Political Crossfire Forums

[Selfish_Meme]

Hmmm, this is confusing. The politician labelled 'untrustworthy' seems to be the one making the right moves, they both say they support abortion for health risk reasons but the 'untrustworthy' one opposes the 'procedure'. Can anyone shed some light?

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-stabor104620909feb10,0,5546443.story?coll=ny-statenews-headlines

[Prole]

After re-reading in a couple of times (and I do admit it does get a bit confusing, though I don't know if that is just me or not), it seems that you are misinterpreting it. Spitzer, who supports late term abortion as a choice if the mother's health is endangered, is (as far as getting political support is concerned) making the right moves and getting backing from pro-choice groups because of it, while Suozzi is being critisized for his universal opposition to late-term abortions.

Honestly, though, I can't see Suozzi's unconditional opposition to late-term abortion being viable. I mean, even in Ireland (who allow surgical abortions only under the strictest circumstances; even rape is insufficient justification), abortion is allowed to protect the mother's health. I can't picture him losing such a huge portion of his voter base over this, especially when a) People could just go to another state for a late-term abortion and b) Doctors would probably still do them anyway if the woman's health was seriously endangered.

Also, a question: As far as ectopic pregnancies are concerned, is the offspring even viable, or is it almost certain death for both mother and child if the latter is not aborted? If it is the second, Suoozi's position is even less viable; why sacrifice the mother's wellbeing for something that has no real chance at life?

A couple of critical points on the article. First, despite a key subject of the article being late term abortion, the medical term "Dilation and extraction" (which is afaik the only method for late term abortions) is never mentioned, though the colloquilism often used by the anti-choice crowd "Partial birth abortion" is mentioned. The ommission of the former is somewhat neglectful, though I do believe the latter (though I do not like the term) is worth mentioning.

From the article:
Quote: If elected governor, he [Prole's clarification: Spitzer] said, he would work to make abortions "safe, legal and rare."
Abortion is already pretty damn safe, and quite legal. As far as making it rare; well, that's a mighty high mountain to climb. Then again, it could just be the quote selection of the article.

[Sailor Moon]

The discussion is about partial pirth abortion exceptions for the life of the woman, which, when you think about it, really is no different than just delivering the dang baby anyways. I think thats the so called "untrustworthy" politicians stance.

[Prole]

Sailor Moon wrote: The discussion is about partial pirth abortion exceptions for the life of the woman, which, when you think about it, really is no different than just delivering the dang baby anyways. I think thats the so called "untrustworthy" politicians stance.
Maybe when you think about it, Sailor. But medical consensus tells a far different story.

When doctors think about it, a third-trimester abortion is sometimes safer than bearing the preborn human to term. Just off the top of my head, a heart condition (as pregnancy puts enormous strain on the heart) or cancer that requires immediate care (if that care includes radiation therapy, which would kill the preborn human), might merit a late-term abortion to ensure the mother's safety.

[Sailor Moon]

Here are several instances when this surgery did much more harm than good:


http://www.prolife.com/800-U-Can-Sue.html


Think about it. Its not the child's birth that puts the woman in danger. ITs the pregnancy itself. So, a C- Section should be attempted, rather than killing both the child and the woman.
Pregnancy doesnt put enormous strain on the heart. What are you talking about?

[Prole]

Regarding a Caesarien section, I seriously doubt that it is as safe as a dilation and extraction procedure (otherwise, C-sections would be the standard procedure). Furthermore, I highly suspsect that additional measures taken to ensure the preborn human's survival endanger the mother's health.

Regarding pregnancy putting strain on the heart, here's a good site:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/hbp/hbp_preg.htm

Snippet:
Quote: What Are the Effects of High Blood Pressure in Pregnancy?
Although many pregnant women with high blood pressure have healthy babies without serious problems, high blood pressure can be dangerous for both the mother and the fetus. Women with pre-existing, or chronic, high blood pressure are more likely to have certain complications during pregnancy than those with normal blood pressure. However, some women develop high blood pressure while they are pregnant (often called gestational hypertension).

The effects of high blood pressure range from mild to severe. High blood pressure can harm the mother's kidneys and other organs, and it can cause low birth weight and early delivery. In the most serious cases, the mother develops preeclampsia--or "toxemia of pregnancy"--which can threaten the lives of both the mother and the fetus...

How Common Are High Blood Pressure and Preeclampsia in Pregnancy?
High blood pressure problems occur in 6 percent to 8 percent of all pregnancies in the U.S., about 70 percent of which are first-time pregnancies. In 1998, more than 146,320 cases of preeclampsia alone were diagnosed.

[Sailor Moon]

Yeah, and the instances are VERY rare, due to a persons pre existing conditions, etc, and it also says that good prenatal care helps tremendously.

Having twins, already having high blood pressure, having certain other medical conditions, kidney problems, lupus, can all add to high blood pressure, so I am sorry, but really, but a 6% rate is not enough to justify this generalization youre making. And it still makes no difference between aborting and childbirth, so the best thing is to tough it out, get good prenatal care, and wait until about the 30th week or later, and then have a C section. I still dont see how you can say that killing your baby (causing GRIEF, MAJOR STRESSOR) is going to save anyone from a heart attack. Plus, even partial birth abortion causes alot of physical stress, and added injuries, and a raised incidence of future ectopic pregnancies, so obviously killing your baby could ruin your chances at having a baby, ever- so its not the best idea.

(sorry about the run on sentence)

[steen]

These conditions kill up to 500 women every year just in the US. And some of these conditions absolutely preclude c-section, asd that is major surgery causing blood pressure fluctuations during the procedures.

Certainly a case of pericarditis, which almost certainly will kill the fetus anyway, and in which the heart is so weakened that you need heart surgery immediately after the abortion, such are done by abortions right then, no hesitation involved.

[Sailor Moon]

Just a little FYI- I have certain people on my ignore list, and although I could see your posts, if I click a link to, I dont choose to. Just to let you know. My statement stands.

Smooches.

[Prole]

Sailor Moon wrote: Having twins, already having high blood pressure, having certain other medical conditions, kidney problems, lupus, can all add to high blood pressure, so I am sorry, but really, but a 6% rate is not enough to justify this generalization youre making .
That's pretty arbitrary, but to each their own I suppose. 6-8% sounds pretty high to me, though.

Furthermore, women who have late-term abortions on medical groundsm, and the doctors who reccommend/support their decision, don't just say, "Oh there's a 6-8% chance of medical complications"; the decision/reccomendation is made with much higher chances existing then simply the national average; often, the problems are already existing. So your insinuation that women are making the decision to abort on medical grounds on the basis that they have a 6% chance of heart troubles is pure sophistry; the chances are typically much, much higher.

Sailor Moon wrote: My statement stands.
I'm sorry, but spouting pure conjecture and ignoring any valid criticism of it neither makes your arguements persuasive nor even viable.

And so you can see:
steen wrote: These conditions kill up to 500 women every year just in the US. And some of these conditions absolutely preclude c-section, asd that is major surgery causing blood pressure fluctuations during the procedures.

Certainly a case of pericarditis, which almost certainly will kill the fetus anyway, and in which the heart is so weakened that you need heart surgery immediately after the abortion, such are done by abortions right then, no hesitation involved.
There you go, Sailor. Enjoy.

[Sailor Moon]

Really, Prole, must we always revert to debating the 2% of abortions that take place, rather than looking at the big picture?

I see that someone on my ignore list posted, although I dont care to find out, so if there was a point to be made by it, make it yourself, please.

Otherwise, a 6% chance of occurrance, especially when that occurrence typically happens in women with preexisting conditions, is certainly not high at all, and not grounds to say that pregnancy alone causes high blood pressure.

Besides, whatever happened to the old fashioned jump start system? CPR, even? I mean, our children just arent worth putting that kind of effort or observation into, so we should just KILL THEM as long as some doctor has 3 grand to make off of it?

Think of it this way also-- there is ALOT less negligence with partial birth abortion, seeing as though ONE person is sure to die- therefore that cuts their liability in half, as it is. Surely, taking a few thousand dollar pay cut per abortion is worth having to deal with less negligence, aint it now.

Its all about the benjamins, in my opinion... And tell me again- how come a partial birth abortion is safer then an early C-section?

[Prole]

When we are addressing the 2% of abortions that take place for health reasons (and you are either unintentionally or intentionally ignoring that for late term abortions, the rate of abortions for health reasons is much higher), it doesn't really matter whether it is 2%, 20% or 99% of abortions. We are trying to address late term abortion for medical reasons, so bringing in abortions for non-medical reasons is clearly irrelevant.

Your link allows people to sue for medical malpractice. The same can be done for any botched medical procedure. What is the relevance exactly? If anything, it proves my point even further regarding the preferred procedure for late-term abortions; due to the litigious nature of America (and other countries to a lesser extent), doctors have a vested interest both ethically and personally to perform the safest procedure possible, thus protecting both their patient and themself. That they would purposely choose to do a less safe procedure is completely illogical.

Does pregnancy alone cause high blood pressure? Well, it certainly confounds one's chances of it. No one ever said that it is the only cause for high blood pressure, but it certainly is a cause. And in many women, a pretty significant one as well.

Sailor Moon wrote: Besides, whatever happened to the old fashioned jump start system? CPR, even?
The fetus is dismembered to make its removal easier. Are you suggesting that doctors perform CPR on a dismembered (and I use the term loosely) newborn?

Sailor Moon wrote: And tell me again- how come a partial birth abortion is safer then an early C-section?
Sure thing. Some of these conditions absolutely preclude c-section, asd that is major surgery causing blood pressure fluctuations during the procedures.

And yes, the answer was taken word for word from steen's post. I'm guessing that you have him on ignore, which is a shame, because he has aptly answered your question.

[Sailor Moon]

Prole wrote: When we are addressing the 2% of abortions that take place for health reasons (and you are either unintentionally or intentionally ignoring that for late term abortions, the rate of abortions for health reasons is much higher), it doesn't really matter whether it is 2%, 20% or 99% of abortions. We are trying to address late term abortion for medical reasons, so bringing in abortions for non-medical reasons is clearly irrelevant.

I apologise, I am really fed up with the whens and hows and whys, though.. I really just want it all to end... the fact is, that your comment earlier was meant to be applied to ALL pregnancies, as if all women have heightened blood pressure from pregnancy, and that was the real point I was refuting.. its just all ridiculous rhetoric in my mind, though, but I apologise for veering off...

Quote: Your link allows people to sue for medical malpractice. The same can be done for any botched medical procedure. What is the relevance exactly? If anything, it proves my point even further regarding the preferred procedure for late-term abortions; due to the litigious nature of America (and other countries to a lesser extent), doctors have a vested interest both ethically and personally to perform the safest procedure possible, thus protecting both their patient and themself. That they would purposely choose to do a less safe procedure is completely illogical.

Do you have proof that doctors who perform abortions all have a vested interest both ethically and personally in abortion? Please cite some proof of this, because you know darn well I dont believe that for one second.

Quote: Does pregnancy alone cause high blood pressure? Well, it certainly confounds one's chances of it. No one ever said that it is the only cause for high blood pressure, but it certainly is a cause. And in many women, a pretty significant one as well.

"Many" is relative. You really need to cite some proof of how "many" you mean, please...

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote: Besides, whatever happened to the old fashioned jump start system? CPR, even?
The fetus is dismembered to make its removal easier. Are you suggesting that doctors perform CPR on a dismembered (and I use the term loosely) newborn?

No. A woman with high blood pressure doesnt need to get an abortion, if her heart can be maintained with nitoglycerides, or paddles. Bayer does great too. There are a great many ways to prevent heart attacks, and this is what our money should be going to, rather than senseless murders.

Quote: Sailor Moon wrote: And tell me again- how come a partial birth abortion is safer then an early C-section?
Sure thing. Some of these conditions absolutely preclude c-section, asd that is major surgery causing blood pressure fluctuations during the procedures.

I suppose that forcing the uterus open, and causing all the blood to flow out, as well as feeling a babys legs kicking you while its being killed, couldnt raise your blood pressure? You do realise that even gestational preeclampsia and high bloodpressure problems continue to exist for 6 weeks following the pregnancy? Its not all fun and games, but the word "termination" is so... finite. Women are told they can go back to their regular lives (just dont have sex, though) after just a few days. How wonderful these doctors are! Just go back and do whatever you want!

So, in reality- partial birth abortion is a killer, any way you wanna "take a stab" at it...

Quote: And yes, the answer was taken word for word from steen's post. I'm guessing that you have him on ignore, which is a shame, because he has aptly answered your question.

Too bad, cause it might just have been the first effort at civility with me, so he blew it looong ago...