O'REILLY: So that tells you something. OK. The second thing is, partial-birth abortion is never necessary with all the technology they have now -- never necessary.

When did Bill O'Reilly get a medical degree????

And what is this "partial-birth abortion" he's talking about?

Oh yeah, I forgot, it's a fundie euphemism for a procedure that bears no resemblance to the words.

The baby's feet, legs, hips, belly, and chest are outside the mother's body when the termination actually happens. Everything but the baby's head is removed from the mother.

This is why it's referred to as "partial birth." (link)

That's not true.

Sorry, that was a comment to a another article, misplaced here.

Even so, it was completely correct.

What Shoes posted is not true.

"from giving birth when she's raped or has incest."

Why am I not suprised by this....... is it me or perhaps BillO really is thinking bad thoughts about women incesting with a family member?

Being raped... the women is not in control.....incest, I suppose could go both ways..... but.... I don't know..... maybe because it sounds creepy that BillO said this... maybe I'm just feeling icky about O'Reilly speaking about this issue...... his voice? that its him in general?

An OLD Labor and Delivery nurse here and both of you are correct.  There is a very wide group of birth situations that are termed PPAs.  First of all, I have seen a feet first birth, with almost total delivery and we could not get the head out.  the mother's PB drops, internal hemorrhage is occurring and the doc makes the decision to not lose both the child and the mother so he uses the so called PPA.  On the other hand, I have seen a mother hemorrhaging, head first presentation, mother unable to push out the child, and the doc decides on  PAB.   It is insane to allow non-medical people make life and death decisions like this.  I can tell you, though retired now, I can guarantee that docs are still doing these procedures with great trauma to the physician and every person in that delivery room.  And anyone that thinks they do this sort of stupid thing willy nilly is insane themselves.

Gee whiz, Mari, you sound like an Abortion Fanatic, just like me (or so I've been told by some very "scientific" types at this very site)

Club meetings are Wednesdays, at midnight, at the old graveyard.The crazy abortion fanatic old graveyard.

The baby's feet, legs, hips, belly, and chest are outside the mother's body when the termination actually happens. Everything but the baby's head is removed from the mother. -- shoes

Once again, Shoes, you're lying.

Shoes

"The baby's feet, legs, hips, belly, and chest are outside the mother's body when the termination actually happens. Everything but the baby's head is removed from the mother".

Considering most babies are born head first, that is pretty remarkable; but I am guessing you never gave birth so you wouldn't know that.

You could say that about all the bloviators.

Y'know... it's really simple. So elemental it's dumbfounding. Why would anyone turn to a 'radio star' for any information having to do with science - when life begins, global warming, etc.? Do their listeners REALLY believe that these schmoes are 'experts' at anything - except lying?

Around the time he figured out the difference between a loofah and a falafel.

It is junk like this that makes Americans believe there is no threat against a womens right to choose. The theat has never been greater than it is now. 

I'd have a lot more respect for people's religious beliefs if it weren't for the loud & proud little group that keeps trying to pretend they're talking about science.

Just science, Col.?

OK, Snoop, History too. & what's with the tiny picture?

Oops, my mistake. Here...

I love this Snoopy!!!!

Great stuff!!!!

But be careful, we have control of BOTH houses of Congress and we have an even LOWER approval.

So let's just enjoy hte irony that we can keep that from constanly being repeated in the nedia that MMA always complains about.

But be careful, we have control of BOTH houses of Congress and we have an even LOWER approval.

than...?

Exactly right.  Some speaker at the DNC said that it is likely that 3 new justices will likely fill the court in the next term.  One rumor was that Hillary would replace Ginsburg (if Obama were elected).

Off topic - breaking news on yahoo:

• Giant clams were food source for early humans, research finds

I'm a life-long liberal (and occasional Democratic Party voter) and I can't think of a worse idea than putting Hillary on the Supreme Court.

I'm a life-long liberal (and occasional Democratic Party voter) and I can't think of a worse idea than putting Hillary on the Supreme Court.

Smae here.  She has no judicial experience.  I'm sure that President Obama will be able to find many fine Democratic candidates to nominate when the time comes to replace Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Scalia's a little older than I thought he was.  He'll be almost 73 when Obama takes office, so it wouldn't be surprising to see him retire/die during one of the two terms.  Thomas, though, is only 60 now.  He could easily still be serving at the end of Obama's two terms.  Maybe he'll decide to leave because he won't know how to vote after Scalia's gone.

That's the problem.  The court's been packed with relatively young right-wing ideologues over the terms of WPE Bush, so we'll need a fairly long period of Democratic dominance in the White House to get a good balance on the Supreme Court.

I am a Republican and would love to see Hillary on the court,  She is a very fine lawyer, understands the law, had a wonderful practice in Arkansas.  Hillary would bring a level of intelligence to the SC that would be a great asset.  The sad thing though, is that she probably would not replace Scalia or Thomas, Scalia who is such an ideologue and Thomas who is an intellectual light weight.

Aw, come on. It would be worth it just to watch Scalia's head explode.

There is a little string of words that goes through my head occasionally, a group of six words that makes me smile from ear to ear.

Not that the meaning of the words themselves are that important to me, it's just the effect I imagine them having on certain of the more mentally imbalanced representatives of our media, as well as some posters at this site.

Supreme Court Justice William Jefferson Clinton

A wonderful six words.  Imagine the force of his intellect on that court. That's change we need....

It would be like William Howard Taft, who served as Chief Justice AFTER his presidency.

.

Nominating Tom Delay, Scooter Libbey, or Harriet Miers to the court?

What about actual women who have become pregnant from rape or incest? What do they have to say?

The answers may surprise you:

"'What we found from the survey is that, contrary to what most people think, women who become pregnant through rape or incest don't usually want abortions,' Reardon said. 'Most women who aborted did so only because they felt it was their only choice, and more than 80 percent said it was a choice they deeply regretted. Many felt that abortion only compounded their emotional trauma and allowed others to ignore their need for compassion and support.'"

"In contrast, Reardon said, most of the women who carried to term reported that they believed they had made the right decision in having their children."

From the book Victims and Victors.

 more than 80 percent said it was a choice they deeply regretted

Shoes, you may want to run this by Tommy.It seems terribly skewed towards women who regret their choice.

Col, I didn't read the book, but I did see the movie, and it wasn't about women at all.  Shoes doesn't know what he's talking about.  It was about a woman pretending to be a cross-dressing man who sings in these shows, I guess in France or someplace, with other cross-dressing men.

Julie Andrews and James Garner (the original Maverick) were both terriffic.  But then again, I am a liberal, so I really appreciate a good cross-dressing movie.

Not to mention a good musical! I saw that one at a double feature with Jane Austen's Menses and Viability.

Well, since we're a-slingin' anecdotal evidence from biased sources around...

I personally know 5 women who have had abortions (and 2 more who have taken the morning-after pill) and none of them have ever expressed regret.

Were you the father? Maybe that's why...

;-)

Once agaiin, Shoes slithers in, posts some worthless crap from a biased source of dubious worth, and slithers back out to hide under her rock.

Like clockwork. Like a cockroach.

(From Wikipedia)

In a Washington Monthly article titled "Research and Destroy", author Chris Mooney profiled Reardon as an example of what he describes as "Christian conservatives [who] have gone a long way towards creating their own scientific counter-establishment."[4] He also notes that Reardon's findings conflict with those of the American Psychological Association, which in 1990 had rejected "the notion that abortion regularly causes severe or clinical mental problems", and with the conclusions of former United States Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.[4]

Self-selected *survey* respondents are not reliable.

Reliable, properly vetted surveys find there are more women with more regrets after childbirth than after abortions. There are more women happy with their decision to abort a troubled pregnancy than women who are happy they considered abortion, but chose not to abort a troubled pregnancy.

There's a higher percentage of women who have health issues after a full term pregnancy than after an abortion. The people who try to argue against abortion using facts lose every time!

 From The Religious Coalition fro Reproductive Choise: Who Is David Reardon and Why Is He Living in Missouri?

"Although Reardon has been known mostly for his advocacy against abortion, he has a substantial, if lesser-known, interest in voting operations. Self-described as a bio-ethicist in the anti-abortion world, Reardon was actually trained as an electrical engineer and has a degree from the University of Illinois. In 2005 and 2007, he received two connected patents for a new balloting mechanism, called a “computer enhanced voting system including verifiable, custom printed ballots imprinted to the specifications of each voter.” The patents would, among other things, end anonymous voting. "

"While Reardon designates himself as “Dr. Reardon” and claims to have a Ph.D. in bio-ethics, his 1995 degree traces to the Pacific Western University in California, identified as a “diploma mill” business delivering degrees for a fee without coursework, according to investigators for the U.S. Government Accountability Office. (Pacific Western University has since changed its name to California Miramar University.)"

" Publications by Reardon are self-published by Acorn Books, which is described as “an imprint” for The Elliot Institute and for which Reardon is the business contact. The Elliot Institute earned $25,760 of its $148,000 in revenue from the sales of Reardon’s books in 2005."

Gees, sorry for the type-0s.

For Reproductive Choice

The answers may surprise you:

The fact that you posted propaganda from a pro-life group as your proof SURPRISED me.

ELLIOT INSTITUTE OUR MISSION & MINISTRY

Reversing the Gender Gap – a guide to help pro-life political candidates win elections by addressing the concerns of 30 million post-abortive women.

I would like to know the methodology used in putting together this 80% statistic.

How did they find the women? Did they go through police reports of rape and incest victims, contact them all and then follow up to see 1) which ones became pregnant and 2) how they dealt with the pregnancy?

Or, as I suspect, was it more along the lines of self-reporting of victims who became pregnant to a definitely pro-life group? 

It seems unlikely that women who had chosen to get abortions would want to talk to the authors of this book.

Assuming this wasn't a scientifically valid study - do you suppose someone could do such a study?

One more thing. What would make a woman think that an abortion was her only choice?

"Bill O'Reilly falsely suggested that no state would prohibit abortions in cases of rape and incest if such a prohibition were constitutional."--MMFA

Some questions for O'Reilly (and other pro-lifers): in normal cases of pregnancy caused by rape, neither the mother nor the child face any danger during birth. Yet you would still allow her to "murder" the fetus? 

Are you making a distinction between the mother and the fetus? In this case, should she be allowed to "choose" an abortion when no harm will befall either the mother or child if the "unwanted" pregnancy comes to term? If so, where should you draw the line?

I think this is part of Roe V. Wade decision: if you make a distinction in this situation, then the mother should be the one to choose in all other cases of unwanted pregnancy. 

Onion,

I would not. Both mother and child are victims. One should not kill the innocent child for the crimes of the father.

"Yet you would still allow her to "murder" the fetus?"  Response:

"...should not kill the innocent child..."

They grow up so fast...

You misunderstand. 

child=fetus

Don't you mean fetus=child?  Most of us don't think of all children as fetuses.

As you wish.

I use the term "child" interchangeably with "fetus" when describing a baby still inside the mother from about 10-12 weeks gestation to birth.

child=blastocyst in the first month

child=embryo in second month 

In each case, no matter the stage of the development, the human being growing inside the mother is her child.

Kinda makes a guy wonder why they bother coming up with all these different words if they all mean the same thing, eh Barn?

There's a critical component that's present in the child but is absent from the fetus: cognizance.  So your framing the subject as "killing a child" is not accurate, and in fact inflammatory.  I won't judge whether that was your intent or not, but it's something you might want to consider if you plan on doing a lot of debating on the subject.  You're likely to find a more willing ear if you use the correct terms.

Ar,

I like your twisted logic. Killing a fetus is okay as long as one does not call it a child eh?  The killing is okay, the word "child" is inflamatory. Right. I find it interesting that pro-abortion people have to dehumanize the child in order to avoid acknowledging that abortion kills it.

Cognizant simply means being aware.  Are human beings less human when they are not cognizant?

Cognizance has nothing to do with the definition of a human being. Please show me anywhere that "cognizance" is included in any definition for a human being.

The last paragraph somehow minimized in my browser.

I wrote: Cognizance has nothing to do with the definition of a human being. Please show me anywhere that "cognizance"is included in any definition for a human being.

AA: "Cognizance has nothing to do with the definition of a human being"

Quite right. However, cognizance often has a great deal to do with legal distinctions on matters of extreme importance ranging from who can vote and who cannot, who can legally consent to sexual intercourse, and who can make life-and-death decisions on behalf of the individual who is incapacitated or cannot speak for him or herself.

It seems to me that the biological and even definition of 'human being' is actually beside the point: you're arguing about legal distinctions, aren't you?

The ability to sustain life outside the womb (even if it requires significant medical intervention along with food, shelter and love) makes someone a  human being.

A non-viable fetus still in the womb is not and never will be a human being. Once that non-viable fetus becomes viable and then leaves the womb, it's a human being. Not before.

AA asked how it is that "Killing a fetus is okay as long as one does not call it a child eh?  The killing is okay, the word "child" is inflamatory."

The use of the word "child" to describe a "fetus" is inflammatory. That's why you use it.

It's not killing a fetus even. It's allowing a woman the opportunity to chose to stop being pregnant!

 

"child=blastocyst in the first month"

Fair enough. If you want to call a blastocyst a child, that doesn't seem to make any difference to me. But you seem to be suggesting that a blastocyst = child = person with full rights and protections under the law. So I have to ask: AA, in your vision of a perfect world, should women who miscarry be investigated criminally? After all, they could have murdered their child. In cases of implantation failure, has the blastocyst been murdered, neglected, or did it commit suicide?

Even more importantly, what about the in-vitro clinics that throw away 'children' every day in the biohazard waste?

Didja ever see a protest at one of those places? If he truly believed what he said, they'd be protesting there. They aren't. They don't.

The fact is that if abortion is wrong whenever it happens, then discarding a fertilized egg is wrong.

I thnk of AA as a fetus.

If you're considering emotional age, then you are correct.

So you'd cede control of the woman's body to the non-viable fetus, instead of allowing her to control her own body and decide to continue or end the pregnancy?

A non-viable fetus's survival is more important than the woman's right to control whether or not her body is pregnant?

The US Constitution says you can't do that. You can't give the fetus the right to control her body.

Your religious beliefs don't trump the US Constitution. See, that's what our country was founded upon!

BB,

Haven't we had this discussion before?  I remember correcting someone that abortion is not guaranteed in the constitution. Nor is a woman's right to an abortion. Please show me the passage in the Constitution that proves your case.

Non viability has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. However I do appreciate the fact that you seem to agree that after 'viability' abortion should not be considered.

We agree that a woman should control her own body. We disagree that a baby growing inside her is also her body. I contend they are two separate human beings from the momen of conception. If I recall, and correct me if I am wrong, you seem to think a human comes into existance with it's first breath. 

Barney, who was the poster that said the Constitution guarantees abortions? Did they specify a time period for this guarantee? Was there an extended warrantee available on these abortions? Was it implied that the Constitution guaranteed that every pregnancy would be aborted, or just selected ones? Was this a "money-back" guarantee, or was another abortion of equal or lesser value promised?

Thanks in advance for any answers you can provide. If you're just doing your usual "making crazy sh*t up", disregard this.

Haven't we had this discussion before?

Yes, you have, and BB handed you your ass several times.

Easy,

As snarky as your reply is, it is false. I do believe BB never replied to my challenge in that earlier discussion. 

(I think I just handed yours back.)  :-) 

I think you're watching a different movie than everybody else.

Baloney. You can never win a fight about abortion using facts because every fact is against those who are anti-abortion.

The US Constitution provides a right for women to control their own bodies, and to choose to end a pregnancy if the fetus is non-viable, because they get to control their own bodies and decide if they want to continue being pregnant. The Constitution is silent on abortion, but it's not silent on the right to privacy and the right to control one's one body within reasonable limits.

If you want the specifics, go read the various abortion rights decisions from the US Supreme Court.

It's not my job to educate you. If you really wanted to be educated, you could be. You choose not to be, so my only efforts here will be to embarrass you time and time again by debunking your arguments.

If women have the right to control thetr own bodies, which they clearly do, then why is abortion without restriction only allowed for non-viable fetuses?  It's not a human being until after it's born according to you, so why does it make sense to give these non-human beings any rights at all?

I contend they are two separate human beings from the momen of conception.

AA, when one's very existence depends on the other, THEY CANNOT BE SEPARATE!

Pearlene,

As long as one human being is dependent on another then that person has life and death decisions over the dependent? When does that dependency end? A three month old baby is dependent too. 

So you feel a baby can be aborted through D&X (partial birth abortion) in the last days of pregnancy before birth just so long as the mother decides it's not a separate human being?

As long as one human being is dependent on another then that person has life and death decisions over the dependent?

You keep on saying "separate human being" and start going off on that premise when most of us here don't agree with your premise.

"Begging the Question" is Barney's Go-to move. I've been helpful enough to explain it to him several times, so he knows he's lost. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.

AA, when one's very existence depends on the other, THEY CANNOT BE SEPARATE!

A non-viable fetus cannot sustain life outside the womb, even with intensive medical attention, food, love and shelter.

The woman can. A handicapped child can. A person in a coma can. A 3 month old can.

You dishonest hack!

As long as one human being is dependent on another then that person has life and death decisions over the dependent? When does that dependency end? A three month old baby is dependent too. 

Come on AA, pleaseeee stop this nonsense!!

A WOMAN'S BODY (notice it's says nothing about ANYONE else) provides oxygen and for fetal survival, a woman's provides any and all food, medicine and nutrients for fetal survival. A 3 month old baby is able to breathe on it's own, consume food independently and receive medicine independently, it DOES NOT require a woman's body! 

What part of, YOU, don't you understand? YOU have NO right to ANY decision about ANOTHER person's body! THAT'S why we're called INDIVIDUALS!

So you feel a baby can be aborted through D&X (partial birth abortion) in the last days of pregnancy before birth just so long as the mother decides it's not a separate human being?

AA, abortions ARE NOT performed on women who are 9 months pregnant!

And the next time you want someone to take a link you post seriously, provide one that doesn't include THIS nonsense!

General 'signs' Jesus said would be visible prior to His return.

Deliberate deception by men of God's Word

Rise of false Christs

Increase in wars and rumors of wars

Famines, Pestilence & Earthquakes

Discrimination and hatred against Christians

Backsliding, turning from the faith, betrayal

Hatred of Christian against Christian

False Prophets and "New Age" leaders

Lawlessness abounding

Love and concern for others grows cold

Gospel preached worldwide

Haven't we had this discussion before?  I remember correcting someone that abortion is not guaranteed in the constitution. Nor is a woman's right to an abortion. Please show me the passage in the Constitution that proves your case.

I've posted this before: the Constitution does not give us rights; It limits the power of government.  This is why conservatives are awful jurists: they don't understand this basic concept.  Conservative Jurists are searching for defined rights in the Constitution when they should be asking themselves: "Does the Constitution forbid the government from acting in this situation?"

AA: " I remember correcting someone that abortion is not guaranteed in the constitution. Nor is a woman's right to an abortion. Please show me the passage in the Constitution that proves your case."

AA, you are so right. Why, just the other day I was re-reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and I realized that nowhere in these documents is there any sanction against my constructing a nuclear bomb. In fact, quite the contrary: my right to bear arms is enshrined in the 2nd amendment, but I didn't see anything about "nuclear" anything. So even though there are laws and regulatory agencies that say otherwise, I agree with your logic: I should be allowed to build a nuclear bomb in my back yard because the constitution is silent on the matter of nuclear arms. Don't you agree?

And I completely disagree with you. Completely. Your "opinion" is not, and should not be the bases of law. Thats what were dealing with in this instance. Another American "Feels" that conception = full rights. Well I'm sorry. You can "Feel" all you want. nobody will stop you. Stay away from other peoples rights with your "Feelings".  

GD, you're dense, AA. You've gotten everything totally, 100% wrong below. I find it stunning that you can be so wrong so often!

We agree that a woman should control her own body. We disagree that a baby growing inside her is also her body. I contend they are two separate human beings from the momen of conception.

You do not agree that a woman should control her own body. You are lying. A woman who is forced to remain pregnant, a medical condition she exhibits, is not controlling her own body.

I don't think the fetus (it's not a baby, it's an embryo or a fetus) inside the woman is part of her body. I'm not a moron like you are. It's a separate entity, but it's the woman, a viable human being, that's pregnant that's the issue. If we force her to remain pregnant against her will, then she doesn't control her own body. It has nothing to do with the non-viable fetus inside of her and everything to do with the fact that if you don't allow her the choice to end a pregnancy, that's her body that has to remain pregnant.

There are not two human beings from conception. No non-viable fetus can ever be a human being. It might become a human being eventually, but while it's non-viable, it's not a human being.

I've wiped the floor with your sorry arguments again. You can't win on the facts. It's not possible. Why don't you stop trying and stop wasting everyone's time?

My point is that the majority of Americans that are against abortion will say that they are for abortion in the cases of rape and incest (like O'Reilly).

Yet even in the case when the mother is in danger, most would say that it should be used to save the life of the mother (even if the potential child could survive).  So there the distinction is also made. 

BTW, I have also seen the pictures of aborted fetuses.  I used to be disgusted by them;  I am not anymore.  I (just like you) don't know what led to the decision of that fetus being aborted.  As cold and heartless as it may seem, it is the end result of a medical procedure based on the decision between a woman and her doctor.  It could have been because her life was in danger and therefore the procedure had to be done. 

 So when they hold up those pictures of an aborted fetus, it is no different to me than someone holding up an extracted kidney: No one likes to lose a kidney, but there are cases where it must be removed in order for the patient to survive (just like abortion, the choice to remove the kidney belongs solely with the patient).

Onion,

So you are only in favor of abortions to save the life of the mother? 

I'm for the mother to have the right to choose (yes, that means if she chooses to have a baby even if it means that she will die, it is her choice).  That means that she can choose to have an abortion or choose not to.

Let me ask you:  Do you believe that abortion is wrong no matter what the situation?

 

And let me add: The only reason I can find for believing that abortion is wrong is that someone believes that the fetus is a life.  You certainly can't get your stance from the bible: it says absolutely nothing about abortion.  All you can find is scripture interpreted (or distorted) to fit your worldview. 

BTW, I am a christian and have read the bible.  I get tired of people using a complex book with many (human) authors to justify their simple-minded worldview.  The bible is like life; it is complex (sometimes contradictory) and should be treated as such.

AA, your unconditional defense of human life regardless of all legal and medical distinctions is admirable. I can't recall, though: were you in favor of going to war preemptively in Iraq even though it meant the certain death of innocent adult civilians?

wz,

Where have you been?  Here is an article from the JAMA in 1998.

An extraordinary medical consensus has emerged that intact D&X is neither necessary nor the safest method for late-term abortion. In addition to American Medical Association (AMA) and ACOG policy statements, Warren Hern, MD, author of Abortion Practice has questioned the efficacy of intact D&X. "I have very serious reservations about this procedure....You really can't defend it....I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use." Hern states that turning the fetus to a breech position is "potentially dangerous."[15] In Illinois, a November 1996 survey of all physicians in Sangamon County (the city of Springfield and surrounding area) demonstrated that 91% of more than 180 respondents supported a ban of intact D&X (Perry M. Santos, MD, MS, written communication, November 5, 1996). In April 1997, more than 200 physician delegates who attended the Illinois State Medical Society annual meeting voted to support a ban on intact D&X. The AMA established its own committee to study partial-birth abortion and adopted the recommendations of that committee's report, as well as an official position of support for HR 1122, federal legislation banning partial-birth abortions that the AMA worked to improve and clarify prior to passage.[16]

http://www.eileen.250x.com/Main/PBAinfo/cv80000x.htm

Rather that relying on a JAMA article that's ten years old, AA, I went to the AMA web site and found their current policy regarding late-term abortions.  You will see that the official AMA position differs from what you quoted in that article:

H-5.982 Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques

1) The term 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term "intact dilatation and extraction"(or intact D&X) to refer to a specific procedure comprised of the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus. This procedure is distinct from dilatation and evacuation (D&E) procedures more commonly used to induce abortion after the first trimester. Because 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term it will not be used by the AMA.

(2) 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.

(3) The viability of the fetus and the time when viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy. In the second-trimester when viability may be in question, it is the physician who should determine the viability of a specific fetus, using the latest available diagnostic technology.

(4) In recognition of the constitutional principles regarding the right to an abortion articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and in keeping with the science and values of medicine, the AMA recommends that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery. (BOT Rep. 26, A-97; Modified and Reaffirmed: CSAPH Rep. 3, A-07)

Source:  http://www0.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=resultLink&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.982.HTM&s_t=abortion&catg=AMA/HnE&catg=AMA/BnGnC&catg=AMA/DIR&&nth=1&&st_p=0&nth=2&

Thanks for the update.

You may want to check Wisconsin's law which was superseded by Roe. IIRC it bans all abortions with no allowances.

Dialation and Extraction is VERY rare, and is used only if the life of the mother is in danger. The right wants you to think that it's an everyday occurance, but it's not. We don't need the courts telling Doctors that they can't save a patients life because some people have a problem. If it was your wife or daughter would you want her to die or be maimed because some third party might not agree with your deciscion?  

Peebs,

In Feb. 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, a leader of the terrorist pro-abortion movement and Executive Director of America's National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted he had "lied through my teeth" in the ABC "Nightline" program in November 1995 about both the number of and the main reason for partial birth abortions. He now says there are far more partial birth abortions performed than was previously acknowledged, and on healthy women bearing healthy fetuses. It was Fitzsimmons' statistics which claimed only about 500 such abortions, which were cited by President Clinton when he vetoed the ban on partial birth abortions.

Surprise! Surprise! It turns out there are thousands of partial birth abortions performed every year (as many as 3,000 to 4,000 according to Fitzsimmons) - almost 1,500 in one New Jersey abortion clinic alone!

Anesthesia's Effect on the Baby
Medical experts testified that babies at this age can experience great pain. The anesthesia given to the mother has little or no effect on the baby, according to congressional testimony by the nation's leading anesthesiologists, including the president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists.

 

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/partbirthabortion.html

 

terrorist pro-abortion movement

There is no such thing.

AA wrote:

>>In Feb. 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, a leader of the terrorist pro-abortion movement and Executive Director of America's National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted he had "lied through my teeth" in the ABC "Nightline" program in November 1995 about both the number of and the main reason for partial birth abortions.

Once again we must remember the AA rule: whenever he posts a link to something,it almost never shows what it is supposed to. Here is another example. Your link, AA, is  full of rhetoric and short of facts. Are we really supposed to take seriously that compares the INS actions to Palestinian "terrorists?" (Even that comparison is botched; it shows Palestinian children shooting off guns, just as American children do.) Are we supposed to take seriously a website that compares the raid on Waco to the actions of Osama Bin Laden, or that compares abortion to terrorism?

It's just another junk link by AA. You'll post any crap, won't you AA? 

funny,

I simply posted one of the first hits on my simple google search looking for how many abortions are executed using the D&X procedure.

I did not go looking at the website. If you feel the quote from the abortionist who performed so many partial birth abortions is in error, then by all means provide your proof.

Otherwise your whole post is attack the messenger when you cannot attack the facts. Just because you don't like the website is of no concern to me. 

He's right, Funnymanpants. That's another rule from planet wingnut. Barney can post to the first site he finds in his panicky Google search, even one that lists NOW and the IRS as terrorist organizations (anybody who didn't check the link,and thinks I'm being sily,I'm not). The burden is on you to prove everything wrong as quick as he can Google nonsense.

AA, I have to tip my hat here. Every week or so, I think you put  yourself through the most pathetic, embarrassing moment of any poster ever. Then you blow that one out of the water within a few days.

I can't believe you get a vote that counts the same as an adults.

You linked to a crazy-a$$ rapture site that believes that Koresh in Waco was the victim.  Yeah, that's a messanger that deserves some attacking.

There simply are no reliable statistics on how many "partial birth abortions" are performed, in part because that is a political term and not a technical/medical one.

A Google search on Dilation and Extraction statistics will get you pages and pages of Anti-Abortion groups, but no real facts.

AA, That site is hilarious. Thanks for the comedy. Oh, sorry I didn't know you were going to try to pass it off as serious.

AA, you're joking, right? Did you actually read the webpage to which you linked? It equated the terrorists who indiscriminately murdered thousands of men, women and children on September 11th with the National Organization of Women, who use their legally protected freedom of speech to advocate legal reform. You'll forgive me if I fail to recognize that equivalence.

If you favor excepting cases of rape and incest from laws prohibiting abortion, you're pro-choice.

If you favor excepting cases of rape and incest from laws prohibiting abortion, you're pro-choice.

Why's that? It easily can reasoned otherwise -- If you feel that abortion is warranted only in cases of rape and incest, and under no other circumstance, then you're generally pro-life.

If you think that abortion is okay for pregnant women who don't want a baby , but are against it for the majority who want the baby, I guess you're generally Pro-Life too.

Hey, this is fun changing definitions to make me feel good.

It seems that you disagree with Steve.

I see.  So there are a lot of pro choice people out there who support abortion rights only in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.  That's great! 

I'm sure they would speak to limiting abortion rights to those exceptions and be welcome as a true "pro choice" person at the Democratic convention, if asked...

How many legs does a horse have, if you call a tail a leg?

Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

The right is deluded if they think women are swinging their way.  Unless they mean humping teen boys.

Whereas millions of Americans despise Bill  O’Reilly as a loathsome polluter of the airwaves, fanning ignorance and hatred with every word he utters,

Whereas no opportunity should be missed to expose this contemptible scoundrel to ridicule,

Whereas at 11.06 pm on September 1, 2004   the above-mentioned O’Reilly made a lewd phone call to his Fox producer Andrea Mackris, depicting a prospective sexual encounter between the two of them in which  “You would basically be in the shower and then I would come in and I’d join you and you would have your back to me and I would take the little loofah thing… and kinda’ soap your back … and I would put it around front, kinda’ rub your tummy with it and then with my other hand I would start to massage your boobs, get your nipples really hard… ‘cuz I like that and you have really spectacular boobs….I’d be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda kissing your neck from behind… and then the other hand with the felafel thing”….

Whereas this conversation was recorded by Ms Mackriss and subsequently exposed to public scrutiny in court documents,

Whereas this engendered mirth among the millions of O’Reilly haters and much satisfaction at his humiliation,

Be it proclaimed that September 1, 2008 will be recognized as Loofah Day and citizens should honor it by proceeding at noon to the nearest Fox studio with a loofah and, standing outside the Fox studio, brandish said loofahs in derision of O’Reilly.

From Counterpunch