US SUPREME COURT RULED AGAINST PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS

by juni 37 Replies latest jw friends

  • truthsearcher
    truthsearcher

    From the above mentioned website:

    What does the procedure entail?

    Medical experts believe the umbrella term, at least as defined in the law, could refer primarily to several surgical techniques. One is known as dilation and extraction, or D&X. Another is called dilation and evacuation, or D&E. In a regular D&E abortion performed in the second trimester, a patient's cervix is dilated and the fetus is dismembered and removed by forceps.

    That is, the baby is sawn apart and removed piece by piece, with all the pieces counted afterward to make sure they got it all. Yes, one of the workers has this lovely job of counting all the arms and legs, etc.

    The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, however, believes that bans of "partial-birth abortions'' primarily target D&X abortions, or "intact'' D&E abortions, in which a fetus' head must be reduced or crushed in order to remove it from its mother's body.

    That is, the baby's skull is crushed or the brains are sucked out, while the baby is still alive, then it is removed.

    How many women get D&X abortions each year?

    The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based reproductive health research group, estimates 2,200 D&X abortions were performed in 2000, usually during a woman's second trimester.

    That's 2,200 savage and gruesome murders of little babies. I guess y'all know how I feel about this topic, and as a Christian, I follow the Bible's teachings on this one.

    Here is an interesting poll I found online

    Poll: Most Americans Don't Understand 'Roe vs. Wade'

    Wed, Apr. 26, 2006 Posted: 11:17:07 AM EST


    WASHINGTON - A national poll was released by the Real Women’s Voices coalition on Tuesday at the National Press Club, showing that although 65 percent of Americans say they are familiar with the 1973 landmark abortion case, Roe vs. Wade, only 29 percent were able to select an accurate description of the ruling.

    The national survey of 1,000 adults age 18 and over was conducted by WomanTrend, a key division of the polling company inc., on Apr. 13-14.

    “Roe is hanging by a thread that is increasingly being frayed by the American people’s exposure to the facts of abortion,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony List, a sponsor of Real Women’s Voices. “These numbers show that our abortion laws don’t represent the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans, including American women.”

    Key findings in the poll include:

    • Sixty-five percent of respondents say they considered themselves familiar (23 percent very familiar and 42 percent somewhat familiar) with the 1973 United States Supreme Court case of Roe vs. Wade. Thirty-one percent said they are not familiar (19 percent just a little familiar and 12 percent not at all familiar)

    • Though 65 percent said they were familiar with Roe, when asked to identify which of four descriptions most accurately describes what the case provides as the law, only 29 percent selected the correct description:
    - 29% Made abortion legal in essentially all circumstances throughout pregnancy
    - 18% Made abortion legal but only in the first trimester
    - 17% Made abortion legal but only in limited circumstances
    - 15% Made abortion legal but only in the first and second trimesters

    • The majority (54 percent) agreed with one of three traditional pro-life statements:
    - Abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances,
    - Abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother,
    - Abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life

    Only 41 percent selected a pro-choice view. Notably, three-quarters of Americans (75 percent) say they believe abortions should never be allowed, allowed only in very limited circumstances, or not past the first trimester of pregnancy. The 18-34 year old group (especially 18-34 year old women) was more likely than respondents overall to identify with one of the three pro-life views of abortion.

    “Not surprisingly, a majority (54 percent) of Americans do not agree with what Roe permits—that is, unrestricted abortion for any reason, even as a method of birth control,” commented Karen Cross of the National Right to Life. “And while a majority of those polled (65 percent) say they are familiar with Roe, only 29 percent actually knew that Roe made abortion legal in essentially all circumstances throughout pregnancy.”

    Real Women’s Voices is a coalition of national and state-based pro-life organizations has brought women from across the country to Washington on Wednesday to lobby Congress.
    "Women around the country want common-sense legislation on abortion,” said Concerned Women for America’s Wendy Wright. “We hear senators claim they want to ‘reduce the number of abortions.’ Pro-life women will be presenting the opportunity for them to prove it, telling senators to pass laws restricting abortionists from taking advantage of young women.”

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I have also read the book Won by Love by Norma McCorvey, "Roe" who worked in abortion clinics for many years before becoming a Christian. It was a very disturbing book but quite informative about practices and attitudes in the pro choice movement.

    "I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth--that's a baby!

    I felt "crushed" under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception.' It wasn't about 'missed periods.' It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion--at any point--was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear."--Norma McCorvey, "Roe" of "Roe vs Wade" from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/598841/posts

    Norma's homepage for "Roe No More" athttp://www.leaderu.com/norma/

  • juni
    juni

    I know that this is a "hot" topic so I'm glad we're all agreeing to disagree.

    This latest ruling 5-4 in the US Supreme Court, does not ban Roe vs. Wade only partial birth abortions.

    Since the Justices of the Supreme Court are there until retirement or death I can't possibly see a complete ban on abortions. So we're not headed down a slippery slope to a total banning any time soon.

    Women do have another choice. Having a caesarean section to deliver the baby.

    I believe it is immoral to partially birth a baby and then proceed to end his/her life.

    Juni

  • BlackSwan of Memphis
    BlackSwan of Memphis
    BlackSwan, do you also object to court intervention in cases where parents decide to
    withhold blood from their dying child?

    Big difference. Huge difference.

    Are you going to tell me what I can and can't do with my body?

    Here's a quote from this source that I just want you guys to consider:

    http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2006/11/gonzales_vs_carhart_audio_reco.php

    Fundamentally at issue here is whether Congress has the right to establish via Congressional findings what constitutes medical facts. The results of this case are absolutely critical because if Congress has the right to establish by fiat what is and is not harmful or what is an is not good doctoring, then they have to right to regulate what procedures doctors can use to treat their patients -- what doctors can and cannot deem medically necessary.

    I am not by any means saying, hey let's all go out and use this procedure whenever we just want to end a pregnancy.

    What is at stake here, is where do we draw the line in governmental intervention?

    The difference between the governement intervening in the case of a newly born jw child that needs blood and a child that is inside a mother, is that the mother is the one who is at that time carrying the child and providing him/her their source of life. That pregnancy will determine the course of life for that mother and her family. It could even cost her her life. Say you find out that this child has a really horrible disease. One that will not only render death before they could even pass the first year mark, but one that will do so with pain and suffering. Further, the method used to terminate the pregnancy is one that will best allow the mother to conceive again.

    While YOU might choose to follow through with this preganancy, as most likely would I, where does another person, where does the government have the right to choose for HER what to do?

    When a jw child is born, they are born. The mother's health is not at risk at that time. It is all about the life of the child. And at that point, to save the life of the child, a natural born citizen of the country, the government has the responsibility to save the life of the child.

    So at what point is a child considered born? When the mother is giving birth? When the head crowns?

    Imho, and it is only that, when the child is seperated from the mother.

    To me, and this is only to me, a child becomes a child at conception.

    My question is that, do I have the right to impose my beliefs on another person? I don't believe that I do.

  • BlackSwan of Memphis
    BlackSwan of Memphis

    Women do have another choice. Having a caesarean section to deliver the baby.

    I believe it is immoral to partially birth a baby and then proceed to end his/her life.

    Juni, I can really understand that viewpoint.

    But I think the key thing to remember here is this:

    I'm not a dr. As far as I remember with your posting's you are not a doctor.

    There are at times, and have been in the past, medical reasons to procede with that procedure.

    If it is YOUR womb at stake, if it is your life at stake, and the doctors would determine this is the best route to take, you would make that decision.

    But how the heck does the government have the right to make that decision?

    When you start allowing the govts to intervene in these areas, you start sliding down a slippery slope. Things are not so black and white as much as we want them to be.

    My concern lies with our rights as women. Be we Christian, Pagan, Islam, Jewish or atheist. It dosen't matter. We should have the right to exercise our own conscience. If I believe a woman is murdering her unborn child, fine. Then I would hope my faith in that higher power in either bringing her to a higher understanding of life would be strong enough not to take away the choice from all woman.

  • Fe2O3Girl
    Fe2O3Girl

    Given that there are a million abortions in the US every year, I can't be the only poster who has had an abortion.

    I really wish that every pregnancy was planned and wanted, and that every fetus was healthy. I wish that diagnostic testing was available in the early weeks of pregnancy.

    When I had a termination, I was induced and delivered the baby complete. I was in induced labour for nearly 36 hours. Maybe the dilation and extraction technique is faster and easier on the woman.

    I think in the UK the baby is killed by an injection before the termination starts. Why doesn't that happen in the USA?

  • bebu
    bebu

    Women do have another choice. Having a caesarean section to deliver the baby.

    I believe it is immoral to partially birth a baby and then proceed to end his/her life.

    I agree here.

    How does killing a VIABLE baby (3rd trimester is the DX trimester), not simply completing the occurring delivery, save the mother's life??? It doesn't, and the court recognizes this. This particular procedure is as close to infanticide as you can get (now). Thank God it is banned.

    bebu

  • juni
    juni

    In my Googling on this topic I found where the American Medical Association (AMA) says there are NO medical reasons for a partial birth abortion.

    No. I'm not a doctor and I don't know what that has to do w/the subject. Perhaps I'm missing the point. (I don't mean that in a beetchy way) Usually the body will reject a fetus that is not healthy. My personal view is if the child is not "normal" I will still accept the responsibility and love and care for him/her. But that is me.

    Actually our last child was an oopsy. But I felt it was my responsibility to carry him and love him like the rest of my three kids. One of my granddaughters was a twin, but the other baby died due to a shared blood problem. They were both delivered by C-section. The one living; the other had died.

    Another granddaughter was born at 32 weeks. She was only 3# and was in the hospital for almost 2 months in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). This Sat. we celebrate her 4th b/day.

    I realize we must be careful in allowing our government too much say in our lives. But as far as I'm concerned, there are other options as I said before and partial birth abortion is unconscionable.

    Juni

  • BlackSwan of Memphis
    BlackSwan of Memphis

    Ok, Juni, I agree to disagree with you and the others on this.

    I am looking at things from a very different viewpoint and I am not going to further attempt to try to change your minds on this, as I don't completely disagree with any of you.

    I will not say I like the procedure or that I would even choose to have it done myself.

    Juni like you said, how you would react in a given situation is you as the way I would react is mine.

    My viewpoints on abortion itself would come across to a pro choicer as selfish even.

    I just maintain, that my body is my own. And my concern lies with govt telling me what I can do with it for my own health.

    Bowing out as I'm not one to engage in debate, absorbs too much time and there is a wealth of information out there for people to read and make a decision. You've guys have made your own decisons based on facts you have collected and a point of reason, we just disagree as we see things from different perspectives. And so be it.

  • LongHairGal
    LongHairGal

    Partial birth abortion is almost as bad as waiting for it to be born and then strangling it.

    While I agree that a woman should have the right to choose abortion in the early stages if she wants one, I think partial birth abortion is horrendous - except in the most extreme circumstance of danger to the mother.

    The idea that somebody could kill a kicking fetus (baby) that can live in an incubator and later be adopted by somebody is barbaric.

    LHG

  • anewme
    anewme

    Oh, I think I see Black Swan's position. She is not in any way pro baby killing (and my guess, her being a spiritual person is almost assuredly pro life) She is concerned with the rights of individuals to have the medical procedures necessary to save their lives.

    And I think what Juni and others are saying is that there are plenty of other methods to accomplish abortion that are very gruesome but not as abhorrent as the described partial birth abortion.

    I think it was made clear Black Swan that the PROLIFE LEADERS were unable to convince the court that there was a popular need for the late term partial vaginal birth abortion.
    If they were unable to do so, with all medical info available to them, you will probably not be able to do so here either.

    But I think you are most concerned with individual rights. We always have to be on guard and protect the rights of the individual. But there are times when personal rights might infringe on another's.
    There is the subject of THE DIGNITY OF HUMAN LIFE and RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE....all human life....the newborn, the aged, and the dead.


    I knew a witness woman who had two teenage children and was pregnant with her third. At the same time she found out she had uterine cancer. So it was put to her. She could start chemo and radiation therapy and thereby kill her unborn. Or put off the therapy until after the baby was born and try treatment but lessen her own chances for survival. Well, after much prayer and discussion with her family she chose to forgo the treatments and give life to her baby, a beautiful daughter.
    Mary began her cancer therapy right after the baby was born, but succumbed to the disease a few months after giving birth. I went to visit her before she died. She was accepting brief visits from the congregation. She was in tremendous pain. I think we all went to pay homage to such a brave and spiritual woman we would never forget.


    Another woman, more recent story, was pregnant with her first pregnancy, twin boys, conjoined in a bad way. She was/still is a young elder's wife and pioneer. The two of them had wanted children for some time. It was very dissappointing to hear the doctors advise them to terminate the boy's lives and avoid the trauma of the birth which they believed would result in their ultimate deaths. No, not for this couple.
    For nine months that young sister carried her boys. She got so big! She continued to pioneer. It was strange to work with her in service and watch her lovingly hold her belly but her look was sad.
    The day came for the birth of the boys. She entered the hospital and gave birth to her two sons.
    Both were alive for one hour after birth, joined by their little chest and head. She sat up and held her sons in a blanket and rocked them and soothed them and named them while they fell quiet and died in her loving motherly arms.

    At the kingdom hall we had a memorial for the two boys and talked about the future lives they would enjoy when they are reunited with their parents in the paradise. The couple went on to have two more children and always refer to themselves as having four sons.

    Stories of such courage and faith touch and affect the heart forever.


    But as I said we always need to be vigilant as to our freedoms and personal rights but each person must decide how far he or she will go to defend them.



Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit