Partial Birth Abortion Ban Upheld - Page 2

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

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

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.

"'Could we have continued the pregnancy? I guess, but we'd have been on a death watch,' Britell says today. Because they were Catholics, the Britells decided to have a labor induction instead of a surgical abortion so that they could baptize and bury their daughter whole. But, after 13 hours of labor, the baby came out breech, stuck in the birth canal with a too-short umbilical cord. Halfway delivered, the doctors had no choice but to cut the cord, an "overt act" that killed the baby while partially delivered. In other words: a partial-birth abortion."

SINNER!SINNER!SINNER!SINNER!SINNER!SINNER!SINNER! Moronic, stupid religious twaddle.

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

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.

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.

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.


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.

do miscarriages go to heaven?

Great to have your experience and knowledge here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

You lost me here.

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).

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.

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.


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?


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.


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.


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

Indeed. I was a little emotional with that.



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...



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.


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.


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.

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

And you're here since 2001?

That's exactly what he's saying. And it reaks of hypocrisy.

Again with the bullshit dumping on California. That's three times now you've made ignorant, flippant, asshole remarks about where I live.

It sure must be nice living in the "real America".

Tell you what. How about die-hard Christian do what they feel is best for them and their religion. If they feel abortion is an abomination then I suggest they don't get any.

Leave the rest of the fuck out of it. Okay. You're imposition of your "religious beliefs" onto me and my family is utter bullshit.

Libertarian, my ass!

And whom, might I ask, would be to the ideological right of these fine folks?

Perhaps those fine folks who attend Jesus Camp?

USA = United Scaries of America!

well i thought it is a bit sad if your religious view leads you to think that aborted foetuses go to hell

Someone might want to tell all the Jews, Buddhists and Muslims that they're going to hell because they reject your "Christian" god.

Or anyone who lives outside of Jubelum Texas.

Don't get me wrong, mind you, there are also a Lot of Loopy Lefties (e. g. Tom Cruise, et. al.).

For the wages of sin is death;
but the gift of God is eternal life
through Jesus Christ our Lord.

When i lived in New England, I didn't think you could get more fucked up that your typical Roman Catholic. That was before i moved to the south and met this rare breed of Cro Mag, the Southern Baptist.

First thank you for the well thought-out reply. Also thanks for being willing to inform rather than just dismiss since this is obviously an area where people have opinions and believe those opinions should guide medicine while you have the obvious expertise.


Everyone endures the risk of false allegations causing them harm. Medicine should be no different. If an errant 9 or 10 year old decided to make a false claim against me tomorrow, I have no doubt my career would be done, even if I was declared innocent and fully vindicated. Sadly we live in a society where where women are a protected class and the rules and laws related to them often become irrational in their actual language or implementation.

Thisopinion piece in the L.A. Times is pro-abortion, but also pro-equality instead of created bad law via bad reasoning.

When society has a mindset that women really aren't equal, but are some protected class that needs to be coddled, then you, I and everyone assumes the risk in terms of false allegations and lives being ruined in the rush to judge.


The articles that have reported on this have mentioned figures like 50% for the percentage of cases that involve healthy babies and healthy moms. I have no doubt the other 50% are scenarios, likely entirely medically appropriate scenarios, where difficult choices regarding health and life are concerned. As you mentioned, the life risk exception still applies and thus this procedure can be used in that instance. If the ban only applies to "hallucinations" then nothing is lost.


Obviously they have a sliding scale of risk and do not consider the mere act of being pregnant to be life-threatening. I know you disagree strongly with the decision, but obviously you can understand degrees of risk and realize that this can be applied where the risk is great but does not involve actually having to watch the patient be in death throes.


I've not said that it was not a valid treatment option. I certainly don't have the expertise to claim such a thing. I've simply noted it is in the minority as a treatment option and when asked what I would endure myself or what my wife might pick, what we would choose which is also what the clear majority chooses.


What I meant in that paragraph is that you listed a number of treatment options. I'm not informed enough to run the health risk to health return ratios on them and know which one is the best choice most often. Even then as you said, you have the ability to determine when the nightmare scenario is worthy of the option available when life is at risk.

I also stated that when looking at your field as a whole, and when all doctors weigh the types of options you are expressing in determining what procedure to use with their patients, the option you suggest is undertaken a small minority of the time.

I have no doubt that you, like others in most fields can create a moral dilemma. You can design a scenario where the mother is right on the edge of having a life risk, where doctors on call to do the more common procedure are not available, where the situation is worsening but where the doctor fears a false allegation related to not life threatening, etc. Everyone understand that life doesn't color within the lines. Those doctors will do what is necessary review boards and if falsely accused, juries will weigh the evidence and determine their innocence.

I can also design a scenario and ask you how the law should stop a mother from coming in who is 38 weeks along, declares having the child will make her deeply depressed and ruin her life and have the doctor deliver that healthy baby and kill it via the partial-birth abortion procedure.

I think it entirely possible to design a scenario that allows for you what you have put forward and stops what I have put forward. I think this is what this decision attempts to do and if it is incomplete, it can be refined by legislators or future decisions.

I'll skip some of the quotes related to various medical scenarios where you show exactly why you would select this. It isn't my job to change your mind in that area nor could I. I've simply attempted to show why other fields of society have weighed in on this and hold the views they do, myself included of course.


Articles have noted that the alternatives you suggested are used the majority of the time. I was wondering why this is so if the consensus is as you suggest.


Since your view is different from what I have read, I would really like to see some basis for the claim. Sure the courts banned the procedure with a life threat exception, but not a health exception, but certainly there are definitions within your field of what constitutes a life threat and notes that they don't have actually be dying to have a diagnosis of a life threatening condition with appropriate treatment applied. This should exist already.

Nick