Pro-choice actually pro-abortion?

[Riprorin]

But in reality, as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other eminent medical authorities told Congress, "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."

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
But in reality, as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other eminent medical authorities told Congress, "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."

How, exactly, could the procedure as described present any risk to the mother that isn't present in any induced delivery?

The defence of PBA has to do with the necessity of an induced delivery, and the potential health of the child. While it might not be my choice, I could see a woman choosing to abort a fetus with near certainty of developing CF due to premature delivery.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin
But in reality, as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other eminent medical authorities told Congress, "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."

How, exactly, could the procedure as described present any risk to the mother that isn't present in any induced delivery?

The defence of PBA has to do with the necessity of an induced delivery, and the potential health of the child. While it might not be my choice, I could see a woman choosing to abort a fetus with near certainty of developing CF due to premature delivery.

Scientific reports on maternal complications from induced abortion are grossly inaccurate.

Why?

Published reports from scientific studies all come from university medical centers. Surgery in them is done by highly qualified surgeons. Further, they have immediate access to topnotch care if a mishap occurs.

But less than 10% of U.S. abortions are done in such elite institutions. Consequently their reports of safety or hazards do not in any way reflect the actual situation "out there" where over 90% of abortions are done in free-standing, for-profit abortion facilities or in doctors? offices.

Aren?t there any reports on those "out there"?

The typical abortion mill will rarely report any complications. If the problem is acute, the injured woman is taken by van (never an ambulance -that?s bad publicity) to the nearest emergency room and left there. More commonly, she?ll be sent home. If she bleeds, gets septic, etc., she must seek help elsewhere, as the abortion mills rarely give any follow-up care.

MATERNAL COMPLICATIONS

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Scientific reports on maternal complications from induced abortion are grossly inaccurate.

Why?

Published reports from scientific studies all come from university medical centers. Surgery in them is done by highly qualified surgeons. Further, they have immediate access to topnotch care if a mishap occurs.

But less than 10% of U.S. abortions are done in such elite institutions. Consequently their reports of safety or hazards do not in any way reflect the actual situation "out there" where over 90% of abortions are done in free-standing, for-profit abortion facilities or in doctors? offices.

Aren?t there any reports on those "out there"?

The typical abortion mill will rarely report any complications. If the problem is acute, the injured woman is taken by van (never an ambulance -that?s bad publicity) to the nearest emergency room and left there. More commonly, she?ll be sent home. If she bleeds, gets septic, etc., she must seek help elsewhere, as the abortion mills rarely give any follow-up care.

MATERNAL COMPLICATIONS

So regulate the abortion providers.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So regulate the abortion providers.

A glimpse of reason in an otherwise murky topic.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I'm all for choice if the choice is between keeping the child or putting it up for adoption.

I don't consider taking the life of an unborn a legitimate choice.

Well, too bad. I guess it sucks to hold fanatical beilefs and the rest of the civilized world to disagree with you.

Sticking a sharp object into the back of a baby's skull and sucking out its brains is civilized?

Can't you just take a pill now and that's that? It's not as effective as the surgical method (I think it was only 90% effective) but all it requires is taking a pill I believe. It's called the RU-486 I believe.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So regulate the abortion providers.

A glimpse of reason in an otherwise murky topic.

Except that radical abortionists fight any attempt to regulate the abortion industry.

Getting back to partial birth abortion:

But in reality, as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other eminent medical authorities told Congress, "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."

 

[LordMagnusKain]

The personal negative conseqences? Wow, nice change you've got going there, you dont care about the "life" of the "unborn" anymore? Typical Christian...

How old are you by the way?

Heh, Pro-Choice isn't pro-Abortion too bad you fail to understand that.

hey, you in no way addressed my argument, to bad you don?t' understand that as such you've proven yourself wrong.

someone selfish enough to extinguish the existence of her child is certainly only going to respond to facts that directly affect her negatively.

so you don't see the genetically unique human life of a soldier that does exist to be of any value

so you don't see the many lives saved by our intervention of value? only those from this country?

please answer the question. pointing out my hypocrisy in no way addresses the issue.

heck, even abe lincoln had 3 outa 10 children die.

so high historical infant mortality is a good reason to kill infants today? I doubt that?s your argument?

I?m sorry, you need to connect your dots.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So regulate the abortion providers.

A glimpse of reason in an otherwise murky topic.

Except that radical abortionists fight any attempt to regulate the abortion industry.

Getting back to partial birth abortion:

But in reality, as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other eminent medical authorities told Congress, "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."

Yes yes, you like talking in circles, I know.

This thread was not about PBA until you made it about PBA. As a result, you have no opportunity to convince anyone that abortion in general is unacceptable.

As for medical necessity, I've already given my opinion on when a delivery might be necessary, and circumstances in which choosing PBA over premature live delivery might be understandable.

The third issue is the complications, which you don't seem to have any real 'numbers' to support, but that's why I suggested regulating abortion providers more closely.

If you took a position of regulation, you would find little traction from the so-called 'radical abortionist' movement, because it doesn't exist, except perhaps as manifested by a few shady practitioners.

The fact is that regulation is an unacceptable outcome in your opinion, so don't pretend that you would be happy if only the 'radical abortionists' would let you protect the lives of women from bad abortion providers. That sort of lying and intellectual dishonesty is rather distasteful.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

The fact is that regulation is an unacceptable outcome in your opinion, so don't pretend that you would be happy if only the 'radical abortionists' would let you protect the lives of women from bad abortion providers. That sort of lying and intellectual dishonesty is rather distasteful.

I don't think "if only" was even implied, to put those words in his mouth is the intellectually dishonesty here.

as is your "opinion" in an attempt to blur the line between medically necessary and "understandable".

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The fact is that regulation is an unacceptable outcome in your opinion, so don't pretend that you would be happy if only the 'radical abortionists' would let you protect the lives of women from bad abortion providers. That sort of lying and intellectual dishonesty is rather distasteful.

I don't think "if only" was even implied, to put those words in his mouth is the intellectually dishonesty here.

as is your "opinion" in an attempt to blur the line between medically necessary and "understandable".

No, it isn't. Rip's statement was entirely dishonest - there is no way 'radical abortionists' could stand in the way of intelligent regulation of abortion providers. The fact is he doens't care about that because such an outcome is totally unacceptable.

As for medical necessity, if it is necessary to deliver a child prematurely, and create sever health problems in a fetus who would be expected to be healthy had they been delivered full-term, then evaluating the decision to bring the child into the world is perfectly valid.

Rip and everyone else here know that PBA is never 'necessary' because you can always just deliver the child and take your chances. But perhaps you should be arguing that premature delivery of children is unethical in all cases, since it imposes health consequences on the unborn child, in the name of preventing health consequences to the mother? I don't see a conflict, but people who consider unborn fetuses as full human beings with equal rights would need to do so.

 

[homercles337]

I dont mean to butt in, but ...

"Between 1996 and 2000, the number of abortions in the United States fell from 1.36 million to 1.31 million (Finer & Henshaw, 2003). The CDC estimates that 58 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.5 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2003)."

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: MadRat

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So regulate the abortion providers.

A glimpse of reason in an otherwise murky topic.

Except that radical abortionists fight any attempt to regulate the abortion industry.

Getting back to partial birth abortion:

But in reality, as former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other eminent medical authorities told Congress, "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."

Yes yes, you like talking in circles, I know.

This thread was not about PBA until you made it about PBA. As a result, you have no opportunity to convince anyone that abortion in general is unacceptable.

As for medical necessity, I've already given my opinion on when a delivery might be necessary, and circumstances in which choosing PBA over premature live delivery might be understandable.

The third issue is the complications, which you don't seem to have any real 'numbers' to support, but that's why I suggested regulating abortion providers more closely.

If you took a position of regulation, you would find little traction from the so-called 'radical abortionist' movement, because it doesn't exist, except perhaps as manifested by a few shady practitioners.

The fact is that regulation is an unacceptable outcome in your opinion, so don't pretend that you would be happy if only the 'radical abortionists' would let you protect the lives of women from bad abortion providers. That sort of lying and intellectual dishonesty is rather distasteful.

The topic of regulation of abortion providers has been discussed. Do a search on it. There's no need to rehash it here.

I'm talking in circles because you're persisting in your uniformed postion inspite of the facts that I've provided.

 

[Rainsford]

I like how Rip and LMK got off topic in their own topic. The question is not what your personal beliefs about abortion are (we've heard that many times, and frankly I couldn't care less what you think), the question is whether there is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. While some people attempted to answer this question, all you two have done is go wildly off topic with your rhetoric. Yes, we get it, you guys don't like abortion. Do we really need another topic about that?

 

[homercles337]

Well at least Rip and LMK have "some" support.

Here...

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

The topic of regulation of abortion providers has been discussed. Do a search on it. There's no need to rehash it here.

I'm talking in circles because you're persisting in your uniformed postion inspite of the facts that I've provided.

The 'facts' you've provided are solved by proper regulation. By the way, statistics on the number of women who remain childless after an abortion are meaningless without information on how many remain childless despite wanting a child, compared to baseline rates of infertility.

Women accepting the risk of future infertility is perfectly acceptable, perhaps you should be pushing for honest educational material and campaignsto ensure women understand what, if any, real risk of future infertility they face if they choose an abortion.

I'm all for regulation, and improving standards of care where necessary. As a supporter of socialized medicine, I have no great love of for-profit abortion providers (or any other for-profit medical centers). You, on the other hand are a strong supporter of for profit healthcare, and consistently attack any socialized medicine program as providing substandard care. It is interesting, therefore, that you consider for-profit provision of abortion to be such a significant contributor to problems with abortion.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: homercles337
Well at least Rip and LMK have "some" support.

Here...

That might be the most tasteless thing I've seen posted here in the last year.

Edit - because of the implication, not because I have any dislike of Downs' Syndrome individuals.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Women accepting the risk of future infertility is perfectly acceptable, perhaps you should be pushing for honest educational material and campaignsto ensure women understand what, if any, real risk of future infertility they face if they choose an abortion.

properly educating someone of the effects and dangers involved, in an abortion in comparison to not eliminating a child?s existence, would be wonderful.

the question is whether there is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion.

right, I got a few answers that where reasonable even enlivening.
Then I got some people who didn?t read or refused to support disagreement with my op.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: homercles337
Well at least Rip and LMK have "some" support.

Here...

That might be the most tasteless thing I've seen posted here in the last year.

Edit - because of the implication, not because I have any dislike of Downs' Syndrome individuals.

No need for the edit. I think that anyone here who knows you is aware why you would find that post distasteful.

Those of us on the pro-life side recognize the sanctity of life and the need to protect the weak and vulnerable among us, including those with physical or mental handicaps such as people with Down's Syndrome.

 

[68falcon]

i agree with the right for a woman to choose, that is to choose to have a baby or not. if you want one go ahead, if you dont, then dont have sex and end up killing an unborn child.

 

[CellarDoor]

nm. my post encouraged comments not directly related to the topic of the thread.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I like how Rip and LMK got off topic in their own topic. The question is not what your personal beliefs about abortion are (we've heard that many times, and I don't care what you think), the question is whether there is a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. While some people attempted to answer this question, all you two have done is go wildly off topic with your rhetoric. Yes, we get it, you guys don't like abortion. Do we really need another topic about that?

Fixed.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The personal negative conseqences? Wow, nice change you've got going there, you dont care about the "life" of the "unborn" anymore? Typical Christian...

How old are you by the way?

Heh, Pro-Choice isn't pro-Abortion too bad you fail to understand that.

hey, you in no way addressed my argument, to bad you don?t' understand that as such you've proven yourself wrong.

someone selfish enough to extinguish the existence of her child is certainly only going to respond to facts that directly affect her negatively.

Thank you for being a "Christian" again a selectively quoting me. I addressed the "title" of your post.

Pro-choice actually pro-abortion?

Lets use our brains (if you have one) and think about this using our logic. Pro-Choice fits perfectly, it does not mean pro-abortion. It means you support the opition of what the women wants to do with her own body, not that you agree with that choice.

 

[CheesePoofs]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: homercles337
Well at least Rip and LMK have "some" support.

Here...

That might be the most tasteless thing I've seen posted here in the last year.

Edit - because of the implication, not because I have any dislike of Downs' Syndrome individuals.

No need for the edit. I think that anyone here who knows you is aware why you would find that post distasteful.

Those of us on the pro-life side recognize the sanctity of life and the need to protect the weak and vulnerable among us, including those with physical or mental handicaps such as people with Down's Syndrome.

If you cared that much about life you would be against every war, or even the potential for war. You would be againt miscarriages (after all, a miscarriage is the mother killing her unborn child). Still seems to me like you are trying to force your christian agenda on the rest of the world.

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: zendari
I support abortion rights, but I also think pro-choice is a leftist terminology. If you support allowing people to have an abortion you are pro-abortion. Simple as that.

:thumbsdown:



I'm very much against abortions in nearly every conceivable instance. But I want that to remain my choice.