Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 278910111213 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 255
  1. #221  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    The hurdle your side's argument has is primarily if and under what medical circumstances and judgment, not how frequently.
    Agreed. That's why I don't keep calling this a "rare" procedure as others do.

    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    To make vain attempts at salvaging every non-viable fetus is extremely cruel and inhumane treatment of the fetus and the mother.
    Agreed. But the overwhelming majority of cases of partial birth abortion are NOT for the sake of the mother's or the baby's life because it isn't medically necessary. Furthermore, in the overwhelming majority of cases the baby IS viable.

    So...how many thousands of viable babies are we willing to needlessly kill in an effort to make sure that we can abort the ones where it is necessary?

    Let's not forget that even some of the staunchest pro-abortion proponents have called for the banning of this ghastly procedure. When even some from "the other side" have the courage to rise up against something like this, it makes me think we are on the right side with regard to the narrow question of PBA.
  2. #222  
    Quote Originally Posted by awerry View Post
    But the overwhelming majority of cases of partial birth abortion are NOT for the sake of the mother's or the baby's life because it isn't medically necessary. Furthermore, in the overwhelming majority of cases the baby IS viable.

    So...how many thousands of viable babies are we willing to needlessly kill in an effort to make sure that we can abort the ones where it is necessary?
    Where's your evidence for both of the above assertions?

    Surur
  3. #223  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Where's your evidence for both of the above assertions?

    Surur

    Does it matter? Will your mind be changed in the least if I provide it?
  4. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #224  
    Quote Originally Posted by awerry View Post
    Agreed. That's why I don't keep calling this a "rare" procedure as others do.

    Agreed. But the overwhelming majority of cases of partial birth abortion are NOT for the sake of the mother's or the baby's life because it isn't medically necessary. Furthermore, in the overwhelming majority of cases the baby IS viable.
    The CDC clearly disagrees with you. Where does the CDC get its data? The States, who are required by law to collect procedural data from every hospital, clinic, outpatient surgery center, physician office, doc-in-a-box, etc. who are also required by law to report this data. No exemptions.

    I call! Time to put up or ...
    Last edited by backbeat; 04/25/2007 at 08:56 AM.
  5. #225  
    Quote Originally Posted by awerry View Post
    Does it matter? Will your mind be changed in the least if I provide it?
    I would certainly examine it. Put up or..

    Surur
  6. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #226  
    Bueller ...
  7. #227  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I would certainly examine it. Put up or..

    Surur
    I know you will examine it. That wasn't the question.
  8. #228  
    Quote Originally Posted by awerry View Post
    I know you will examine it. That wasn't the question.
    Depends on the quality of your data. There is some pretty good UK data on legal abortions, and from a population of 60 million people 586 abortions were needed "F to save the life of the pregnant woman;" after 20 weeks of gestation. This is just one of 7 reasons that can be given, so its not the default choice. Supposing our populations are roughly equivalent, that would translate to about 3000 late term abortions to save the life of the mother in a 300 million size population. Something to think about.

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloa.../AB28_2001.pdf

    Surur
  9. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #229  
    Quote Originally Posted by awerry View Post
    That wasn't the question.
    Consideration begets [potential] conclusions (in that order).
  10. #230  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    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?



    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
    I concede. Reading about these rarities gave me insight into the normalcies of abortion. The scene is not pretty Thank you for indulging me.

    P.S. Now that I'm aware of the actual procedures involved with abortion period, I understand the intense angst over having a ban on D&X. The reasoning applied to D&X can surely be applied to D&E......and inducement.......and...
  11. #231  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Consideration begets [potential] conclusions (in that order).
    Glad to hear that. I don't have time to look up the stats at the moment myself, but I can ask my daughter who is much more "up" on this than me to get the best figures, quotes, etc. for you.

    However, for the sake of discussion, you actually don't need to SEE the information I'm citing to consider it. Just assume, again for the sake of discussion, that what I said is accurate. What if it is? How does that change your views?

    My contention is that your mind will not be changed even in the face of data contrary to your understanding. I could be wrong.

    And, in the interest of full discloser, I would have to admit that numbers cited by you would probably have a similar (lack of) effect on me. Such is the nature of the abortion "debate". Minds are rarely changed.
  12. #232  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Now that I'm aware of the actual procedures involved with abortion period, I understand the intense angst over having a ban on D&X. The reasoning applied to D&X can surely be applied to D&E......and inducement.......and...
    Exactly. Killing a fetus is never going to be pretty. One should not make policy decisions based on the Yuck factor.

    Surur
  13. #233  
    Quote Originally Posted by awerry View Post
    Glad to hear that. I don't have time to look up the stats at the moment myself, but I can ask my daughter who is much more "up" on this than me to get the best figures, quotes, etc. for you.

    However, for the sake of discussion, you actually don't need to SEE the information I'm citing to consider it. Just assume, again for the sake of discussion, that what I said is accurate. What if it is? How does that change your views?

    My contention is that your mind will not be changed even in the face of data contrary to your understanding. I could be wrong.

    And, in the interest of full discloser, I would have to admit that numbers cited by you would probably have a similar (lack of) effect on me. Such is the nature of the abortion "debate". Minds are rarely changed.
    Maybe my understanding is already based on the facts as far as I know them (and they completely contradict your assertions).

    Surur
  14. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #234  
    Quote Originally Posted by awerry View Post
    Glad to hear that. I don't have time to look up the stats at the moment myself, but I can ask my daughter who is much more "up" on this than me to get the best figures, quotes, etc. for you.
    What are your daughter's credentials?

    However, for the sake of discussion, you actually don't need to SEE the information I'm citing to consider it.
    I can conceive that a robot built the Earth in 5 days, in a bet with God for who could do it quickest. It isn't worthy of consideration, however.

    And, in the interest of full discloser, I would have to admit that numbers cited by you would probably have a similar (lack of) effect on me. Such is the nature of the abortion "debate". Minds are rarely changed.
    Yeah, I know ... Nothing but clinicians and advanced academics with nothing to do but research and validate the accuracy of State-reported data. Why would that be compelling when Jay Sekulow says it just ain't so?
  15. #235  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    What are your daughter's credentials?
    I don't remember saying she had any credentials. I said she was more "up" on this than I am.

    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    I can conceive that a robot built the Earth in 5 days, in a bet with God for who could do it quickest. It isn't worthy of consideration, however.
    It appears as if you missed the part where I said "for the sake of discussion."
  16. #236  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Are you suggesting that they can fool carbon-dating with this method?
    Since you brought it up...

    Carbon dating would not be useful on million year old fossils, since Carbon 14's full life is around 50,000 years. After 50,000 years there would be no way to tell what age something is using Carbon 14 dating.

    Source: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v10i10f.htm

    The way paleantologists date fossils is by looking at the rock layer it is in. Then you may ask "How do they date the rock layer?" Well, they look at the fossils they find in the rock layer to determine the age of the rock layer. Yep, it's circular logic.

    by the way, the Evolution vs. Creation thread is up, so if you would like to further discuss this, I would suggest us moving it to the other forum.
  17. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #237  
    Quote Originally Posted by awerry View Post
    I don't remember saying she had any credentials. I said she was more "up" on this than I am.
    If she is your 'source', it's a reasonable question.

    It appears as if you missed the part where I said "for the sake of discussion."
    It would have to be discussed in order to be considered, correct? If such an abstract concept is outside of reasoned consideration, then ... well ...
  18. #238  
    At 8 weeks a child has:

    All major body organs and systems are formed but not completely developed.
    Early stages of the placenta, which exchanges nutrients from your body for waste products produced by the baby, are visible and working.
    Ears, ankles and wrists are formed. Eyelids form and grow but are sealed shut.
    Fingers and toes are developed.

    Source: http://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/2138.asp
  19. #239  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    At 8 weeks a child has:

    All major body organs and systems are formed but not completely developed.
    Early stages of the placenta, which exchanges nutrients from your body for waste products produced by the baby, are visible and working.
    Ears, ankles and wrists are formed. Eyelids form and grow but are sealed shut.
    Fingers and toes are developed.

    Source: http://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/2138.asp
    So does a piggie.

    Human life is not half as valuable as you think it is, especially if you have to pay for it.

    Surur
  20. #240  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    If she is your 'source', it's a reasonable question.
    I forgot exactly how much she was involved in this issue until she reminded me today when I told her about your "credentials" question. She said: "I worked for the U.S. Senator who sponsored the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which President Bush signed into law, and which was framed and hung in my office, along with the pen that President Bush used to sign the bill."

    So, yeah... she is my source. She suggested you read:

    http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/par...l_language.htm

    Pay particular attention to (13)...

    (13) There exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-birth abortion is not required to contain a `health' exception, because the facts indicate that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care.

    Granted, this is a secondary source making reference to what "the facts indicate".

    Is THAT enough to get you to entertain the questions I have posed for the sake of discussion?
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 278910111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions