because we don't have enough political threads...

partial birth abortion is a political term - the real term is dialation and extraction. partial birth abortion gives the impression it happens durring natural labor for an otherwise healthy baby, for a mother who would be fine if the baby is born. as opposed to the fact that it happens during induced labor, for babies who probably would not live, or mothers who would be seriously disabled or even die if carried to full term.


$*@# amending the constitution. j-lo damages the sanctity of marriage more than homosexual marriage does.


Wisenerfo: By the way the "commission on presidential debates" that hosts these things is a corrupt organization that shuts out all third party candidates, and is stupid.
Wisenerfo: The End

Oh. And they're wearing the same tie.

Thanks, and have a nice day

 

When the divorce rate is as high as it is, I don't see how anything can damage the image of a marriage.

Bush's tie is a little lighter.
Calling Kerry a Democratic Senator from Mass. has been used as an insult by Bush many times in this debate. What message does that send when the President considers it an insult to be from a certain state?
Personally his weak attack on Kerry made me wish I was from one state north and that I was living in Mass. It is incredible that Bush has nothing greater to say.

Personally I differ with Carmen over the third party stance. If they don't have enough support in the nation then they don't deserve to take up our screen time away from the others. Nader does not have the support and so it is not right to take time away from Bush and Kerry so that he can say something. He does not have the support so he has not gained the voice.

-Seldon

 

I didn't know Bush had done so much for Pell Grants, though. I liked that part.

 

I did like the fact that Bush wants to allow immigrants to be able to visit their families. Too many students at my school are trapped in America until they are given their citizenship. One girl has not seen her mother and siblings in years. I agree that they should be able to visit their families in their nations. Anyway I don't know how much Bush plans to carry it out but I do agree with it.

-Seldon

 

Why don't you explain exactly how this "dialation and extraction" process works, or the obvious pain felt by the fetus during the proceedure, or even how 90% of doctors (including abotrion doctors) cannot justify it's use in any circumstance.

I don't expect much more than nutball liberalism from you, Carmen, but geez, this is as close to murder as you can get without calling it that.

Were this done to a child outside the womb it would be eligible for the death penalty due to it's unusually cruel circumstances.

And while I'm here, gays are free to marry whomever they please. Heck, there's even a preacher in Nashville that will do it. But it's not going to be federally subsidized or recognized. The gay marriage push is simply a ploy to have a deviant, anti-social behavior legitimized by the federal government.

 

Don't bother trying to reason with the radical left, Jim. They stopped reading the Constitution long ago, and now they just depend on what the courts and the media tell them. And, as is typical of the radical left, they also fight tooth and nail to deny the Will of the American People, who have repeatedly passed law after law, at both state and federal levels, which outlaw that brutal and unnecessary procedure.

She also fails to point out the extreme difficulty proponents of the procedure have in actually finding a medical justification for the procedure. Just what are the medical conditions that would threaten a mother's life if the fetus was completely delivered rather than only halfway removed before its skull is crushed and the contents sucked out? It's more likely that the procedure is done because of some possible defect in the child, which in the minds of the Godless minority is plenty reason enough to kill the baby. Ironic that these are the same nuts who cry that Bush is going to kill old people, but they shout down and belittle anyone trying to stop infanticide as an extremist trying to take away a right that doesn't exist. It's an inconsistentcy that makes them look utterly foolish by any honest standard, and would be laughable if not for the brutality with which children are killed.

As for homosexual marriage, again she betrays her ignorance of law and legal institutions. (But hey, she wouldn't exactly be a liberal wihtout a little ignorance thrown in, would she?) Marriage is an institution created by the state. Just as no inherrent right to drive or take certain drugs exists, nor does anyone have a "right" to marry. The legal standing thereof is granted by the state. People have a right to love. They don't have a right to marry. Just as in the sale of alcohol or driving, it is an institution regulated by the state, and the state regulates according to the Will of the People.

Indeed, it is the fact that the Will of the People is repeatedly undermined by activist and over-reaching courts that necessitates an Amendment. Were state legislatures allowed to enact law as their state constitutions provide, then there would be no need. However, with the degrading of the People's sovereignty by the courts, something must be done. I am sad to see it come to amending the Constitution after more than 200 years in order to realize checks and balances, but the sort of lliberal idiocy and failed logic espoused by Carmen and people like her have driven us to this point. I firmly believe that the matter should be left to the states, as explicitly stated in the Tenth Amendment, but Carmen's ilk want to ignore that part, thus making an Amendment the final recourse for those patriots who actually believe the People are sovereign.

AYBABTU

 

Just what are the medical conditions that would threaten a mother's life if the fetus was completely delivered rather than only halfway removed before its skull is crushed and the contents sucked out?

There are many times that if the baby is carried to term, there are many dangers to the mother's health. For these reasons, dialation and extraction happens in the 20th to 40th weeks. It generally happens in the 5th and 6th months of the pregnancy - not the 9th, as many people chose to believe, usually due to propaganda or ignorance. In those cases, there are another 3 to 4 months of pregnancy for the mother, if she were to carry it to term.

It almost never happens "because the mother feels like it." It happens because the mother runs the risk of dying or having permanent damage done in the last half of the pregnancy.

Get your facts straight.

 

Apparently it isn't just 90+% of doctors who have a hard time giving a specifc scenario in which the mother's life is endangered to an extent that would warrant the procedure. You pretty much sucked at it too.

AYBABTU

 

The most common situation where dialation and extraction is performed is when the fetuses has developed severe hydrocephalus - to the point where the head is as large as 50 centimeters in diameter and the baby will never develop consciousness. While it is possible to deliver the baby via cesarian section, the baby will still not live, and the cesarian section surger is more dangerous than the dialation and extraction procedure. An abortion can not happen earlier in the pregnancy, because this problem can not be detected until the second trimester.

Other situations where the mother's life is put at risk in carrying the baby to term is if the other has a deteriorating health problem, and the pregnancy is putting too much stress on her body. Some examples are diabetes and heart disease.

 

It almost never happens "because the mother feels like it." It happens because the mother runs the risk of dying or having permanent damage done in the last half of the pregnancy.

Your casual description of hacking up a baby that were it delivered could possibly survive outside the womb is disturbing, Carmen.

As was stated earlier, over 90% of doctors say there is no situation whatsoever in which partially delivering a baby (mid-late term or not) then sucking it's brains out is good for the health of the mother.

That said, I wouldn't expect more for someone who has no problem with the baby just being vacuumed out of the womb in the first place.


EDIT: Just so Carmen's Planned Parenthood propoganda doesn't go unchallenged, here is a quote from an interview of Dr. Martin Haskell, one of the formost proponents of partial birth abortion, a doctor who has performed over 1,000 himself:

But they were very tough. Sometimes it was a 45-minute operation. I noticed that some of the later D&Es were very, very easy. So I asked myself why can't they all happen this way. You see the easy ones would have a foot length presentation, you'd reach up and grab the foot of the fetus, pull the fetus down and the head would hang up and then you would collapse the head and take it out. It was easy. . . . Then I said, "Well gee, if I just put the ultrasound up there I could see it all and I wouldn't have to feel around for it." I did that and sure enough, I found it 99 percent of the time. Kind of serendipity.


And a second quote from a tape-recorded conversation:

And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.

Also, from another proponent, Dr. James McMahon:

"[A]fter 20 weeks where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there. I think, 'Gee, it's too bad that this child couldn't be adopted.' On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is: 'Who owns the child?' It's got to be the mother.'"

In June, 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to Congress a detailed breakdown of a "series" of over 2,000 of these abortions that he had performed. He classified only 9% (175 cases) as involving "maternal [health] indications," of which the most common was "depression".

 

Your casual description of hacking up a baby that were it delivered could possibly survive outside the womb is disturbing, Carmen.
Babies with extreme hydrocephalus generally can not survive outside the womb.

I wouldn't expect more for someone who has no problem with the baby just being vacuumed out of the womb in the first place.
I'm not saying I'm okay with that procedure, or that I think it should be free and available for everyone to use. I think that the dialation and extraction procedure is a very traumatic procedure, however I think that there are situations where it's necessary, so I do not think it should be outlawed.

 

"however I think that there are situations where it's necessary, so I do not think it should be outlawed"

From the data above, it would seem that it is most likely "necessary" because the mother doesn't want to have the baby. Unless you think depression is a reasonable medical excuse to kill a viable fetus.

AYBABTU

 

From the data above, it would seem that it is most likely "necessary" because the mother doesn't want to have the baby.

Did you miss the part where I talked about hydrocephalus, heart disease, and diabetes?

 

Yeah, I saw where you -- without a medical degree or supporting documentation -- talked about it. Then I looked at the reasons given by a few of the nation's most prominent doctors performing the procedure. According to them, the procedure is almost always elective. According to you, it isn't.

I went with credibility.

AYBABTU

 

But the thing is, I never said it should be allowed for elective abortions. I do not think it should be allowed for elective abortions. I said it shouldn't be outlawed because it is needed in certain situations.

The quote Jim posted by McMahon and Haskell stated that there ARE situations where it is performed because of the health of the mother. So those reasons do exist.

The current bill only makes dialation and extraction possible if the mother is going to die from carrying the pregnancy to term. It does not cover situations where the mother may be seriously disabled due to carrying the pregnancy to term. That is the problem that I have with the bill.

I am not supportive of the procedure happening when women in the 9th month of their pregnancy suddenly decide that they don't want the baby because it has a cleft palate or because the father ran off. I am supportive of women whose health is at risk having the option to chose the procedure.

 

I haven't read up on the issue, but why do they have to do the extraction like that, as opposed to going in ala C-section?

 

C-sectons are a more risky procedure than dilation and extraction. Some of these risks include increased blood loss, and a higher chance of complications in future prgnancies.

 

"C-sectons are a more risky procedure than dilation and extraction."

Unless you're a fetus.

AYBABTU

 

For the record I consider myself liberal and I come from New England (an area refered to so negatively by the President). I personally don't support abortions. Nationally I think they should be allowed in the first three months.

-Seldon

 

I think you completely missed this point:

?...partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both?, according to a group of 600 top OB/GYNs.

Also, the ban was supported by the American Medidical Association.

Defend abortion as you must, but this specific procedure -- which has been shown to be painful to the baby -- is never necessary to protect the life of a mother.

 

Also, the ban was supported by the American Medidical Association.

"was" being the operative word. They withdrew support of the ban in 1999.

From the AMA:

"According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient." (emphasis mine)

Basically, while it's never the only option, sometimes it's the option that's in the best interest to the mother, and that they believe that the doctor should be able to make that decision.

 

Why don't you just acknowledge that the real reason the National Association of Gals and Planned Parenthood and all these other pro-abortion groups are such staunch detractors of this ban is that they are worried that a ban on one heinous type of abortion might lead to the banning of other heinous types of abortions. Then it could lead to people not being able to screw around all they want then murder the baby if they happen to get pregnant.

Women have every right to control their bodies. They can abstain from practices that might lead to pregnancy, and the courts have upheld their right to choose that abstinence. But once those cells form their own distinct DNA structure, it is no longer her body.

But then again, I would like to retain the right myself to terminate you if I feel you threaten my mental health or well-being. It's the same thing, isn't it?

 

Why don't you just acknowledge that the real reason the National Association of Gals and Planned Parenthood and all these other pro-abortion groups are such staunch detractors of this ban is that they are worried that a ban on one heinous type of abortion might lead to the banning of other heinous types of abortions.

What does that have to do with the AMA?

 

Nothing. It is the driving force behind the arguement for partial-birth abortion.

 

As for homosexual marriage, again she betrays her ignorance of law and legal institutions. (But hey, she wouldn't exactly be a liberal wihtout a little ignorance thrown in, would she?) Marriage is an institution created by the state. Just as no inherrent right to drive or take certain drugs exists, nor does anyone have a "right" to marry. The legal standing thereof is granted by the state. People have a right to love. They don't have a right to marry. Just as in the sale of alcohol or driving, it is an institution regulated by the state, and the state regulates according to the Will of the People.

Okay, it's possible that I have this wrong, but my understanding of the positions of the current candidates is that Bush wants to amend the constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman (which would completely take away all power of the states in that instance), and Kerry wants states to be able to decide whether or not homosexual marriage is allowed. So wouldn't that put you on Kerry's side of this issue, rather than Bush's?