Wisconsin’s shift toward severely restricting women’s access to reproductive health care can’t be attributed to a swing in public opinion. Nor is it being driven by a call for change from the state’s medical community. Instead, it’s being driven by tea party politicians wielding their power at the state Capitol.I just want to talk about the illustration, which you can see in full at the link. Here's a closeup:
How utterly numb (or mindbogglingly cruel) do you need to be to think this is an appropriate depiction of pregnancy when you are writing in support of access to abortion? The woman looks 9 months pregnant! She's apparently sad about her condition, but who thinks she should be able to have an abortion now? And what's that aimed at her belly? I can figure out that it's supposed to be a cartoon representation of the wind (as she's standing atop a weather vane, behind a big arrow labeled "SHIFTING RIGHT"), but the initial thought is: Scissors! Scissors, late-term abortion... One thinks of those descriptions of partial birth abortion ("...the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening....")
Posts
322 comments:
1 – 200 of 322 Newer› Newest»When corruptocrats say "tea party" - they mean "tax payers". Leftists hate tax payers, and viable babies.
I sometimes think you have too much imagination but I saw scissors too.
From the article In practical terms, Wisconsin’s ultrasound bill will have the same affect as in Mississippi: it will cause the closing of an abortion clinic in Appleton.
Mississippi has a long affect.
Of course the Gosnellian left are sad about the idea of curtailing late term abortion. According to the top brass, Obama and Pelosi, late term abortion is sacred.
I saw scissors too, but I thought "No; it's got to be something to do with the road in the background."
If it's not scissors, it's a humongous hypodermic needle. I doubt "bovine" was the association the illustrator was after, either.
Susan Armacost, Wisconsin Right to Life’s legislative director, said her group is “very pleased with the common-sense initiatives” that have advanced in the Legislature over the past three years.
Well there we go. The one thing I agree with the left on is common sense measures.
restricting women’s access to reproductive health care
What? The Tea Party wants to suppress or eliminate women's reproductive health? They want to make women reproductively unhealthy? They want women's reproductive ability to be non-functional?
The pro-aborts once again stretch truth beyond the breaking point. It is they who treat reproduction like a disease, who say that "reproductive health" means "reproductive disfunction."
Scissors - pointing at the problem.
I'm surprised they didn't include an artful coat hanger.
I just wrote an e-mail to Nick Gillespie over at Reason. Here's a libertarian writing an article and all he can do is recycle Planned Parenthood talking points. For instance, only 1% of abortions take place after 20 weeks. As if that's a "reason" to allow them!
1% of 60 million = 600,000.
It's like saying Jack the Ripper killed a small percentage of hookers. So no reason for us to be upset!
Mao killed a small percentage of Chinese. less than 1%. Tiny! Insignificant!
But the most damning aspect of his article is that he doesn't bother to run a photograph of what he is talking about. Nobody would be so glib about pro-life arguments if they actually ran photographs. It keeps your arguments grounded and real.
So, similar criticism here. Instead of "illustrations," run a photograph of abortion at 20 weeks.
Pro-choice people cannot defend their censorship on this issue.
Query - If the Constitution of the United States grants a woman the right to choose whether to bear her child or kill it, shouldn't it also grant men the right to decide whether they wish to pay for a child with the fruit of their labor? Imagine the anti-slavery themes that a men's rights movement could work.
I expect Inga will come along soon to defend this illustration on the grounds there really is a War on Women via unConstitutional attempts to limit abortion rights, while still claiming she is pro-life.
Once again, the collective left cannot argue with honesty. No one is against reproductive health. In order to cover for the left's love of late term abortion, they dishonestly accuse opponents of late term abortion with not wanting women to have access to "reproductive health."
Bullshit.
Ann, you need a lame tag here. This illustration goes far beyond lame actually.
Saint Croix - we must remember that many of the folks at Reason voted for Obama.
I like Reason, they make some refreshing contributions to the political discourse - but yeah - PP talking points. That's just lazy.
The late term abortion is a ritual sacrifice. Remember the line in Cortez, The Killer? "They offered life in sacrifice/So that others could go on"
When your belief totems are abortion and environmentalism, sacrifice and gaia, you are back to some very primitive, if subliminal, beliefs.
The picture of the poor woman, fully pregnant, fits perfectly. Sacrifice is hard. It makes you sad. But it is necessary so that you "could go on." Send your child to the top of the metaphorical pyramid. Go on, its for your health. For the health of all women.
That's exactly what this illustration depicts, scissors on one side and vacuum suction on the other, but what's more curious Althouse, is that this shocks you. But then again, I wonder why you would post this. You are not very good at propagandizing and pretending to shape emotion. You are certainly up to something, but I'm still not sure what it is.
Ah, I see Nathan thinks he can read my mind again. I'm not against abortion limitations, as I've said numerous times, what I'm against is taking away ALL reproductive rights from a woman.
A "pro-abortion rights column" that finds its way into the local news section of the LaCrosse paper.
Whatever became of Shannen Doherty, anyway?
Inga: "what I'm against is taking away ALL reproductive rights from a woman."
And who isn't?
I've been wondering this like crazy, so I'll post it here. The asserted problem with laws that will (supposedly) cause the closing of abortion clinics is that they will require the clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgery centers.
Why is this wrong? I looked up the definition of ambulatory surgery, and it just means outpatient surgery. Is abortion not this? Why shouldn't they meet the requirements that ambulatory surgery centers must?
Am I the only one who sees a poot?
Inga said: what I'm against is taking away ALL reproductive rights from a woman.
You're not going to find a single politician or poster here who is against allowing women to make the choice regarding whether they have sex or not, or who would advocate prohibiting birth control pills, condoms, IUDs, the patch, the ring, Norplant, contraceptive foam, sponges, etc.
There are a lot of reproductive choices to be made well before you have to kill someone to make them.
So I guess the lesson is never let a man illustrate a woman's point of view b/c he'll accentuate the worst.
Yeah, scissors here too. Cheaper than an ultrasound, and you can also use them to trim the toenails on your collection of pickled fetus feet. Win-win.
If I were a pregnant black or hispanic woman I'd be wondering why these eager "health advocates" were doing everything in their power to prevent the women's health clinics in my neighborhood from meeting minimal standards of safety and sanitation. Why, it's almost like Planned Parenthood has some sort of deeply institutionalized racist agenda, or something.
"Wisconsin’s shift toward severely restricting women’s access to reproductive health care can’t be attributed to a swing in public opinion. "
Given that the eeeevil tea party politicians were actually elected, "public opinion" here is clearly being defined as "my opinion".
I'm not against abortion limitations, as I've said numerous times
Your assertions have been shown to be insincere.
There are also victims of rape and incest that had no choice in their pregnancy. Texas Abortion law takes away their right to an abortion after the 20 th week. No exceptions for underage girls, none.
Inga said...
Ah, I see Nathan thinks he can read my mind again. I'm not against abortion limitations, as I've said numerous times, what I'm against is taking away ALL reproductive rights from a woman.
It is, however, ok to take them from fathers, who have no say in the abortion decision even if they are married to the woman and wish to care for the child.
You're not going to find a single politician or poster here who is against allowing women to make the choice regarding whether they have sex or not, or who would advocate prohibiting birth control pills, condoms, IUDs, the patch, the ring, Norplant, contraceptive foam, sponges, etc.
Inga, if you can find one, let us know. Otherwise, I think Michael and Lyssa's points are exactly correct.
Am I the only one who sees a poot?
Uh oh, I sense another forthcoming explication from urbandictionary.com
You expected better from the Capital Times, "Wisconsin's progressive voice", that failed as a newspaper in the most freakishly liberal city in the Midwest?
Looks like a shark's fin on the other side. Which describes the pro-abortion crowd to a T.
Oh, and fem phenom Wendy Davis actually helped Rick Perry.
Inga said...
Ah, I see Nathan thinks he can read my mind again.
I hope not. The continual "Jawohl, mein Messiah" would drive him insane.
Inga, when have you ever believed a conservatives statements over what the Leftist echo chamber says conservative really think/want?
War on Women? You believe the Leftist hype.
Voting rights? You believe Leftist hype.
Affirmative action? You believe Leftist hype.
Sexual assault and rape claims? You believe Leftist hype.
Texas law allows any woman to reproduce or not reproduce. There are absolutely no plans to change the law in this regard.
The Texas bill to limit performing abortions will allow any woman to recieve an abortion for any reason up to 20 weeks. Afterwards, there are exceptions for the life and well-being of the woman.
David, until men carry babies inside of them, they have a limited amount of input, its a unpleasant reality. Lesson, don't impregnate a woman you don't know well enough.
Much as I have wanted to see real debate on such legislation in Texas, I would never have believed a bill could possibly make it to a vote this soon. Now I have a good suspicion of why it did; it helps a hand full of clinics kill most of their competition. It seems legislation must have something to provide more profit or power for someone or it dies. The probability of complications prior to 15 weeks is quite low and there does not appear to be much history from the clinics that would warrant the new requirements. Of course both sides lie so I could be misinformed.
Texas abortion law has NO exceptions for rape or incest, none, Leland.
Inga,
Not attempting to read anyone's mind...just noting your behavior in the past.
1) You claim to be pro-life
2) You claim to favor limits on abortion
3) To the best of my knowledge, you have never voted for a pro-life politician
4) To the best of my knowledge, you have never supported a politician who would limit abortion
5) You supported President Obama (whose political clear is marked by commitment to eradicating any limit to abortions)
6) You denigrated Mitt Romney at every turn, and his political history demonstrates clear moderation on abortion
7) To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a Progressive statement or action on abortion that you have disagreed with or objected to.
8) To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a single GOP statement or action on abortion that you have not attacked.
If I had your claims to be pro-life and a ton of bricks on one side of a scale, and your pro-abortion actions and an ounce of feathers on the other side of the scale, the weight disparity would launch the ton of bricks into orbit.
Please note: I am making no assumption about what you actually think or feel.
Inga, abortion is a total social mess, apart from the moral issues. Because fathers have no say in whether their child will be born, it encourages irresponsibility and detachment by the fathers. It also encourages young women to reject and suppress their maternal instincts, and think of their baby as an inhuman blob. Perhaps the transition from this thought to valuing a live baby is not so easy, eh?
We are paying a bigger price than dead babies for the widespread abortions in our society.
Again, the laws enacted by far right wing ideologues like Walker never concern A-House. What matters is how people react to them, and what sort of illustrations may accompany the dissent.
Lyssa said... I've been wondering this like crazy, so I'll post it here. The asserted problem with laws that will (supposedly) cause the closing of abortion clinics is that they will require the clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgery centers.
If the Republicans were smart they would attack abortions like Democrats attack things they don't like. Regulate and tax it.
I guess they prefer to talk stupid shit about rape and forcing women to shove medical devices up them.
Inga, if a man impregnates his wife, she can have an abortion without his consent. Your statement is ridiculous.
I could just as easily say that women should not let themselves get impregnated. But that would require controlling your own body at an inopportune time for the woman.
so Garage- are you for late term abortion?
The age of the baby in the womb is irrelevant to the abortion fanatics' demand for pregnancy termination all the way through the 9th month.
Texas abortion law has NO exceptions for rape or incest
It doesn't need them. Any woman can get an abortion.
"Ann, you need a lame tag here."
I don't see the aptness of that tag. I do have a "blindness" tag.
David, don't marry and then impregnate a woman you don't know well enough, same premise.
Regulate and tax it.
You think taxing medical care is a winning argument?
Ann, a blindness tag might work too.
Garage mahal and Inga are both unabashed liberals in the real sense of the word. When you bash them, they yawn.
A line was crossed during the debate over the ultra-sound laws. The purpose of those laws was to make sure that women who choose to abort their babies understand the nature and implications of that choice. Just as those who choose to sign a mortgage should understand the nature and implications of that choice. It is true that seeing an ultrasound of your baby will make you less likely to kill it, just as seeing how an ARM mortgage may impact your cash flow makes you less likely to sign it. But if "choice" is good, isn't "informed choice" better?
What we saw in the opposition to the ultra-sound laws is that these people are not pro-choice, they are frankly pro-abortion. This becomes clearer all the time, as they move from a position of solicitude towards young women to one of open hostility towards babies, even those extracted alive. They want that baby dead -- not adopted, dead! -- and they regard the law against killing it as a silly quibble. If the Mom doesn't want it alive, then she has the right to order it killed. It is difficult to comprehend this view, except as a sort of fetishization of "Women's Rights".
Thanks to Rabel for making me think of the lyrics to "Let's Make the Water Turn Black":
Whizzing & pasting & pooting through the day . . .
(Ronnie helping Kenny helping burn his poots away!)
And all the while on a shelf in the shed:
KENNY'S LITTLE CREATURES ON DISPLAY!
AprilApple said...
so Garage- are you for late term abortion?
He's not going to answer that. He's going to say it's up to the mother alone. He'd say that even if it were half his child inside her.
That illustration's belly is just a smidge bigger than this woman who went to abort her 20 week twins. Picture included (of the belly).
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/14/woman-20-weeks-pregnant-with-twins-has-abortion-last-week/
Reproductive rights begin and end with a woman's choice to have sex.
To be fully consistent, there cannot be exceptions for rape or incest. A new human life, a sovereign body, whether conceived voluntarily or involuntarily, is wholly innocent. This is not nearly as clear cut as some people would like it to be.
who thinks she should be able to have an abortion now?
Every member of the Democratic Party.
what I'm against is taking away ALL reproductive rights from a woman.
Nobody has argued in favor of that since Progressive hero Oliver Wendell Holmes.
"David, until men carry babies inside of them, they have a limited amount of input, its a unpleasant reality. Lesson, don't impregnate a woman you don't know well enough."
I would think, actually, that men have exactly half the "input."
But no matter that women end up with the greater burden for 9 months... men end up, usually, with a greater burden for 18 years.
It's also psychotic to expect men to turn on and off their emotional attachment to the children they sire based on someone else's whim. This is as much of a biological truth as who has the womb or not. If we want men to be fathers society can't pretend that it's the mother's choice and not fact of the pregnancy that creates the state of fatherhood.
Men *should* be protective of their offspring during pregnancy!
But abortion rights or the foolish notion that women get a say and men don't, defies that very simple reproductive and biological truth.
I thought those weren't tears, but freckles on the face of a girl.
Inga, don't you think a woman would know right away if their pregnancy was the result of a rape or sexual assault? Why would they need more than 20 weeks to decide if they want to keep it or not?
About the only two things the Republican party has any interest in whatsoever these days are: keeping taxes low for the wealthy, and women's vaginas.
I'm personally more fond of the recent Texas pro-abortion picture - the one of a woman's reproductive organs and the slogan "come and take it". Because all I can think of when I see it is "Come and take what? The baby in your uterus? What?" I know it's the slogan from the Gonzalez flag (please, I've lived here for 21 years, I know this) but why don't people see the 2 together and realize how awful it looks?
And btw, the proposed TX legislation has the Court-approved "life or health of the mother" exception post 20 weeks, which is likely a much larger exception than just "rape or incest", so that's a straw man down.
Who is expecting fathers to turn off their emotional attachment to their unborn child? Again, it's an UNPLEASANT, CRUEL and SAD reality that women carry babies they do not want, no matter who the father is. A woman's body is HERS, she is allowed an abortion under federal law.
Abortion reforms would be much less likely to be rejected by many women if they weren't so concerned with denying a choice, even a limited choice to a woman. Heartbeat law? Remember that one?
I wish men could carry babies.
Inga said...
Ah, I see Nathan thinks he can read my mind again. I'm not against abortion limitations, as I've said numerous times, what I'm against is taking away ALL reproductive rights from a woman.
No one can read your mind. It's like traveling through a cob-web filled haunted house of morose and idiotic ideas floating around like the ghosts they are while seeing pictures of your bug eyes moving to the left and to the right everywhere.
"Again, the laws enacted by far right wing ideologues like Walker never concern A-House. What matters is how people react to them, and what sort of illustrations may accompany the dissent."
Hmmm. Well, "never" might be a touch overly strong here. But considered as a general thematic critique, yes, that serves more accurately than perhaps even she realizes.
AprilApple said...
Once again, the collective left cannot argue with honesty. No one is against reproductive health. In order to cover for the left's love of late term abortion, they dishonestly accuse opponents of late term abortion with not wanting women to have access to "reproductive health."
Bullshit.
The left loves death. Any leftist or abortion supporter who supports it is a death cultist. Period. End of story. There is no mincing or parsing here. There is no justifiable reason that supporting this type of murderous infanticide is warranted, but yet leftists call it reproductive rights. As if the rights of the human being inside aren't a part of it.
There are cases Heyboom, albeit rare, in which a young girl may not have a clue she is pregnant from her father or her uncle, who has been raping her for years. Some (again probably rare) women or girls do not realize they are pregnant, especially after a trauma, such as rape or incest
Matthew Sablan said...
I saw scissors too, but I thought "No; it's got to be something to do with the road in the background."
As in the wind left in her trail as she hurries down that road to kill her unborn child?
Garage - about the only thing democrats like you care about are dishonest arguments.
And btw, the proposed TX legislation has the Court-approved "life or health of the mother" exception post 20 weeks, which is likely a much larger exception than just "rape or incest", so that's a straw man down.
Right, and it includes an exception for abnormalities of the fetus.
Leland, so it's OK to kill a baby with a deformity?
Inga said...
A woman's body is HERS, she is allowed an abortion under federal law.
Not when she is carrying another human being in her body she isn't. She is now two people, not just one. And the fact that this biology is exclusive to females shouldn't negate the rights of the father either simply because he doesn't have the biology to do it himself. That child carries half his DNA and to put the exclusivity of the demise of that child on the mother is short sighted and wrong.
This is where you are short sighted and wrong. Again. As always, you selfish bitch.
Is it OK to kill a 23 week old fetus?
About the only two things the Republican party has any interest in whatsoever these days are: keeping taxes low for the wealthy, and women's vaginas.
You see, it sounds scary if we say "vagina". If we said that Republicans are interested in protecting helpless human children from those who would like to kill them, it would be completely different. But we can't have anyone thinking that, now can we? Gotta keep the stupid ones coming back.
I sense a whiff of insincerity in that thanks.
"I thought those weren't tears, but freckles on the face of a girl."
I was going to comment on those 3 dots. It didn't cross my mind that they were tears.
I was also going to comment on her hair, which resembles a shark swimming up her belly.
Or if you prefer, is it OK to kill a baby at 39 weeks, because the woman was admitted complaining of stomach cramps and faints only to learn she was pregnant from a rape 9 months ago?
Inga said...
David, until men carry babies inside of them, they have a limited amount of input, its a unpleasant reality. Lesson, don't impregnate a woman you don't know well enough.
and later...
Who is expecting fathers to turn off their emotional attachment to their unborn child? Again, it's an UNPLEASANT, CRUEL and SAD reality that women carry babies they do not want, no matter who the father is. A woman's body is HERS, she is allowed an abortion under federal law.
There are circus contortionists that can bend backwards like that.
PS Not Federal law, a court decision.
And a very shaky one, unless you like penumbras pulled out of your ass.
Before brain activity of the unborn baby she is NOT two people.
What criteria do we use in this country to end life? Brain activity.
Cue Saint Croix.
Looks like the pregnant woman walked into Sharknado.
garage mahal said...
keeping taxes low for the wealthy, and women's vaginas.
Yes, the two things that clearly do and have repulsed you.
See?
Inga makes a pro-forma pro-life noise, and then spends the rest of the thread hitting every single pro-abortion point there is.
- bring up rape-and-incest stigma to object to a law that would have no effect on rape-and-incest abortions?
Check.
- object to any abortion reform on the grounds it denies women a choice?
Check.
I know I hear pro-life women harping on the "woman's right to choose" all the time, amiright? /sarc
I love it:
They actually show what's there and you freak-the-fuck-out.
Ooopsie!
No Leland, it's not OK. IMO, giving the rape or incest victim another month would be acceptable. 24 weeks is when a baby is viable according to common medical knowledge.
"There are cases Heyboom, albeit rare, in which a young girl may not have a clue she is pregnant from her father or her uncle, who has been raping her for years. Some (again probably rare) women or girls do not realize they are pregnant, especially after a trauma, such as rape or incest"
What does abortion do, then, but allow the guilty to railroad the young girl into getting rid of the evidence?
And we know how interested abortion providers and Planned Parenthood are in reporting statutory rapes. Better, you know, to make it like it never happened.
Some questions for people who want to outlaw abortion:
**Should miscarriages be investigated? Is it in the interest of the state to make absolutely certain that the miscarriage was not self-induced?
**If a pregnant woman gets on a roller coaster or an airplane, etc. should she be vulnerable to criminal charges?
There are obviously a lot of others that flow from these questions, but honest responses to these would be interesting enough.
She could be induced, and the baby could be born alive and given care. We discussed this the other day in another thread. Abortion means the ending of a pregnancy, not necessarily the baby.
I can figure out that it's supposed to be a cartoon representation of the wind (as she's standing atop a weather vane, behind a big arrow labeled "SHIFTING RIGHT"), but the initial thought is: Scissors! Scissors,
Coat hanger.
Supposed to imply that if you can't kill your baby legally after 20 weeks of pregnancy, that women will be going back to the coat hanger back room abortionists.
Thank you, Synova. Inga is unmoved, of course. She has trouble seeing things from a point of view other than her own. Especially when it comes to the sperm donor sex.
The exclusion of the male from abortion decisions came early on the whole sad trail. I had two young children at the time, and found the idea shocking. I was nothing in the eyes of the law, unless the child was born, and then I had lots of responsibilities.
Ultimately I believe that abortion is a parental decision, not a state decision. But the abortion "cause" has developed into a coarsening influence, with social implications that are quite profound, in my opinion. Inga's focus is the perfect example. The woman's right is everything, overpowering any other consequence or issue. She really can not fathom what this arrangement does to fathers.
Before brain activity of the unborn baby she is NOT two people.
What criteria do we use in this country to end life? Brain activity.
Cue Saint Croix
I'd enthusiastically support this restriction.
But you are on record in this thread as rejecting restrictions far looser than this one (i.e., TX' 20-weeks limit).
Care to explain the contradiction?
"Who is expecting fathers to turn off their emotional attachment to their unborn child?"
Every single person, including yourself, who insists that a MAN does not have any rights over his unborn child.
That may not be the intent, but it is what is done and then fingers in ears and la la la la la la and... dead beat dad...
Because it's portrayed as hateful and War on Women if someone suggests that fathers have a legitimate interest in the unborn, particularly in their own.
Rape and incest exception Nathan, how many times have I said this now?
Looking at just the evidence in this thread, it is obvious that on pro-life stances, Inga is the Ultimate Concern Troll.
24 weeks is when a baby is viable according to common medical knowledge.
Actually it is 23 weeks, but I find this to be extremely insincere:
it's not OK. IMO, giving the rape or incest victim another month would be acceptable.
6 months is not ok, but 7 months is? What part of the viability of the infant makes the woman more aware? And if you want to claim "a woman knows", there's plenty of reported cases of women never knowing they were pregnant all the way to a nominal vaginal delivery at 40 weeks. It is rather common.
So based on your previous litmus test; I don't think you would accept 24 weeks. And I have no reason to take you as sincere, because just this past February, you put the mark at 18 weeks.
But since you answered my question, I'll answer yours. If the fetus is not viable, so deformed as to be unable to survive post delivery, then why put a woman in jeopardy during delivery? So under those circumstances, I'm ok with a late term abortion, when the extra time was used to verify the circumstances described. I think the bill was written to provide a lot of latitude for a physician to aid a woman to decide what abnormalities meet that criteria.
It always bothers abortion lovers when the reality of what they are doing is shown clearly and unambiguously. That is the problem with the ultrasound. They don't want the abortion client to see their baby moving around. Then even the most uninformed client will understand what they are really doing.
Killing a baby.
until men carry babies inside of them, they have a limited amount of input
And especially limit input when it comes to being forced to pay child support for the rest of their lives for children that they can have no contact with....or children that aren't even theirs.
20 weeks is plenty long enough to figure out that you are pregnant and decide what to do about it. No one is taking a way a woman's choice. As Lyssa so succinctly put it.....there are MANY choices that a woman can take to prevent pregnancy before taking the step to killing an unborn baby.
Inga said...
Before brain activity of the unborn baby she is NOT two people.
What criteria do we use in this country to end life? Brain activity.
Cue Saint Croix.
Ah, here comes the conditionals by which humanness has merit. Listen you bumbling buffoon, conception is the creation point of humanity. the instant conception occurs, she no longer a singular entity, but now becomes the host for another human being. There is no other formulation to be made. Any other definition is incredulously and insincere. Like you.
It's the lack of brain activity, aka brain death, a condition you clearly suffer from, that is criteria for ending life if that option is taken. However, this is for fully grown humans. Fetal brain activity detection is a burgeoning science, but there are other ways to detect it behaviorally. If brain death in-utero is determined, I'm sure a case can be made to end the pregnancy. That would be justifiable.
The 20 week limitation is NOT unacceptable to me Nathan, I'm actually on record as being OK with a FIRST TRIMESTER to 18 weeks limitation. Where have you been?
"**Should miscarriages be investigated? Is it in the interest of the state to make absolutely certain that the miscarriage was not self-induced?"
Unlike a pregnant 14 or 15 year old where the only possibility is rape, either forcible or statutory... If there is no reason to believe that a miscarriage is a murder then there is no reason to believe it. If the woman is full of bruises then the cops might want to discover if her boyfriend "beat it out of her."
This is a non-problem.
"**If a pregnant woman gets on a roller coaster or an airplane, etc. should she be vulnerable to criminal charges?"
It's been a while but I don't know of any reason for a pregnant woman to avoid an airplane or roller coaster until she's far enough along that it's not going to be a miscarriage, it's going to be premature labor.
Where have you been?
I think he's been reading your posts, and probably mine too. You were on record for 18 weeks. But you are also on record being against the Texas abortion bill not because it gives an extra 2 weeks, but because it doesn't provide exception you previously didn't provide yourself. Shall I provide the quote in full again with a link, so Nathan and others can read it again?
"...safely entered the skull..."
How do you write that sentence?
18 weeks to 24 weeks is another 6 weeks Leland. Check your math skills.
Inga said...
David, until men carry babies inside of them, they have a limited amount of input
This mentality is one of the reasons why you personally and ideologically are despised. You use your biology and physiology of your gender against men because they cannot and are not built to be impregnated and carry children. As if the fact that they can't is the sledgehammer you use against them as an excuse on why you should be able to murder their children in the womb. Fuck you and die, you rancid sub-human knuckle-dragging trog.
Yes please do Leland.
Abortion means the ending of a pregnancy, not necessarily the baby.
Really? Because women go to an abortion clinic in order to end a pregnancy while doing as little harm as possible to the baby?
20 weeks is plenty long enough to figure out that you are pregnant and decide what to do about it
In Wisconsin, the sooner a pregnant woman decides to do something about it, the more likely she gets the vaginal probing.
Escape t̶o̶ Wisconsin!
Synova,
There are ways a miscarriage can be induced other than being beaten by one's boyfriend, though, aren't there? What if a neighbor or a relative is "suspicious" of the circumstances of the miscarriage?
And, I wonder how long it will be before abortion pills are available. Not "morning after" pills, but pills that would effect an abortion after, say, a month of pregnancy.
I was also going to comment on her hair, which resembles a shark swimming up her belly.
I was thinking alien tentacle bursting out of her mid-section.
garage mahal said...
20 weeks is plenty long enough to figure out that you are pregnant and decide what to do about it
In Wisconsin, the sooner a pregnant woman decides to do something about it, the more likely she gets the vaginal probing.
Escape t̶o̶ Wisconsin!
Well, I suppose your legs should be up in stirrups in no time.
The 20 week limitation is NOT unacceptable to me Nathan, I'm actually on record as being OK with a FIRST TRIMESTER to 18 weeks limitation. Where have you been?
Reading this comment by you:
Texas Abortion law takes away their right to an abortion after the 20 th week.
Care to explain the exception?
If you insist there always be an exception for rape/incest, what are you going to demand as proof to exercise the rape/incest exception?
If anything less than a criminal conviction, then you are not supporting a First Trimester restriction. You are advocating a rhetorical change that makes no practical difference.
Which means you are still not pro-life.
Women who get a late term abortion of a PREGNANCY should be in a hospital. When these abortion reform laws are being written, perhaps instead of being more concerned with controlling women, they should be more concerned with acceptable and well thought out ideas regarding a woman's right to reproductive choice and the baby's right to life.
And late term abortions of a PREGNANCY, not a BABY, should be limited to the life of the mother, rape and incest cases.
@Inga
And late term abortions of a PREGNANCY, not a BABY
This is a distinction without a difference. Unless you make the distinction to ease your moral queasiness.
Did I say I was "pro life"? I consider myself "pro choice" , albeit limited choice.
In Wisconsin, the sooner a pregnant woman decides to do something about it, the more likely she gets the vaginal probing.
Are you really going to go on record and insist that no implements go into a vagina during an abortion procedure?
"**Should miscarriages be investigated?
If there are aggravated circumstances to the miscarriage, then there may be reasons to investigate. However, I suspect there is more to that question than what you just asked. As Synova notes, if the miscarriage was accompanied by bruises, it may have been caused by an assault, which I think has reason to be investigated because of the assault. If there was assault, in the State of Texas, the assaulter could be held for murder.
Is it in the interest of the state to make absolutely certain that the miscarriage was not self-induced?"
I don't think so, unless the woman was claiming that it wasn't self-induced and was induced by someone else. Then that should be investigated. But I certainly see no interest in examining every miscarriage.
"**If a pregnant woman gets on a roller coaster or an airplane, etc. should she be vulnerable to criminal charges?"
If the woman sues the amusement park or airline for the miscarriage; I wouldn't mind a criminal charge against them. Because most woman are likely to sue, most amusement parks and airlines deny pregnant woman their services. I know of a case where a woman boarded a plane days before her planned delivery for the specific purpose of flying from Nigeria to the United States and having the baby on American soil. The Nigerian mother and fetus were checked, found to be in good condition, and she was sent home, still pregnant, on the next flight. No charges, but she did get on a list to be permenantly denied entry to the US.
Inga, I am posting this for the third or fourth time here:
If a mother's life is at risk, it is not necessary to kill the baby while removing it from the womb.
The baby is the cause of the danger and simply needs to be delivered, either by C-section or vaginal delivery depending on the urgency of the danger. It happens all the time.
When is a baby not a baby?
When it is convenient for abortion lovers to kill it.
They need to dehumanize it. Cover it up. Hide what they are doing.
Because it is wrong. It is as wrong as it gets.
But you know what?
They don't care.
Beorn said...
@Inga
And late term abortions of a PREGNANCY, not a BABY
This is a distinction without a difference. Unless you make the distinction to ease your moral queasiness.
Igna? Morally squishy? No, not at all. /rolleyes
harrogate said: **Should miscarriages be investigated? Is it in the interest of the state to make absolutely certain that the miscarriage was not self-induced?
**If a pregnant woman gets on a roller coaster or an airplane, etc. should she be vulnerable to criminal charges?
I'll bite, and even thank you for asking what appears to be a serious question to further discussion.
1. I can't imagine that would make sense, absent some reason to believe the miscarriage was self-induced. Compare it to a child who is sick - does the state investigate, to ensure that she is not being poisoned? No, unless there's some solid reason to think otherwise. Since miscarriage is common and usually not explainable, this is probably almost never going to come up. It's a rather silly non-issue.
2. I've never heard of a woman having a miscarriage from riding a roller coaster, and going on airplanes is not even recommended against unless there are unusual complications or delivery is imminent (that's so the woman doesn't risk going into labor in the air, not to prevent miscarriages). I rode a horse at 12 weeks; it fell into the "not really recommended but probably just fine" category.
Again, you've got to compare it to child rearing in general - parents allow their kids to do things that have an element of danger all the time, and it's usually acceptable, but somewhere there's a line that can be crossed where it's not. It's hard to find that line, but doing a very safe activity like riding a roller coaster or airplane is certainly not it.
Pregnant women are really pretty durable - other than getting someone to beat it out of them or similar, I don't think that there's much of any activity that a rational woman would enter into that would fall over that line.
18 weeks to 24 weeks is another 6 weeks Leland.
I was using the 20 week to 24 week, which is 4 weeks ~ 1 month. Check your reasoning skills. Please do, Inga.
Hail Satan!
"I am posting this for the third or fourth time here:
If a mother's life is at risk, it is not necessary to kill the baby while removing it from the womb.
The baby is the cause of the danger and simply needs to be delivered, either by C-section or vaginal delivery depending on the urgency of the danger. It happens all the time."
7/3/13, 1:13 PM
YES Heyboom, I have agreed with you.
I said.....
"She could be induced, and the baby could be born alive and given care. We discussed this the other day in another thread. Abortion means the ending of a pregnancy, not necessarily the baby."
7/3/13, 12:50 PM
--------------------
Inga said...
Did I say I was "pro life"? I consider myself "pro choice" , albeit limited choice.
Then in effect you are advocating for infanticide. There generally is no other distinction that can be made or inferred. Maybe not for you, but oh hey, I found your other facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/inga.gosnell
Inga,
Did I say I was "pro life"? I consider myself "pro choice" , albeit limited choice.
Yes, you did say you are pro-life. Several times in previous abortion topics.
Now you say "limited choice". What proof is necessary for a woman to get a rape-originated abortion?
And what do you mean by "Life of the Mother"? Many women have claimed the "Life of the mother" exception on grounds that going through with the pregnancy would be too stressful/difficult/depressing.
Please be specific.
Or else there is no real restriction on abortion. Just a fig leaf to ensure unrestricted abortion on demand.
Lyssa,
Thank you for the response. Clearly the roller coaster/airplane element of my question really revealed more my lack of knowledge of what can cause a miscarriage, than anything else. :-)
Still, surely there are some activities in which a pregnant woman might engage that would induce miscarriage? Other than being beaten by a boyfriend, that is?
"Pregnant women are really pretty durable - other than getting someone to beat it out of them or similar, I don't think that there's much of any activity that a rational woman would enter into that would fall over that line."
True enough, and well written to boot. But then, as I noted above, pills to effect abortions might become widely available over time. Regardless of legislation/ ability to buy at a drug store, etc., said availability will likely come to pass. What then?
@Inga
And late term abortions of a PREGNANCY, not a BABY
Beorn This is a distinction without a difference.
Actually, there is a distinction. You can abort a pregnancy with induced labor or a ceasarian without necessarily losing the baby. For some reason, Inga seems to think abortion means termination of pregnancy only, and if that's the case, I'm not sure if anyone is denying a woman the right to early induced labor or a ceasarian. I guess we can add that to her claim that anyone is trying to deny all reproductive rights to woman.
She's welcome to explain herself.
harrogate... I would think that criminal law is pretty clear. Without probable cause the state can't do anything.
What you're suggesting is that because something is illegal that the state has a requirement to proactively prevent it from happening and so must investigate every single miscarriage. Why?
It would be a bit like, because burglary is illegal, requiring every person to have a complete household inventory that will be checked by the state.
(Before you think that's too stupid to be a good analogy - this is exactly what was required of us when we PCS'd to Clark AB in order to assure that no one sold their stuff to locals... you had a household inventory list and it was checked when you left the country again. The military can do stuff like this because you sign your rights away when you join.)
Wrong Inga, Meth, but very clever of you.
@Inga
And late term abortions of a PREGNANCY, not a BABY
And just WHAT do you think that they are aborting? A bagel?
Here is a definition of abort: end something prematurely: to bring something to an end or come to an end at an early stage.
BRING TO AN END. Yes. The pregnancy will end prematurely....and SO will the baby. END.
And then there is the argument that making abortion illegal would require us to prevent natural miscarriage. I realize no one said that yet, but someone usually does.
NO, Nathan I did not ever say I was "pro life", I have always stated I was "pro choice" with a window of time. Please find and post m statment in which I said I was a "Pro Lifer".
It's beneath you to lie, why do it?
DBQ, here you go.
----------------------------
Translate abortion | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of abortion
noun
1the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
the expulsion of a fetus from the uterus by natural causes before it is able to survive independently.
Biology the arrest of the development of an organ, typically a seed or fruit.
2an object or undertaking regarded by the speaker as unpleasant or badly made or carried out.
Origin:
mid 16th century: from Latin abortio(n-), from aboriri 'miscarry' (see abort)
abortion in other Oxford dictionaries
Definition of abortion in the British & World English dictionary
Abortions are dependent on secrecy. On keeping the reality of the procedure under wraps. Especially late term abortions where the baby would live.
No normal person would support late term abortions when the baby would live outside of their mothers womb. Unless you are a monster. Like Barrack Obama and Andrew Cuomo and others of their ilk.
Yes, it's an incredibly stupid sketch.
The instrument looks like a forceps to me.
The baby does NOT have to end, DBQ. Didn't you read what Heyboom has said FOUR times now? And that I agreed with?
"I am posting this for the third or fourth time here:
If a mother's life is at risk, it is not necessary to kill the baby while removing it from the womb.
The baby is the cause of the danger and simply needs to be delivered, either by C-section or vaginal delivery depending on the urgency of the danger. It happens all the time."
7/3/13, 1:13 PM
-------------------------
Kevin said...
Hail Satan!
The She Devil of the SS' real allegiance.
Background here.
True enough, and well written to boot. But then, as I noted above, pills to effect abortions might become widely available over time. Regardless of legislation/ ability to buy at a drug store, etc., said availability will likely come to pass. What then?
Thank you, harrogate. I think that, should this drug become available, it should be prohibited or highly regulated (if there are some legitimate uses for it), and, there should be some criminal penalties for supplying and using it to kill a baby in the womb.
Bear in mind that no one believes that we will ever be able to eliminate all fetal deaths or all abortions, any more than we can eliminate entirely child abuse, rape, or assault. Like all horrors in the world, they will always be there, but it is still our responsibility as a civilized society to prevent them as much as possible with limited intrusions on freedoms (always a difficult line to place, of course) and condemn them as a society.
"Bear in mind that no one believes that we will ever be able to eliminate all fetal deaths or all abortions, any more than we can eliminate entirely child abuse, rape, or assault. Like all horrors in the world, they will always be there, but it is still our responsibility as a civilized society to prevent them as much as possible with limited intrusions on freedoms (always a difficult line to place, of course) and condemn them as a society."
7/3/13, 1:34 PM
Exactly.
How utterly numb (or mindbogglingly cruel) do you need to be to think this is an appropriate depiction of pregnancy when you are writing in support of access to abortion?
Well, they don't see a problem because they support killing 8 month old babies. Given they believe every correct thinking person thinks as they do, what's the big deal here?
I don't think anyone is bothered by early termination of a pregnancy to save an infants life. Perhaps Inga can point to a poster or politician that is advocating against early induced labor or ceasarians.
To be clear, the Texas Bill provides its own definition of abortion, rather than rely on the UK Oxford Dictionary for US law.
The baby does NOT have to end, DBQ. Didn't you read what Heyboom has said FOUR times now? And that I agreed with?
Really. So you support the idea that a woman after 20 weeks or 24 weeks should be able to NOT terminate her child but just the pregnancy, so that the child can live and perhaps be adopted by a person or persons who actually want the child. Yes... or...No???
By that logic it is a delivery and not an abortion. Therefore why should the pro abortion crowd be interested in any way? It is a delivery of a child. Correct? Why should the pro abortion crowd be concerned with this procedure?
Also, since the goal is to end the pregnancy and deliver the child, what is the rush? Why not just wait until the child has an even BETTER chance to live? Instead of self forcing a premature birth, if the goal is to end the pregnancy and keep the child alive, just give it a few more weeks or so and the baby will live.
Of course.....THAT isn't the goal. The goal is to kill the child for the convenience of the mother. Not deliver the child to adoption. Kill the baby. AND furthermore, you want the tax payers to pony up the money for the murder.
You are so disingenuous it is amazing. The pretzel logic is dizzying. Do you EVER stop to think about the ramifications of your though process.
How utterly numb (or mindbogglingly cruel) do you need to be to think this is an appropriate depiction of pregnancy when you are writing in support of access to abortion? The woman looks 9 months pregnant! She's apparently sad about her condition....
Umm--that's what happens when you don't have access to abortion.
a·bor·tion (-bôrshn)
n.
1.
a. Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus.
b. Any of various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy. Also called induced abortion.
2. See miscarriage.
3. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
4. The premature ending or abandonment of an undertaking.
5. Something that is regarded as poorly made or done.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
abortion [əˈbɔːʃən]
n
1. (Medicine / Gynaecology & Obstetrics) an operation or other procedure to terminate pregnancy before the fetus is viable
2. (Medicine / Gynaecology & Obstetrics) the premature termination of pregnancy by spontaneous or induced expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus
3. (Medicine) the products of abortion; an aborted fetus
4. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) the arrest of development of an organ
5. a failure to develop to completion or maturity the project proved an abortion
6. a person or thing that is deformed
abortional adj
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
a•bor•tion (əˈbɔr ʃən)
n.
1. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2. any of various procedures for terminating a pregnancy.
3. Also called spontaneous abortion. miscarriage (def. 1).
4. an immature and nonviable fetus.
5. a malformed or monstrous person or thing.
6. the arrested development of an embryo or an organ at a more or less early stage.
7. the stopping of an illness, infection, etc., at a very early stage.
8. anything that fails to develop, progress, or mature.
[1540–50; < Latin]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
abortion (-bôrshn)
1. Induced termination of pregnancy, involving destruction of the embryo or fetus.
2. Any of various procedures that result in such termination.
3. Spontaneous abortion; miscarriage.
4. Cessation of a normal or abnormal process before completion.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Abortion
See also birth; pregnancy
aborticide
1. destruction of a fetus. Also called feticide.
2. that which produces an abortion; an abortifacient
abortifacient
Cf. aborticide, 2.
feticide, foeticide
the killing of a fetus; especially illegal abortion. Also called aborticide. — feticidal, foeticidal, adj.
-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. abortion - termination of pregnancy
ending, termination, conclusion - the act of ending something; "the termination of the agreement"
spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, miscarriage - a natural loss of the products of conception
induced abortion - a deliberate termination of pregnancy
2. abortion - failure of a plan
miscarriage
failure - an event that does not accomplish its intended purpose; "the surprise party was a complete failure"
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
abortion
noun
1. termination, miscarriage, feticide, aborticide, deliberate miscarriage They had been going out a year when she had an abortion.
2. failure, disappointment, fiasco, misadventure, monstrosity, vain effort the abortion of the original nuclear project
Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002
Translations
Select a language:
-----------------------
abortion →
Multilingual Translator © HarperCollins Publishers 2009
y'all are arguing with an idiot. it has no principles, just poses.
The baby does NOT have to end, DBQ. Didn't you read what Heyboom has said FOUR times now? And that I agreed with?
Really. So you support the idea that a woman after 20 weeks or 24 weeks should be able to NOT terminate her child but just the pregnancy, so that the child can live and perhaps be adopted by a person or persons who actually want the child. Yes... or...No???
By that logic it is a delivery and not an abortion. Therefore why should the pro abortion crowd be interested in any way? It is a delivery of a child. Correct? Why should the pro abortion crowd be concerned with this procedure?
Also, since the goal is to end the pregnancy and deliver the child, what is the rush? Why not just wait until the child has an even BETTER chance to live? Instead of self forcing a premature birth, if the goal is to end the pregnancy and keep the child alive, just give it a few more weeks or so and the baby will live.
Of course.....THAT isn't the goal. The goal is to kill the child for the convenience of the mother. Not deliver the child to adoption. Kill the baby. AND furthermore, you want the tax payers to pony up the money for the murder.
You are so disingenuous it is amazing. The pretzel logic is dizzying. Do you EVER stop to think about the ramifications of your though process.
Texas ought to pass a rule that an abortion clinic has to give a free abortion to any woman who was raped.
Abortion of a pregnancy does not necessarily mean the death of the fetus, didn't we learn this from the Gosnell horror?
The baby does not HAVE to die. A late term abortion limited to rape incest, or health of the mother does not NEED to include the death of the baby.
Personally, I favor personal responsibility and accountability.
If you have sex, you have to accept the consequences, which includes the possibility of having a baby.
I also don't agree with ending the life of a genetically-unique human because of the sins of one of the parents (in the case of rape or incest).
I object to abortion because it coarsens a person's empathy. It elevates personal convenience above life itself.
And I object to abortion procedures because it involves 3rd parties having to take part, i.e., it allows at least additional shirking of personal accountability.
Because I'm also a realist, however, I admit that most of my objections are resolved if you limit abortion to RU-486 and "morning after" dosages of birth control pills.
Taking pills to end a pregnancy puts the termination of life solely in the woman's hands, on the woman's soul. Others may help clean it up, but if it is terminating a life, it is 100% on her.
If she was raped, these methods do give her a method of ending a pregnancy if she acts responsibly.
These methods end a pregnancy before brain activity. In some case, even before implantation.
It's not a perfect solution, but it is the one that works best for how I understand human nature.
Again, late term abortions that fall under a rape, incest, or health of the mother exception, should be done in a HOSPITAL, with a neonatal unit.
I fully realize it may be years before such scenarios will or could come to pass, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss such possibilities as an acceptable alternative to what we have NOW.
Inga: The bill that the heroine filibusterer was filibustering in Texas contained a provision that infuriated the pro-sacrifice your child squad. The bill called for abortion clinics to meet standards way less than a hospital. fyi.
DBQ, stay in your dark small box, never think outside it.
Non surgical abortions do not NEED a surgical clinic.
Medical abortions vs. surgical abortions
"Inga said...
Did I say I was "pro life"? I consider myself "pro choice" , albeit limited choice."
You have stated you are 100% pro Roe v Wade.
You are one dumb fucking waste of DNA.
I hardly stop by any more and today was the first in a while. By happenstance, this is the first thread I read. Regardless, I feel compelled to chime in.
Inga:
"Before brain activity of the unborn baby she is NOT two people.
What criteria do we use in this country to end life? Brain activity."
Brain activity in the human fetus starts around week six. So, by your own logic, any abortion that kills the fetus at or after week six is purposely ending a human life, not expelling a blob.
The more we learn about ourselves, the less tenable the arguments most pro-choicers make are.
Abortion of a pregnancy does not necessarily mean the death of the fetus
But an abortion of an unborn child does mean the death of the unborn child when using the definition defined in the law. I think most of us actually read the things we are for or against before making a decision for or against it.
J Med Philos. 1989 Feb;14(1):45-59.
Brain life and brain death: a proposal for a normative agreement.
Sass HM.
Source
Ruhr Universitaet Bochum, F.R.G.
Abstract
This paper reviews moral and cultural assessments which led to the definition of brain death and calls for a similar normative consensus regarding the moral recognition and legal protection of embryonal life related to criteria of brain life. This paper differentiates between cortical brain life I, i.e., the first existence of post-mitotic stationary neurons forming the early cortical plate (54th day post conception), and cortical brain life II, i.e., the beginning of cortical neuro-neuronal synapses (after the 70th day p.c.). The latter are preconditional for establishing the communicative network within the cortex and with subcortical structures. The paper conservatively calls for a tentative moral consensus that could recognize brain life I, i.e., the 54th day p.c., as a stage prior to which embryo research generally would be acceptable in accordance with principles similar to those which led to the acceptance of brain death. Other developmental stages such as fertilization, nidation, viability, as well as the 'potentiality' principle are less significant for the moral recognition of early human life.
PMID: 2671226 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Publication Types, MeSH Terms
("...the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening....")
Wouldn't it be easier just to stab the baby with a knife? Or, better yet, club the baby on the head with a hammer.
David, don't marry and then impregnate a woman you don't know well enough, same premise.
...but chicks who get drunk and nail some random dude --- vacuums away?
Really?
Strong standards you have there.
Do you also oppose forcing a man to pay for a child he doesn't want?
Abortion reforms would be much less likely to be rejected by many women if they weren't so concerned with denying a choice, even a limited choice to a woman.
These reforms give you FIVE FUCKING MONTHS to make a choice.
Jesus, how retarded are women in your world?
In Wisconsin, the sooner a pregnant woman decides to do something about it, the more likely she gets the vaginal probing.
You support abortion clinics just BLINDLY rooting around for the baby?
You know, they have to use those tools to do their job, right?
And why are you so anxious to sentence women to horrid infections in filthy clinics?
"With Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court gave states the right to legislate abortion restrictions during a woman's second trimester. Many states enacted laws that make it more difficult to terminate a pregnancy. Among them, Arkansas, Minnesota, and Georgia require physicians to tell women that 20-week-old fetuses can feel pain during the procedure unless they are anesthetized. A newly released review of the scientific evidence, however, suggests the premise of those laws is wrong.
Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation because they haven't formed the necessary nerve pathways, says Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco. He and his colleagues determined that until the third trimester, "the wiring at the point where you feel pain, such as the skin, doesn't reach the emotional part where you feel pain, in the brain." Although fetuses start forming pain receptors eight weeks into development, the thalamus, the part of the brain that routes information to other areas, doesn't form for 20 more weeks. Without the thalamus, Rosen says, no information can reach the cortex for processing.
Fetuses do have reflex reactions that can make them seem pained, Rosen says. "If you see a fetus in utero react to needle stimulation, then the common conclusion is that it must feel." But just as with paraplegics, "that's a reflex that's mediated by the spinal cord; that's not a conscious reaction," he says. It is possible that a temporary structure of neurons that appears in a fetus's brain during the second trimester allows it to sense pain. But Rosen and his colleagues believe a fetus's brain doesn't function coherently enough to be conscious.
The use of fetal anesthesia is justified during other surgeries, Rosen says, to block the production of stress hormones. In the case of abortion, he says, it is not necessary and puts the mother at increased risk of adverse reactions, and even death."
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain#.UdR4XWt5mSM
Again, late term abortions that fall under a rape, incest, or health of the mother exception, should be done in a HOSPITAL, with a neonatal unit.
I fully realize it may be years before such scenarios will or could come to pass, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss such possibilities as an acceptable alternative to what we have NOW.
Inga, this is very good, and I appreciate you raising this point. I haven't read the Texas law, but I don't think it would apply to doctors inducing labor, delivering babies, and putting them in NICUs.
Thus, if you're worried about a lack of rape exception in the Texas law, I believe doctors could still end the pregnancy in the above manner after 20 weeks.
This would not happen in abortion clinics, of course, because abortion clinics do not have NICUs.
Rape victims waiting 20 weeks to abort is exceedingly rare, I would think, and probably happens only with very underage girls.
The vast majority of rape victims could and should use emergency contraception.
Wouldn't it be easier just to stab the baby with a knife? Or, better yet, club the baby on the head with a hammer.
To club it, you'd have to pull the head further out, which means there is a chance the baby might breathe air or cry. This goes back to the 90's debate by Democrats with "the breath of life". For biblical reasons, Democrats back then thought breathing air actually made the difference on whether the infant could feel pain or not. So as long as the child didn't breath air, it was perfectly fine to kill it.
I don't know the difference between scissors and a knife.
Abortion rights activists would weep and protest over clubbing a baby seal like it was the end of the world.
A human baby? Not so much.
It is not illegal to fly while in the late stages of pregnancy, but it is recommended that a pregnant woman not fly after 34 weeks gestation.
Wouldn't it be easier just to stab the baby with a knife?
They stab it with their steely knives, But they just can't kill the beast...welcome to the Hotel California.
A late term cesarean or induced labor for the health of the mother, attempting to save the baby, makes sense, but I'm not sure that the same makes any sense for rape or incest. The mother in that case is still *delivering* the baby and what is there about rape or incest that makes it necessary to deliver the baby a couple months sooner than later?
Not that this is important to anything or that I want to argue it at all. It just struck me that the point of abortion related to rape or incest really is to stop the result of rape or incest from being born. Incest because of supposed genetic reasons not to inbreed, and rape because the baby is a constant reminder and re-experience of the rape trauma.
In the case of incest, there is most likely nothing at all genetically wrong with the child and I wish we'd toss that excuse out.
Rape, on the other hand, while I agree with anyone that the baby is entirely innocent, I can see how an individual might experience the pregnancy as a continued rape and delivery and existence of the child as the rapist's victory. I'm a bit of a biological absolutist and rape *is* a human reproductive strategy and someone who feels that the resulting pregnancy is a continued rape and the resulting child is a continued rape is RIGHT. By the grace of God, not every woman will feel that way, and for any woman who can view the child as innocent and make peace with it, bless her. But I can't find it in myself to insist that a woman is a bad person if she can't do it.
STILL... obviously... that question should be easy enough to decide more or less immediately after the event and taken care of early in the first trimester if not the next day.
I makes no sense at all to have laws designed to protect the minute percentage of women chained in a basement somewhere who doesn't escape until she's eight months along.
Inga, if you feel the baby has no rights...why do you advocate ANY limits?
Hey Inga, it was really funny how you put what the definitions of abortions are with your bug-eyed drunken sot face next to them. Brilliant.
@Inga
By definition, a late term abortion is the purposeful killing of a viable baby. A late term abortion is not necessary because a C-section or vaginal delivery will have the same remedy for the mother.
The purpose of an abortion unequivocally is to not have a live birth. If you're trying to save the baby, it's called a DELIVERY.
Conservatives love it when young girls are forced to bear their rape/incest babies.
In the case of holding abortion clinics to out-patient surgery standards... it may not be necessary but what does it really hurt?
The thing about Gosnell seems to be that no one wanted to have a chilling effect... or some such. No one wanted to be throwing up roadblocks or possibly restricting access to poor women by inspecting the place or holding it to standards that might be used to shut it down and if no one *looked* then that wouldn't happen. Simply sending inspectors would make the clinic's job harder and everyone involved wanted to pave the road and make access to abortions for those women as easy as possible.
I suppose it's true enough... someone wants to shut you down the inspector can find *something*.
But is that any good reason not to have inspections or to require out-patient standards?
"What criteria do we use in this country to end life? Brain activity."
By that criteria, I think Inga is an excellent candidate for a late late late term abortion.
No brain activity, physical deformitys, born of incest.
Amirite?
Alex loves it when young girls get easy abortions and their rapist/relatives go free.
Inga said...
"With Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court gave states the right to legislate abortion restrictions during a woman's second trimester. Many states enacted laws that make it more difficult to terminate a pregnancy. Among them, Arkansas, Minnesota, and Georgia require physicians to tell women that 20-week-old fetuses can feel pain during the procedure unless they are anesthetized. A newly released review of the scientific evidence, however, suggests the premise of those laws is wrong.
Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation because they haven't formed the necessary nerve pathways, says Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California at San Francisco. He and his colleagues determined that until the third trimester, "the wiring at the point where you feel pain, such as the skin, doesn't reach the emotional part where you feel pain, in the brain." Although fetuses start forming pain receptors eight weeks into development, the thalamus, the part of the brain that routes information to other areas, doesn't form for 20 more weeks. Without the thalamus, Rosen says, no information can reach the cortex for processing.
Fetuses do have reflex reactions that can make them seem pained, Rosen says. "If you see a fetus in utero react to needle stimulation, then the common conclusion is that it must feel." But just as with paraplegics, "that's a reflex that's mediated by the spinal cord; that's not a conscious reaction," he says. It is possible that a temporary structure of neurons that appears in a fetus's brain during the second trimester allows it to sense pain. But Rosen and his colleagues believe a fetus's brain doesn't function coherently enough to be conscious.
The use of fetal anesthesia is justified during other surgeries, Rosen says, to block the production of stress hormones. In the case of abortion, he says, it is not necessary and puts the mother at increased risk of adverse reactions, and even death."
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain#.UdR4XWt5mSM
The requirement of pain felt is irrelevant. Don't you get that. What do you think is growing inside a human uterus? A fish? A cat? A cow? Garage Mahal? No, a human being. That's it. It's DNA determines that. Nothing else. Stop your imbecilic antics. Everyone knows the feeble attempts at marginalization you are taking and it's failing.
I should say that there ARE laws to protect women chained in basements, only that it makes no sense to fashion abortion laws for the one woman in 10 years who may escape while she's pregnant.
Pain is a very bad measure of anything. Some grown people have conditions that mean they feel no pain... do they lose protection? Do we even understand what pain is? Is it actually anything other than a reflex to avoid injury? Why would it become pain only when we're able to say, "that hurts"?
Anything where we're trying to decide which brain activity doesn't count lends itself to defining the mentally injured or infirm as non-human.
Other than that, brain activity as a definition for life and death is nicely symmetrical.
Meth, the Texas abortion law concerns itself with the pain of the unborn baby, hence the 20 week limit. Educate yourself, even YOU can learn
Well, to return to the inept graphic, I suspect the job was farmed out to some foreign outfit who didn't get the context, or was a stock graphic chosen by some idiot who also didn't get the context.
I say "foreign" because the art looks Asian to me.
State death laws are based on a lack of brain waves on an EEG. St.Croix has spoken about this many times.
Alex said...
Conservatives love it when young girls are forced to bear their rape/incest babies.
Alex, name an instance of a conservative forcing a girl who is a victim of rape or incest to have an abortion?
Inga said...
Meth, the Texas abortion law concerns itself with the pain of the unborn baby, hence the 20 week limit. Educate yourself, even YOU can learn
I know what the language is you vapid witch, that's why I said that the pain as a requirement for (non)abortion is irrelevant. A little comprehension goes a long way, moron.
Inga said...
State death laws are based on a lack of brain waves on an EEG. St.Croix has spoken about this many times.
So what, who cares. Can't you form a more original and cohesive thought instead of coat-tailing, again, on someone else's thinking? How low does your stupidity go?
What do you think is growing inside a human uterus? A fish?
In your case it was reptilian. Your eyes click when you blink, right?
garage - you and I are on the same wavelength man. Those conservatives sure do operate with their reptilian brain mostly.
Yes most certainly reptile.
Still going with pregnant woman in Sharknado.
Meth doesn't understand consensus.
Methadras said...
State death laws are based on a lack of brain waves on an EEG. St.Croix has spoken about this many times.
So what, who cares. Can't you form a more original and cohesive thought instead of coat-tailing, again, on someone else's thinking? How low does your stupidity go?
That's all she does, pile on after somebody else started it.
PS Notice how, for a "nurse", she knows more about death than life?
If reflexive avoidance of injury only becomes "pain" when it reaches the emotions... well, I think that clearly, a fetus flinching away from being poked reaches the emotions of those watching the video.
Ann Althouse said...
"Phrasing things that edutcher doesn't get wrong? If that is indeed even possible, it would be written at an absurdly simple level. That's nothing I'd want to do. I really don't know why you read this blog, but my working theory is you're a guy pretending to be a guy that misunderstands everything.
I also have the intellectual wherewithal to write first grade primers, but that's not what I choose to write."
6/28/13, 11:51 AM
You are valued, don't forget that Ed.
my working theory is Inga's a creation of Althouse to make Althouse look intelligent in comparison. or Hitler's daughter.
Pop that amygdala forward!
Post a Comment