Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 255
  1. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #201  
    Historically, what peer-reviewed evidence exists of a legally obtained abortion of a viable >26-week fetus where the woman's life was not in immediate risk of loss or in an attempt to salvage the fetus when health/trauma circumstances warranted? Without this evidence, the entire anti-Intact D&X argument d o e s_n o t_e x i s t. All else is simply the same old generic anti-abortion hyperbole.

    Hardball anyone?
  2. #202  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    To you, what is the essential difference between D&E and D&X which makes one acceptable and the other not?

    Surur
    To me, there is no essential difference. (no surprise there, right?)

    To the Supreme Court, however, there is. That difference, called out by Justice O'Connor, is likely what gave opponents their marching orders. It seems the door she left cracked has now been opened wide.
  3. #203  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    To me, there is no essential difference. (no surprise there, right?)

    To the Supreme Court, however, there is. That difference, called out by Justice O'Connor, is likely what gave opponents their marching orders. It seems the door she left cracked has now been opened wide.
    If they are all the same to you, doesn't this whole conversation boil down to simply abortion, irrespective of the methods?

    In other words, why attack a rare and yucky method of abortion when no abortion would be acceptable to you in any case? Is it just an appeal to emotion?

    Surur
  4. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #204  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    To me, there is no essential difference. (no surprise there, right?)

    To the Supreme Court, however, there is. That difference, called out by Justice O'Connor, is likely what gave opponents their marching orders. It seems the door she left cracked has now been opened wide.
    Justice O'Connor also deferred to the physicians involved in a case as most appropriately having the final call.

    ____________
    Got Evidence?
    Last edited by backbeat; 04/24/2007 at 01:29 PM.
  5. #205  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    If they are all the same to you, doesn't this whole conversation boil down to simply abortion, irrespective of the methods?

    In other words, why attack a rare and yucky method of abortion when no abortion would be acceptable to you in any case? Is it just an appeal to emotion?

    Surur
    I'm discussing the rare and yucky method because it is the subject matter of the recent decision.
  6. #206  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Historically, what peer-reviewed evidence exists of a legally obtained abortion of a viable >26-week fetus where the woman's life was not in immediate risk of loss or in an attempt to salvage the fetus when health/trauma circumstances warranted? Without this evidence, the entire anti-Intact D&X argument d o e s_n o t_e x i s t. All else is simply the same old generic anti-abortion hyperbole.

    Hardball anyone?
    What is the reporting requirement regarding incidents of abortion?
  7. #207  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    In other words, why attack a rare and yucky method of abortion ...?

    Surur
    Exactly how many are in a "rare"? How many partial birth abortions have to be performed each year before it is no longer "rare"?

    Something tells me that if 5,000 teenagers a year were killed on the roads of America because of drunk driving that we wouldn't be calling that "rare."
  8. #208  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I'm discussing the rare and yucky method because it is the subject matter of the recent decision.
    You have not replied to my next to last post, explaining why D&X is an appropriate form of abortion later in pregnancy. Are your questions satisfied or not?

    Surur
  9. #209  
    Quote Originally Posted by awerry View Post
    Exactly how many are in a "rare"? How many partial birth abortions have to be performed each year before it is no longer "rare"?

    Something tells me that if 5,000 teenagers a year were killed on the roads of America because of drunk driving that we wouldn't be calling that "rare."
    At least 40 000 people are killed in road traffic accidents each year in the USA, so 5000 teenagers is actually not unlikely, as they are usually disproportionately represented.

    In fact in 2004 7500 people were killed in accidents involving young drivers. 3500 of these were drivers between the ages of 16 and 20.

    40% of fatal accidents involve alcohol, and 16-24 year olds are 25% of fatalities, meaning about 4000 teenagers were killed by drunken driving, and probably more. Its already as horrifying as you thought it may be.

    Knowing this, do you consider this a rare form of death in teenagers, as you thought before this post? If you did, its probably because 5000 deaths out of 40 million teenagers is probably a minusculy small number, and indeed rare.

    Surur
    Last edited by surur; 04/24/2007 at 02:43 PM.
  10. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #210  
    Shop - Clarify your question, please?
  11. #211  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Because pregnancy CAUSES these conditions, which are leading causes for maternal mortality. When you are 5 months along, and your condition is just getting worse and worse, and you are already so ill with a blood sugar of 30 or a BP of 220/160, you are not going to be in
    a) any condition to carry the baby to a viable term and
    b) needs to be relieved from a rather malignant pregnancy ASAP. Thats why abortion is medically indicated to save the life of the mother. Obviously in that state the mother is not fit to labour either.



    Inducement still involved labour, which is undesirable when you are very ill, and in D&E (basically chopping up the baby in the womb and sucking it out) the parts are too big to pass down the vacuum tube. I don't see how that procedure is qualitatively any different from D&X either.


    The mother may be very ill, too ill to labour, and as I said D&E is not suitable later in pregnancy.



    You clearly dont understand delivery and labour. Why does taking the baby's head 5 inches in the first place take 8-16 hours? Getting the head past the cervix is what labour is all about.



    I hope all your dots are connected how.

    Surur
    Sorry about the delay. This post got past me amidst the evolution tangent.

    Thank you for connecting the dots. I have one dot remaining. What prevents C-section (I suppose the chemotherapy case may preclude such)?

    Also, regarding the five inches. My point is, since you're pulling the baby out up to the base of the skull, why not just finish the pull and preserve the baby and the mother?
  12. #212  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Shop - Clarify your question, please?
    For peers to review evidence requires that evidence be collected. I do not know to what extent doctors are required to report abortion statistics, i.e. what methodology and for what rationale.

    The 1992 paper did not include such conditions in the patient selection critera. But, again, I concede that such requirements may have been introduced.
  13. #213  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Sorry about the delay. This post got past me amidst the evolution tangent.

    Thank you for connecting the dots. I have one dot remaining. What prevents C-section (I suppose the chemotherapy case may preclude such)?
    2 things.
    1) Its surgery, will require some form of anesthetic, and will therefore add to the risk of the mother. Some conditions, such as extremely high blood pressure, would preclude surgery.
    2) There is no point in operating on the mother if the baby is not viable. Before 22 weeks no baby is really viable, so why even attempt to deliver a living baby?

    Also, regarding the five inches. My point is, since you're pulling the baby out up to the base of the skull, why not just finish the pull and preserve the baby and the mother?
    I believe the cervix stops you from finishing the pull. Its much like a tough fibrous funnel, and not like a turtle-neck sweater. The same reasons above apply also - why make special efforts to deliver a living baby when the baby is not viable in any case?

    Imagine asking a mother with deteriorating heart failure in the 20th week of pregnancy to either have an epidural or general anesthetic, or to push the baby out. In any case the bay will not live at 20 weeks, the pregnancy is doomed, and it should be aborted in the safest way possible. D&X is a viable way requiring little maternal exertion, is largely non-invasive to the mother (at least better than a Cesarean section), only requires local anesthetic, and can deal with later term pregnancies than D&E, and leaves the mother with an intact fetus to bury. Removing this choice from obstetricians, gynecologists and mothers is wrong.

    Surur
  14. #214  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    At least 40 000 people are killed in road traffic accidents each year in the USA, so 5000 teenagers is actually not unlikely, as they are usually disproportionately represented.

    In fact in 2004 7500 people were killed in accidents involving young drivers. 3500 of these were drivers between the ages of 16 and 20.

    40% of fatal accidents involve alcohol, and 16-24 year olds are 25% of fatalities, meaning about 4000 teenagers were killed by drunken driving, and probably more. Its already as horrifying as you thought it may be.

    Knowing this, do you consider this a rare form of death in teenagers, as you thought before this post? If you did, its probably because 5000 deaths out of 40 million teenagers is probably a minusculy small number, and indeed rare.

    Surur

    I don't remember saying what I thought about the rarity of teen fatalities when I posted before. I did ask a question though.

    Your reply confirmed my suspicion that the term "rare" that is thrown around so much in this debate is a relative term used to diminish the significance of this debate, since, you know, this procedure is so "rare."

    I just wonder what all the fuss is about the 3,000+ soldiers dead in Iraq in a multi-year war when we are "rarely" killing over 5,000 babies through this procedure EVERY YEAR?

    All in all, relative quantitative terms don't help us in ethical debates. The shootings at Virginia Tech are certainly more rare than partial birth abortions but I don't see anyone standing up telling us to factor in the low rate of occurrence in determining our feelings about what happened there.

    Actions should be judged by something other than how often they occur, in my opinion.
  15. #215  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Also, regarding the five inches. My point is, since you're pulling the baby out up to the base of the skull, why not just finish the pull and preserve the baby and the mother?
    Unfortunately, when a baby comes out feet first it is called a "breach birth" and it is not often that the baby survives normal birth when it is breach. The neck is not strong enough for the head to be pulled through the cervix. The neck will snap and the baby will die.

    When doctors perform PBA they induce a breach birth. They physically reach into the womb and turn the baby the wrong way so that the feet come out first. So now the baby has little chance of survival even if they were not aborting it.
  16. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #216  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    For peers to review evidence requires that evidence be collected. I do not know to what extent doctors are required to report abortion statistics, i.e. what methodology and for what rationale.
    Journal literature would be peer-reviewed.

    Reporting of surgical procedures is required by law at the State level as this is a heavily regulated/documented industry. FDA/CDC then collects for their own research or administrative purposes (in short).

    The open challenge is: Can anyone provide evidence of a legally obtained abortion of a viable >26-week fetus where the woman's life was not in immediate risk of loss or in an attempt to salvage the fetus when health/trauma circumstances warranted?

    Peer-reviewed indicates published in a non-partisan, industry-recognized medical journal eg. JAMA, AJOG, etc., full text or even an abstract (as long as the full text is readily available). Cross-examination of all clinical data, health conditions, etc are validated by physician peers, researchers, etc prior to publication.
  17. #217  
    Quote Originally Posted by awerry View Post
    I don't remember saying what I thought about the rarity of teen fatalities when I posted before. I did ask a question though.

    Your reply confirmed my suspicion that the term "rare" that is thrown around so much in this debate is a relative term used to diminish the significance of this debate, since, you know, this procedure is so "rare."

    I just wonder what all the fuss is about the 3,000+ soldiers dead in Iraq in a multi-year war when we are "rarely" killing over 5,000 babies through this procedure EVERY YEAR?

    All in all, relative quantitative terms don't help us in ethical debates. The shootings at Virginia Tech are certainly more rare than partial birth abortions but I don't see anyone standing up telling us to factor in the low rate of occurrence in determining our feelings about what happened there.

    Actions should be judged by something other than how often they occur, in my opinion.
    Actually thats the Gamblers Fallacy. Actions should be judged in terms of relative risk, and will lead to us properly addressing priorities. The shooting is a case in point - why go on about 32 people shot, when 25-30 000 people die from hand guns in USA every year? The numbers by itself should have led to a ban on handguns in USA, but did not. Whats another 32?

    Or alternatively, what if the resources spent on trying to "save" 5000 children were rather spent on enforcing back seat safety belts and child seats, and save even more every year?

    Politicians love using emotions to blind people, but the relative risk and numbers should be what is directing our attention. Being diverted by anything else marks you out as a lottery player.

    Surur
  18. #218  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Unfortunately, when a baby comes out feet first it is called a "breach birth" and it is not often that the baby survives normal birth when it is breach.
    You are mostly right, except for the above line. Most breach births at full term are survived, but thats because:

    a) the cervix is fully dilated (not the case in D&X) and
    b) The mother and uterine contractions are pushing out the head, again not the case in D&X, where the mother does not push (often for good medical reasons) and there are no contractions.

    Surur
  19. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #219  
    Quote Originally Posted by awerry View Post
    Actions should be judged by something other than how often they occur, in my opinion.
    The hurdle your side's argument has is primarily if and under what medical circumstances and judgment, not how frequently.

    To make vain attempts at salvaging every non-viable fetus is extremely cruel and inhumane treatment of the fetus and the mother (unless you suffer from Mel Gibson Syndrome, I suppose).

    This bill, signed off on by the Supreme Court ultimately will not stand.
  20. #220  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Right. Exactly. If they had buried that specimen and a paleantologist had come along later and found it, he probably would have said something like, "This has all the characteristics of a million year old fossil, so it must be!"
    Are you suggesting that they can fool carbon-dating with this method?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions