Talk Elections

It may come as a surprise being the leftist I am but while I have always supported the basic right to choose, I don't get why so many people (at least half the democrat caucus) voted against the ban. Even moderates like Chet Edwards or Cal Dooley voted against it. While I agree in a basic right to choose, how could anyone not agree that the procedure is infanticide not to mention dangerous? A lot of democrats pushed for a "health" exception, but that's really a loophole to perform it whenever possible.

Yeah, I consider myself politically pro-choice (morally pro-life) but I think the idea of partial-birth abortion is disgusting and should be illegal as much as I believe the death penalty should be illegal.

First you need to define what partial birth abortion is, exactly. However, I would ban any third trimester abortion, that is not "authorized" by a court order, obtainable only by a finding of the court that absent it, the physical (not mental) health of the mother would be endangered (a term that would need to be carefully defined), or it is a medical emergency, and there is no time for a court order.

I agree with everything said here and I find the term "partial-birth abortion" to be moronic. Anyone who is a part of non-hysterical political discourse shouldn't use it and be more specific as to what procedures they are for and against without resorting to a blanket term that could potentially describe a wide range of abortions.

The issue is a smokescreen.  Generally the alternative to dilation and extraction (aka partial birth abortion) is dilation and evacuation, which can present the possibility of leaving parts of the fetus in the uterus, an infection risk.  No doubt late term abortions are grisly, but targeting partial birth abortion over other procedures does nothing to prevent them.

Oh, come on ! People still don't get that one could have different views of what's right and what's wrong ? Having a different conscience doesn't mean having no conscience.

Intact dilation and extraction is used almost exclusively in cases where it's come to light that the fetus would have some sort of horrifying condition that would make it inviable and, in many cases, dangerous to the woman to deliver.  It is not an elective procedure and casting it in that light is grossly irresponsible.

Define "partial-birth abortion".

However, my feeling is that if the baby survived or if it is felt it may survive, then I feel it should be illegal unless the mother's life/health was at risk.

Given how few abortions are late-term, I doubt this issue deserves as much attention as it gets.

So basically, you think lawyers and judges are better equipped to assess whether a medical procedure needs to be done than, oh I don't know, the doctor and the patient?

What Ebowed said. In 2000 they were only 0.17% of all abortions, and the alternative option for abortions at that stage of pregnancy are more dangerous to the mother (and arguably, more gruesome anyway). It's a meaningless wedge issue for people on both sides of the issue. Plus, given Supreme Court precedent at the time, it was quite possibly unconstitutional anyway. Also, I don't think you can call really it infanticide if the abortion occurs pre-viability.


18 USC § 1531:
(b) As used in this section—
(1) the term “partial-birth abortion” means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion—
(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus


Before being banned, "partial birth abortions" were generally in the mid-to-late second trimester (20-26 weeks).

Infanticide is killing an infant.  A 20-week fetus is not an infant regardless of physical location (womb or partly-in-vagina).

Partial birth abortion isn't a medical term. It's just a term invented by the anti abortion people. Republicans like to talk about state's rights but that ban banned it in every state, whether they wanted it or not. More proof that state's rights is only used to help conservatives. They don't give a crap about it where it would help non-conservatives.

The judge would examine the medical opinion(s) of course.  If the opinion(s) met the legal criteria for a late term abortion, the judge would authorize it.

They could do so if they genuinely believed that at the stage the fetus/child/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is aborted it isn't a life.

Yes, the precise method of killing the late term fetus that it is otherwise legal to kill is much ado about nothing. If a late term abortion is to be legal in the given instance, than the safest way medically to kill the fetus and remove it from the womb is of course appropriate.

I preferred this thread when I thought it had this title.