    Board-cerified OB/GYN. I don't do abortions now, as I am subspecialty board-certified in Maternal-Fetal Medicine which doesn't do pure GYN. But dealing with high-risk pregnant women involves a lot of dealing with fetal birth defects and pregnant women who are ill with various medical conditions or complications of pregnancy like preeclampsia or heart disease.
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Artman what you are bringing up is actually moronic, stupid, religious twaddle.



    I'm responding to Jubelum's remark ("Nope. Original Sin gets ya every time."). That sounds like religious twaddle to me. Sometimes I don't think people here get the message. I'm an atheist.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    The woman choose, in opposition the beliefs of her church to terminate her pregnancy in a more risky manner in order to preserve the fetus for a religious ceremony. The party in your article went against what was recommended medically because of their religious convictions.



    Misguided religious decision, but she wanted the child to be "free from sin". I guess it didn't work out that way.



    In doing so...



    "In the middle of the financial battle, the Britells went to church on Mother's Day, which was also the occasion of their 6-year-old daughter's First Communion. After the service, Britell was confronted by dozens of chanting protesters from the National Right to Life. Her pastor -- who knew about her baby girl -- had sold her out."



    Yay religion.



    Here we are a bunch of men in a mainly male forum talking about a women's right to choose. And trumptman, I feel that you have said and experienced much about the decisions a man has to make with their partner. That shows you have a great relationship with your wife. I wished more relationships worked that way.



    But IMO, it's never a religious, governmental or judicial choice. it's a woman's all the way. It makes so much sense that a group of 5 men who have no medical training get to decide whether a procedure is medically necessary for women.
  • marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    do miscarriages go to heaven?
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    Board-cerified OB/GYN. I don't do abortions now, as I am subspecialty board-certified in Maternal-Fetal Medicine which doesn't do pure GYN. But dealing with high-risk pregnant women involves a lot of dealing with fetal birth defects and pregnant women who are ill with various medical conditions or complications of pregnancy like preeclampsia or heart disease.



    Great to have your experience and knowledge here.
  • lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    First of all I've never heard the life risk clause described as something that can only be applies when the mother is actually dying, in cardiac arrest, etc. I think this is a mischaracterization but I am open to links or sources that prove my thinking wrong. I've always heard it described and applied as tolerating abortion where the life of the mother is at risk, and never that she be actively undergoing the result of that risk to engage in the procedure.



    If you were the physician, would you take the risk of a 2-year prison term in case someone later disagrees with your assessment that the patient's life was in jeopardy? That's the problem. If there were a health exception, nobody would argue that severe preeclampsia qualifies. Also, with only the "life" exception, then risks of stroke, myocardial infarction, blindness, renal failure, etc. are not sufficient to satisfy the "life" requirement.

    Quote:

    Now the alternative is the health risk which includes mental health and allows infanticide for no other reason than claimed mental duress.



    Yes, I understand why the word "physical" is included three times in the statute. Somehow the Republicans have this hallucination that there are late abortions done for anxiety or something.

    Quote:

    Even you agree that the scenario you have set up puts the mother's life at risk, but I believe falsely misstates that she must undergo the risk.



    Her life is at risk just from being pregnant, so the Congress could not have meant "a possibility of her life being in jeopardy" - they meant "actually is in jeopardy." It was to be able to claim afterwards that the life wasn't actually in danger, and thus prosecute the physician. You have to remember this whole thing was a purely political thing to satisfy the religious right.

    Quote:

    I'm really not sure that spending an hour inducing her when she is already suffering from severe preeclampsia and is getting what you described as continually worse all the time is really the "safe" way to go.



    No. But so many severe preeclamptics will induce rapidly and deliver almost immediately if given low doses of oxytocin. Another reason for starting induction is that one might have to call in the physician who is skilled in second-trimester D&E and that takes a few minutes since no one is specifically on call for this.

    Quote:

    The various articles that have discussed this decision all mention that your alternatives are used much more often. It seems a sort of strange reasoning to me that is exercised by a minority of physicians. It appears that instead of taking a guaranteed treatment path with an established amount of risk, they take an alternative path which shifts the risk to minimal up front but maximizes it in the event the labor doesn't progress. This clearly is the minority view with regard to treatment options and choices.



    I'm not sure what exactly you mean in that paragraph, but if it means one should go straight to the hysterotomy, major abdominal surgery and the deeper anesthesia it would take are both risks in a patient whose coags are starting to go out of whack and who also with a 4cm cervix might get close to delivery while you are setting up for the cesarean. It's well known amongst those of us who do this that you don't want to do a uterine incision on a patient whose is developing a coagulopathy. You talk about a nightmare scenario, that is it. She could easily wind up needing a hysterectomy -- and this is her first child and it isn't going to survive.... have to take everything into account...

    Quote:

    As for me and what I would do, I would take the guaranteed route and not attempt to avoid risk only to have it possibly raining back down on me later when things go wrong. Inducing someone for an hour or two is still another hour or two in which something can go wrong. I know cutting of any sort has risk, but so does letting time pass.



    That means you would want an immediate c-section for a doomed infant in a sick mother? Sorry, that's not the first thing I think of. It's a different story if the fetus is 30 weeks, normal, and the cervix is closed. Then we wouldn't consider anything other than a c-section.

    Quote:

    I also think it a not fair to characterize the hysterotomy as "condemning" the woman to future cesarean births. Vaginal birth is possible though not recommended. Also even with the risk from cutting, cesarean births, which this procedure is similar to have been on the rise as well. You make it sound like some rare or out of the ordinary risk when uterine incisions are a common procedure.



    The patient is not at full term. The uterine incision can't be in the developed noncontractile portion of the lower uterine segment; it would have to be either low vertical, or classical. Even making it look like a low transverse would actually be cutting through thick contractile myometrium and we would write that in the chart - that she is not a candidate for trial of labor in future pregnancies.

    Quote:

    If it is the safest then wouldn't it be the most widely used?



    At smaller gestational ages, the D&X isn't needed, as the fetal head is small enough to be grasped and crushed within the uterus as the parts are dismembered and removed. However, there is good reasoning that even in those situations, intact D&E or D&X would have several advantages. See Justice Ginsburg's dissent and the Nebraska case Stenberg v Carhart decided by the SCOTUS 7 years ago for these advantages.

    Quote:

    Why are all the alternatives used more often? I think the majority of physicians obviously hold a different view about the time versus cutting risk ratio.



    You lost me here.

    Quote:

    Finally, again I would really like to see some supporting evidence that life risk means actually having to endure the life threat before the procedure is allowed. I've never, ever heard of the life risk exception being described as you have put it forward here.



    Nick



    They just handed down the decision yesterday. Nothing is written as there have not been any cases brought where the procedure was done and the doctor arrested. It is too vague (even though the majority rejected that argument).
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post


    Great to have your experience and knowledge here.



    Good to see two people (lundy & trumpman) having experience form both sides discussing something that I have no clue about. Only from what I have read and heard. I'm getting a lot more from this though.
  • lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    Good to see two people (lundy & trumpman) having experience form both sides discussing something that I have no clue about. Only from what I have read and heard. I'm getting a lot more from this though.





    As much as PO is dissed around here, it's a lot more civil than the Stars Pub forum at dslreports.com (if you are not a one-star member you won't see it so just a heads up not to waste your time).



    Of course, maybe you guys are just kissing my ass because I have ban privileges.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    I'm responding to Jubelum's remark ("Nope. Original Sin gets ya every time."). That sounds like religious twaddle to me. Sometimes I don't think people here get the message. I'm an atheist.



    I know it sounds like religious twaddle to you. I was merely pointing out that attempting to swat down religious twaddle with a quote that was communicating religious twaddle doesn't exactly help your cause.



    Quote:

    Misguided religious decision, but she wanted the child to be "free from sin". I guess it didn't work out that way.



    As an atheist, do you really believe the government ought to allow women to place themselves at increased risk of medical harm in order to exercise their religious twaddle/misguided religious decisions?



    Quote:

    In doing so...



    "In the middle of the financial battle, the Britells went to church on Mother's Day, which was also the occasion of their 6-year-old daughter's First Communion. After the service, Britell was confronted by dozens of chanting protesters from the National Right to Life. Her pastor -- who knew about her baby girl -- had sold her out."



    Yay religion.



    Assuming the allegations are correct, she underwent this more risky procedure, in opposition to the beliefs of her church, so that this same pastor could baptize the fetus/baby. How can you condemn him when she is willing to undergo risky procedures to support the beliefs that he represents?



    I really can't tell who has the more twisted logic between the two, mom or pastor.



    Quote:

    Here we are a bunch of men in a mainly male forum talking about a women's right to choose. And trumptman, I feel that you have said and experienced much about the decisions a man has to make with their partner. That shows you have a great relationship with your wife. I wished more relationships worked that way.



    I appreciate the sensitivity. I am of the opinion though that the sex of the party has no determination of the validity of a moral point. It doesn't become more right or wrong because someone is male or female. I find the fact that so many men victimize and infantilize women while calling it feminism just sickens me. The same parties who are decrying this abortion decision are the same ones who will demand a 12 year old girl take an HPV virus inoculation against her will out of some need to protect her while depriving her of her own self-determination for example.



    Quote:

    But IMO, it's never a religious, governmental or judicial choice. it's a woman's all the way. It makes so much sense that a group of 5 men who have no medical training get to decide whether a procedure is medically necessary for women.



    Court justices are advised about the training they lack and medicine alone does not determine the law. Men have to render verdicts that affect women and women have to render verdicts that affect men. We can't endorse separatism simply because we find it politically expedient.



    Nick
  • jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post


    um no, I was expecting a religious answer. And it was very telling too, so whatever religion Jubelum follows, or werever he spiritually got his answer from, ie the one that tells us how to live our lives and tells us the opinion we should have on the subject of Abortion is something the rest of us need to avoid.



    Plague.







    You silly sot.



    What, may I ask, have you proven here? That I have RELIGIOUS beliefs? Oi Vey! Religious people!
  • jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MarcUK View Post


    Thanks for the quick reply. Now we know exactyl what sort of person you are.



    The funniest part is, that the "original sin" doctrine is the one pushed by Los Catholicos. I am a Protestant Evangelical. An earlier post referred to a Catholic, so I threw in Original Sin.



    I love it, though, that it has pushed your button in a devil's advocate sorta-way. Glad to know where that nerve is. I'll try to avoid it for you. Your response says much more about you than it does about me. I referred to a sterile theological point, you went to lecture.



    To recap what I have learned: "Religion is inherently evil, as are people who live lives guided by religion."



    Exxxxxcelent, Smithers! Got it!
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I know it sounds like religious twaddle to you. I was merely pointing out that attempting to swat down religious twaddle with a quote that was communicating religious twaddle doesn't exactly help your cause.



    Indeed. I was a little emotional with that.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    As an atheist, do you really believe the government ought to allow women to place themselves at increased risk of medical harm in order to exercise their religious twaddle/misguided religious decisions?



    No. But I don't want her choice in any other context to be guided by religious twaddle/misguided religious decisions either. Which she did by the way. So...





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Assuming the allegations are correct, she underwent this more risky procedure, in opposition to the beliefs of her church, so that this same pastor could baptize the fetus/baby. How can you condemn him when she is willing to undergo risky procedures to support the beliefs that he represents?



    Again. The consequences of her decision were impossible to carry out. She decided on what her religion deemed "sinful" and she had to pay the consequences.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    I really can't tell who has the more twisted logic between the two, mom or pastor.



    Unfortunately, seems that both do. Whether her actions were misguided and she feels even now whether she did the right thing, I commend her and her husband. She is a very brave woman having to make that decision and with the things she had to endure with the church and the government.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Court justices are advised about the training they lack and medicine alone does not determine the law. Men have to render verdicts that affect women and women have to render verdicts that affect men. We can't endorse separatism simply because we find it politically expedient.



    Maybe all abortion issues should be legislative matters: if Congress can make something illegal they can also make it legal. Congress can change the law if enough people are unhappy.
  • jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    I just wish we could get a fair political fight on abortion... and I do not mean nine guys in black robes in 1973. Or return that power to the states. Roe is bad Constitutional law. We should settle this within the Republic, not by tribunal.
  • shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lundy View Post


    As much as PO is dissed around here, it's a lot more civil than the Stars Pub forum at dslreports.com (if you are not a one-star member you won't see it so just a heads up not to waste your time).



    Of course, maybe you guys are just kissing my ass because I have ban privileges.



    Tell you the truth I never heard of you before you became mod lol.



    And you're here since 2001?
Sign In or Register to comment.