h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I defy anyone to show me a documented medical case of partial birth abortion being nessicary to save the life of the mother.

Simply post your URL here.

First of all, what's your point?

Secondly, what is a PBA?

Why am I doing this? Well, I think the US senate has recently passed a bill banning it, and since the war is not allowed to be talked about on h2g2 anymore, here's another debate if anybody's interested.

And what is partial birth abortion? Here's the facts: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/keyfactsPBA.htm only it may be a little biased being from the National Right to Life (i say "yay!" but you may not) website, if there's another more neutral page telling about this let me know.

The bill (S. 3) legally defines a partial-birth abortion as any abortion in which the baby is delivered "past the navel . . . outside the body of the mother" before being killed.

At that point, the health of the mother is no longer in question. Everywhere I've ever talking about this online, people seem to think a partial birth abortion bill without a life of the mother clause, or just any such law, would cause women to die, which is just totally absurd.

In all my life as a female, I have NEVER heard of this type of abortion in a Western country. I am tempted to shout "WHAT NONSENSE!"...

...but being that I could be ignorant, can I just ask if this is actually factually correct? Or just an overblown shard of propoganda which uses shock tactics to aid a specific cause?

There is such a thing.

Its frequency of use has been blown out of proportion.It is a political move to horrify with the specific details of the technique. It is unlike any other technique of abortion. It is meant to be used only in cases of gross malformation that would lead to death in infancy or soon afterwards. Usually the heads & spines of the babies are grossly abnormal, to say the least.

It is popular US thought the topic is being brought up in order to whip up the anti-abortion votes. The current US party in office,is anti abortion. The supreme court is in danger of losing 1 or 2 judges soon. That will enable the swing of votes to an anti-abortion laws. The reversal of current law.

This topic comes up every time there is a hint of possible change in the supreme court, Presidents & laws.

Am I right in thinking that the 'fragility', if I can put it like that, of the legality of abortion practices in America rests on the precedent created in the Roe Vs Wade case - whicc is why it's always being appealed against and encourages the ervour of interest in the above presendents, judges etc. for that reason unlike in Britain where the abortion act was passed through an act of parliament sometime in the 1960's I think.

Clive -not an expert.

I think the fragility has something to do with the fact that the whole American law system was made to be mallable (in ideal circumstances, that is) - laws are supposed to be repealed if they are eventually found to be unconstitutional.

~Amy + (a pro-lifer who votes pro abortion only because she knows abortion will happen no matter what, and she'd rather it be safe and legal than illegal and dangerous)

A friend of mine had a late abortion of a child with excrutiatingly severe spinabifida and brain damage about 15 years ago. I don't know either how late, or the details of what techniques were used. I do know that labour was induced and the child delivered via the birth canal. It seems likely that a technique similar to this was used. I cannot see that she made the wrong choice.

Ben

Sounds horrifically traumatic to me. I would not want to have to go through that.

Saturnine - pro-choice (but anti-abortion as her choice for herself)

I'll quote the page:

Partial-birth abortions are performed thousands of times annually on healthy babies of healthy mothers. In 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (1997), estimated that the method was used 3,000 to 5,000 times annually. In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Fitzsimmons said. (The New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997, p. A11.) .) In January 2003, even the Alan Guttmacher Institute an affiliate of Planned Parenthood published a survey of abortion providers that estimated that 2,200 abortions were performed by the method in the year 2000.... [that figure] is more than triple the number that AGI estimated in its most recent previous survey (for 1996).

I think the point I'm trying to make is that even if you would normally support the "right" to kill one's children, (though I wouldn't) I think everyone ought to agree that this particular practice is extremely violent and barbaric and should be banned. The mother's health is no longer in question during a partial birth abortion, because the child is already most of the way outside the mother's body, so you cannot argue that killing the child would save the mother, or that a partial birth abortion ban without a life-of-the-mother clause would cause women harm. I am not expressing an extremist opinion, it is the simple truth, that banning partial birth abortion is only humane, to both the mother and the child.

Well, being that you seem to be linking to, and quoting from a site with agenda, how valid is your argument?

Also, are you male? Just out of interest. Because it makes a difference.

Nobody's brought up any good points so far, so I haven't even had to go anywhere. I like the URL-wars kind of debates, hehe, those are fun.

Also, yes I am male. I was born in such a way as to make me a prime canidate for abortion. Thank god my mother was pro-life!

Right. Well. Being that you are foremost male, you have no right to sit there and form a decision on what women should do with their bodies.

Also, you aren't really providing a sound base for an argument. You are using a pro-life website to start a debate. Maybe you should go and find a pro CHOICE website, and a pro-abortion website to balance things out?

Otherwise, this is a pretty weak thread.

The head of health and social services in the US is against all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest.

Perhaps the complete lack of interest in this thread is because of the male opinions present?

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but why are men's oppinions unimportant here? I understand that it is a woman's body, and I believe I feel that it's her choice, but everyone can have an oppinion. I am a woman.

Can someone tell me (link me to) how a "typical," if there is such a thing, abortion is performed. I just want to see how different it is from parital birth abortions. Thanks.

I am a male, I think I should be able to have a say in the abortion debate if I cared about it all that much, which I don't. I appreciate that this is an issue near and dear to women because they are the ones subjected to it, but we are talking about terminating potential human life. As a human I should have a say in it.

I'm pro-choice, but that's not all that important.

I challenge anyone to show me the Constitutional justification for a law banning any form of abotrion. I fail to see how this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

This is a state issue, and it should be settled by state legislatures. I'm extremly displeased with my party for trying to enact this legislation at a national level. Republicans are supposed to support states' rights.

Why is it a state issue? I'm just curious, I'm not debating you're oppinion.