Women

I think and feel the "health of the mother" is an important issue that has its place, whatever reason the politicians involved had in mind.

Hard to legislate "health of the mother." Especially in light of the fact that "health of the mother" is not considered by anyone except the extremists to be a factor in this procedure. It is practically the least healthy option. The "elusive health risk" you speak of is elusive because it is prefabricated in all but the most rare cases, and these would withstand legal challenge, in my opinion. The number of PBAs is alleged by some to be much higher now (I heard 6,000 from one source) than in the days of Congressional testimony.

The debate over the responsibility and the choices made when the conceiving couple chose to have intercourse, as opposed to prenatal reconsiderations, has probably already been hashed out, and we may have to agree to disagree there as well.





Hmmmmm.

Are we done?








"Conservative Christians are treated in the Republican Party as African Americans are treated by the Democratic Party"

...Are CC condescended by the Reps? Are AA by the Dems?
...would you say that Blacks are treated in the Rep. Party as Cons. Christians are treated in the Dem. Party?

Yes. Yes. No.

Both constituencies are taken for granted by their respective parties. Here is the funny thing. Among the Christians in the Black community, who comprise most of the voters I imagine, the same moral/family values and work ethic is held! In these things, the Black churches are often more conservative than White churches! Yet these constituencies, with shared faith & values, are worlds apart in how they vote. Kept that way by exactly the sort of political games that we both detest.

Conservative Christians are not to be found in the Democratic Party. The few and very few exceptions do not even come to mind, a couple of Congressmen from Mississippi, I think. They are not welcomed, and are excluded from leadership or input and are not supported by the party.

Republicans, on the other hand, will actually do backflips to get Blacks to vote GOP. (They just never get around to it.) But they do welcome Blacks into the party and make their sincere but oh-so-clumsy-white overtures from time to time with gradually increasing success. GWBush actually addressed the NAACP meeting and was well received by the general audience. Black conservatives and moderates are becoming more vocal. The Democrats cannot maintain a 95% lock on the Black vote forever...




...Lyndon LaRouche...

Har har hardee har har! :lol:

What a nut! He thinks the Queen of England is behind the Drug Cartels...

He ran in the Democratic Primaries, and he scored ridiculously well, low double digits, against Al Gore after Bill Bradly dropped out.

I had some of his people on my talkshow before, talking about the economy. They are actually surprisingly competent and LaRouche once in a while demonstrates a startlingly clear grasp of The Big Picture...

...then he starts in on the Queen again...




Which brings us back to the topic of this thread!

"Hard to legislate 'health of the mother'"

That would be left to the doctor attending the individual women to decide, of course; it is indeed difficult to give a definition that would that care of all individual cases in the future.
Each of these women that need the abortion are indisputably individuals that must be treated as such.


"Especially in light of the fact that 'health of the mother' is not considered by anyone except the extremists to be a factor in this procedure"

A bold statement that would need proved. You again put these so-called extremists in an all-powerfull position, saying that they emit absolute lies.
These words must be supported by facts, right now they are just words...


"The "elusive health risk" you speak of is elusive because it is prefabricated in all but the most rare cases, and these would withstand legal challenge, in my opinion"

You initially talked about PBA above as a very late term abortion: "the extremely late term (last week) foetus is turned around and partially delivered breach style", which for me meant "9 months minus 1 week".
Now, such kind of abortion, so late, can only be done if the woman's health is at risk, under the present law, right?
And what the "PBA ban" recommendation was supposed to do was to enforce this for late term pregnancies, but willfully excluding the woman's health risk issue, right?

Gil, I can understand that it is difficult to find a way to put in words such a thing as "health risks" for a pregnant woman, especially in legal words, especially for yet unknown cases that may (and will) happen. But to avoid the health risk issue completely is simply to deny that there can ever be a woman in a situation in which her ill health would require the "pba" procedure. Of course you can go on and say that the AMA has said that such a case doesn't exist, but then again it can't predict all the cases that may arise; which is why the decision should ultimately be made by the woman's treating doctor. For this isn't simply a question of statistics, but of individual women, who are indisputably feeling and hurting persons when they seek an abortion.

Again, I maintain my previous position on "PBA" in the late terms you described as above. No such procedure should be done unconditionally.
But I have to oppose as fiercely any proposition that unconditionally ban such a procedure. This just can't be.

But I guess that this would mean compromising on the part of pro-lifers, who, after all, are aiming for an all-out ban in the long run (with a few exceptions, so few...).
Which is why, after all, we can only agree to disagree...


So what should be done?

Well, to make a clearly worded recommendation that re-inforce the illegality of abortion in very late-term pregnancies (as described by Gil above, or third trimester), except in cases where the treating doctor medically judges that the individual case he is treating needs the Dilation-Extraction procedure (what the pro-lifers call "PBA"). And if the particular procedure is to be single-out, then let that procedure be exactly defined and described (unlike "health", a medical procedure is clearly definable).

No Congressman/Congresswoman, no Senator, no President can know the individual cases a doctor is treating; the decision is his, with the accord of the pregnant woman.

If a healthy woman in her 8th month of pregnancy wants an abortion, and that the continuation of her pregnancy would undoubtedly be of no risk at all, then one would have an example of an abominable situation (but which I doubt exists really, unless mental health is an issue...)
Only such cases should be aimed for by legislation; but agains, the health of the woman in question is evaluated by her treating doctor, not a politician.


So, are we done?

I guess not. We won't be the ones voting for or against that anyway...



"Lyndon LaRouche"

I tell you, he even has his minions up here! And these minions are not americans, they are french-quebecers like me, but believing and following him!

But I thought he had run inside the Republican Party...

"Hard to legislate 'health of the mother'"

That would be left to the doctor attending the individual women to decide, of course; it is indeed difficult to give a definition that would that care of all individual cases in the future.

Yeah. You can't. The problem is that the same physicians who lied to Congress (including the inventor of the procedure, who recanted) could easily lie again and say, "Sure, Martha here absolutely needed this PBA! Why, she might have suffered depression otherwise!"


"Especially in light of the fact that 'health of the mother' is not considered by anyone except the extremists to be a factor in this procedure"

A bold statement that would need proved. You again put these so-called extremists in an all-powerfull position, saying that they emit absolute lies. These words must be supported by facts, right now they are just words...

Ah, me. Well, they are not "all powerful" though their will is law right now, and that is mighty powerful indeed.

Mmmmm. I'll concede that a lot of folk, like yourself, for instance, see the legislation as written in such need of the "health" clause that you will not support it as written. But I honestly think this is a mistake because the health concern can be answered without the legislation.

The AMA stongly disputes the health benefits of PBA. The doctor who invented it now says that there is only one purpose for D&E, and that is to provide a PBA. Again, while I appreciate the health risk concern, I think it is overblown. If a doctor decides, for some currently unimaginable reason, that the lesser evil on the operating table is a D&E, then I am certain that his decision would withstand legal challenge, if any.

I should have qualified "anyone" with "the medical community." Bad writing. Among OB GYNs etc, according to the AMA, and also the inventor of D&E, the procedure is simpy PBA and is only performed by abortion providers in any case. These folk, by and large, make a living performing abortions and are not engaged in treating life/health threatening situations anyway.

The argument is spurious, but resonates with the broader issue of "health" in the abortion field.

If the ban says nothing about health, then the issue can be adjudicated if/when it comes up.


...more later... (breakfast/church...)

Seeing that the "offical"abortion thread has been closed....and I am not about to reopen it....abortion debate in this thread will be acceptable. Just wanted you two (and anyone else) to know that. Besides (IMO) I can't think of anyone else that it has to do more with than women.

I'll come back later tonight.
That will give Gil the opportunity to finish his reply.

Eruve, anduin and other women are welcomed here to give their opinions!
It's about you, after all...

You initially talked about PBA above as a very late term abortion: "the extremely late term (last week) foetus is turned around and partially delivered breach style", which for me meant "9 months minus 1 week". Now, such kind of abortion, so late, can only be done if the woman's health is at risk, under the present law, right?

No. Under the present law, precisely as the extremists wish, an abortion can legally be performed at any time with or without reason of health or life as a consideration. This is not what most folks who support abortion rights (the Left) would desire.

I maintain that the status quo is an extreme interpretation that is the law and that probably no one here supports it.


...to avoid the health risk issue completely is simply to deny that there can ever be a woman in a situation in which her ill health would require the "pba" procedure.
...
Again, I maintain my previous position on "PBA" in the late terms you described as above. No such procedure should be done unconditionally.
But I have to oppose as fiercely any proposition that unconditionally ban such a procedure. This just can't be.

Again, I think that adjudication of any hypotheticals is the answer, not legislation that flies in the face of what the medical community knows.

I further do not believe, as we both concluded earlier, that the politicians, Left & Right, will permit reasonable compromise.


We won't be the ones voting for or against that anyway...

Aye, there's the rub. I feel that you and I, despite occassional sharp words, might reach a reasonable compromise in time, but Congress, never. Not while the Executive is in the hands of one party, and the Legislature is controlled by another.

Backing away for a second, I think that any controversial legislation of this nature ought to pass by 2/3 supermajority anyway. You could get that in a Referendum, but not among politicians.

This is another reason why a Federal, one size fits all solution does not work. Allowing States to decide such things, as originally provided for in our Constitution, would let birds of a feather to flock together.

Far less trouble for all if we could locally live and let live!


anduin, I appreciate the special case here. I think that the quantity and the length of posts here has driven off the less serious, and the abortion part of the debate is manageable, but unless I'm mistaken, it's about finished. We know where we each stand I think, on the general issue of Abortion, and need not go there.

This is more a question of the difficulty of finding a compromise between sides that will have none of that, despite the widespread (even on the Left!) desire to see viable foetuses (foetii?) given a chance at survival, and the equally widespread (even on the Right!) concern over the mother's health.

My point was, and I think it is proven, that an extremist agenda is the law of the land in this case, whatever caveats there may be about the proposed ban. This is to the point that an agenda can be (and is) engaged and defended by an extremist group and that this agenda has effective control over far larger groups.

I maintain that a similar process has been engaged by the stringpullers who desire to advance the Communist agenda. Feminism is a useful tool in their hands. Obviously, I do not disagree, I even support, the purported aims of feminism.

But all of us, it seems,
deplore the fierce extremes!

================================================== ================
Well, first of all, something that should be done at least once, posting the bill itself:

Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited

`(a) Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus or infant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

`(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother because her life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, if no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose.

`(c) As used in this section--

`(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the infant and completing the delivery; and

`(2) the terms `fetus' and `infant' are interchangeable.

`(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), the father, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus or infant, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief.

`(2) Such relief shall include--

`(A) money damages for all psychological injuries occasioned by the violation of this section; and

`(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion;

even if the mother consented to the performance of an abortion.

`(3) A civil action may not be commenced under this section if--

`(A) the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct;

`(B) the plaintiff consented to the abortion; or

`(C) the plaintiff is a father who abandoned or abused the mother.

`(e) A woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed may not be prosecuted under this section for a conspiracy to violate this section, or an offense under section 2, 3, or 4 of this title based on a violation of this section.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 73 the following new item:
1531'.

I will add here the Summary:

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit performing a partial birth abortion in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother and no other medical procedure would suffice. Prescribes penalties.

Defines a "partial birth abortion" as an abortion in which a living fetus is partially vaginally delivered and killed before delivery is completed.

Authorizes the father and, if the mother is under 18 years of age, the maternal grandparents of the fetus to obtain specified relief in a civil action, even if the mother consented to the abortion, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct, the plaintiff consented to the abortion, or the plaintiff is a father who abandoned or abused the mother.

Prohibits the prosecution of a woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed for conspiracy to violate this Act or under provisions regarding punishment as a principal or an accessory or for concealment of a felony.



Another interesting link is an article called "Legal Issues in Medicine": Partial-Birth Abortion, Congress, and the Constitution: http://www.nejm.org/content/1998/0339/0004/0279.asp, from the New England Journal of Medicine.

================================================== ================

"The problem is that the same physicians who lied to Congress (including the inventor of the procedure, who recanted) could easily lie again and say, 'Sure, Martha here absolutely needed this PBA! Why, she might have suffered depression otherwise!'"

Oh? And how many of them did lie? (for a certainty, not in your opinion...)

Let's see now what you mean here: if D&X (Dilation and Extraction, what you call PBA) is allowable for health reasons, then a doctor might just "lie" to use the procedure at the woman's request?
And what if there WAS a real health risk in her particular situation, a health risk that your ban just doesn't take into account?

To use such a reason to remove from the woman's doctor the decision of which procedure to perform the abortion just doesn't make sense... except maybe for those who think that most abortions (D&X or not) should be illegal.


"The AMA stongly disputes the health benefits of PBA"

In the context of late-term pregnancies, which for them and the medical world is after 26 weeks. They don't say that these late-term pregnancies can't be health/life threatening; their opposition is on the procedure for these late-term pregnancies, not the abortions themselves. Their position, in fact, is that the D&X (or "pba") procedure is not necessarily the only one to perform the abortion (the opponents of the ban say that D&X is the only procedure for some conditions at some point, after 26 weeks, that would minimize the health risks for the woman).

(D&X is used also before 26 weeks, in the 2nd trimester, but the AMA and in general the legislations do not prevent it at this point, although the ban, which is supposed to prevent D&X in late-term pregnancies -- 26 weeks -- is to many opinions so ill-written that no such time specification is clearly implied... which is exactly what the religious bigots want anyway.)


"If a doctor decides, for some currently unimaginable reason, that the lesser evil on the operating table is a D&E, then I am certain that his decision would withstand legal challenge, if any."

How many though would hesitate because they are afraid of the religious bigots attacks? That hesitation could cost the woman's life. That shouldn't be so.
He/she should be free to decide without the prospect of an unjust trial based upon an unjust legislation.



"Under the present law, precisely as the extremists wish, an abortion can legally be performed at any time with or without reason of health or life as a consideration. This is not what most folks who support abortion rights (the Left) would desire"

I wasn't talking about all abortion, only the D&X. I do know that an abortion can legally, and also legitimally, be performed at most times or pregnancy; in the third semester, especially regarding the woman's health condition. Pro-choicers like me do however question ourselves where is the acceptable limit in the late third trimester.

You did mention the "last week" of pregnancy many posts ago; I was quite shocked at that, thinking that you were saying that abortions were performed where a viable fetus was aborted at one week from normal would-be birth. I'm quite skeptic now that this really happened, if the woman wasn't in any health danger. You have any source on that?

The more I read on this subject, from both sides on the web, the more I see that not all agree about what "late term" means, or in what trimester was the ban on D&X supposed to be, etc...

And of course, I see the pro-lifers as the worse at it, imo; but of course, such is the web, anybody can just make their own sites, and I shouldn't judge every pro-lifer from what I see on the web!!!



"Far less trouble for all if we could locally live and let live!"

And why not apply that at the individual level: let the woman have the last word on what to do with her life?


"My point was, and I think it is proven, that an extremist agenda is the law of the land in this case, whatever caveats there may be about the proposed ban"

Not proven at all.
You have only shown that an ill-written ban by religious bigots that couldn't even amend it by an altogether important and justifiable exception based on health threatening risk, didn't get to be made law.
The present law isn't an extremists' law, it is just a law preventing people (usually religious bigots) from intervening into matters that do not concern them.


"an agenda can be (and is) engaged and defended by an extremist group and that this agenda has effective control over far larger groups"

Hmmm... That reminds me of the so-called "Moral Majority"...
****ola... Some leftists were even afraid of them, they were a bit right, but just a bit... the rest was paranoia...
...and paranoia is just what your sentence is about.

You intend to call them "extremists", then I'll continue to use "religious bigots" to describe the bigots that want to intervene into people's lives to enforce their own relgious biased values.



I will end this post by addressing (again) the issue of "health risk" for the D&X procedure.

A amendment to the ban was proposed by two Democrat woman Senators, that would have added "serious adverse health consequences to the woman" as an additional exception to the prohibition (see the New England Journal of Medicine link above). With this amendment to the bill, concerns from both parties about the application of the procedure would have been mainly answered (not to my taste anymore, but that ain't the point).

But opponents to such kind of an amendment, including you Gil, say that there is no such health risks grave enough to necessitate D&X, and/or that it would permit practitioners to simply lie in order to perform the procedure without beeing prosecuted.

I have a problem with this. These practitioners, including "abortion providers", are doctors. They treat people or assist them in medical-related issues.
Yet, they are refused the possiblity to do what they know how to do: give their medical assesment of the health risks associated with a particular pregnancy for a particular woman.
Some will tell you that there are no such health risks, some others will say there are.
And most of those who are in the medical profession who say there are none, say so only related to the procedure, not the abortion itself: they say that there are other methods of abortion in late-term (after 26 weeks of pregnancy) than D&X; to which other medical praticioners will reply that these other methods increases the stresses and health risks on the woman.

So, then, the medical position on this issue is, anyways, about the procedure, not the abortion itself (to which, I guess, I'll be answered that this is part of an American Communist Conspiracy...).

Refusing to give the doctors and their patients the last word, on the basis that they could lie is also hypothetical.

And this practice of removing a doctor's legitimate ability to judge for himself on a medical situation on the spot -- and to worry about if his legitimate actions are weirdly voted illegal -- is quite worrying.

It is one thing to stop those who would abuse of our system, and the "ban" could have helped stoping that; but by removing from the honest doctors the power to decide when a woman's health is at risk is going too far.

The ban, as written, is unacceptable.

It should include a "health risk" exception
(as well as beeing more precise on technical terms, like "infant"!!!, and at specifying that it is concerned with late-term/after-26-week pregnancies)

It all gets intertwined.

Physicians risk a lawsuit everytime they pick up a scalpel. That's why their malpractic insurance is so high and consequently part of the reason why medical care is more expensive than it should be.

I don't think much of a doctor who would put the risk of a lawsuit by an outside party above the health of the patient.
Congress can write no law that would fully protect the doctor anyway.

Abortion providers are the only ones who do the D&E/PBA procedure.

No one else. It is not used for the health of the mother. It is used for providing an abortion to a woman who has decided she doesn't want her child to live. It was developed to satisfy the practical concerns of being able to perform such a procedure without the regulations that might accompany surgery. Its practical end is abortion, not health. The procedure is performed as late as one week, and that was one reasons (no doubt) for its invention. So that this fuzzy legal situation could exist and a loophole thus created.

As the law reads now, the procedure is legal the day before. I imagine it might even stand up if a doctor decided to perform it after labor began.

I congratulate you on your determination, resourcefulness, and desire to get to the bottom of the issue.

But again and again you demonstrate my precise point that the extremists who want these procedures, do have their way, and furthermore do have you convinced that it is justified over a technicality. This is how an extremist position can dominate a much larger set of people.

My point is proven abundantly.


`(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother because her life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, if no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose.

Again, I think the doctor is amply covered in the extremely unlikely event that a D&E is considered necessary. As a layman, I can only agree with the AMA in this case, which makes the argument that other, less dangerous, procedures are available even so.

The procedure and the amendment are bogus.


Having said that, I do think you have a point about some sort of Third Trimester amendment. We are talking about a single procedure, and the fact that the Pro Life side did not offer an amendment which considered that, is emblematic of their own agenda's goals. I argue with them, saying let's regulate what we can and do what we can with reasonable people who will vote against the extremists given a reasonable opportunity.

Hearts and minds should/must be changed first.

Whatever bill passes and is signed (which I predict will not happen until a Republican is in the Oval Office), there will be a legal challenge.

As for the religious bigots, knowing literally thousands of them as I do, I can only say that they would rather not spend their time and their resources on this. The argument that they just want to tell a woman what to do with her own body because of zealous religious bigotry falls apart upon talking with them. They believe that life begins at conception and that it is more than the unfortunate or errant woman who's life and health are at risk. And for a father to have no say in the matter is a further matter that is not sufficiently answered by the argument that it is the woman's body, so there!

"Abortion providers are the only ones who do the D&E/PBA procedure.
No one else. It is not used for the health of the mother."

Then in that case, the amendment wouldn't apply, so this cannot be an argument against the amendment.


"It was developed to satisfy the practical concerns of being able to perform such a procedure without the regulations that might accompany surgery. Its practical end is abortion, not health."

Let's not get too much out of the debate here: were are talking (I hope we agree) about D&X performed in the late stages of the third semester.
That the D&X method is used in the second trimester as only an abortive method is not what the "ban" was specifically about (unless one wants to give a fuzzier meaning to "late term"), and it shouldn't.

The regulation of D&X in late third trimester/after 26 weeks is what it's about; it is for that period that the health of the woman should be made an exception, and judged by her doctor, not a far away politician.

So an important thing people must remember in this debate, is when some people are saying that a lot of D&X, or PBAs, are performed, one must make sure at what stage of pregnancy these numbers (if any) are quoted.

And if the D&X procedure is made illegal as written in the ban, then there are the other methods, which increase the health risk of the woman, but which wouldn't be covered by the ban.
If the cranium cannot be reduced in size, then such methods closely akin to a Cezarian can be used, increasing the risk of infection...
But in that case I guess the religious bigots would call that a judgement from their god...


"As the law reads now, the procedure is legal the day before. I imagine it might even stand up if a doctor decided to perform it after labor began."

You imply here that in the US it is legal to abort a 9 month old fetus, even if its mother is completely healthy, and if itself is completely healthy, just at the woman's whim...

Can you provided me a source of information where I could verify that the above exemple does occur, even for abortions past 26 weeks? or even 24 weeks?


I'd like here to link people to this information: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Answers Questions on Third Trimester Termination Procedures (http://www.bodypolitic.org/mag/back/art/0701pg21.htm)
A very important page to read, imo, and can prevent future misconceptions (no pun intended).


"They [the religious bigots] believe that life begins at conception and that it is more than the unfortunate or errant woman who's life and health are at risk."

That's their belief. Why should they impose their religious bias on others about other's personal lives?


"And for a father to have no say in the matter is a further matter that is not sufficiently answered by the argument that it is the woman's body"

Again, I have to quote myself:

"- "the foetus is inside the woman's womb, and it is the woman who would have to go on with the pregnancy against her will, while the man would only be there and wait...

- "the man who ejaculated in the woman some months ago couldn't/shoudn't have that much power of decision on the woman's continuation or not of pregnancy.

It is NOT only about the fact that it's the woman's body: it's about her life, physically and psychologically, wholly. That the man who ejaculated in her a few months ago have the power to force her against her will to continue her pregnancy when she doesn't want, now that would be a clear case of unjust domination..."

- "(...)this just can't be a question of women wanting to dominate men: it's simply a question of women wanting to keep their right over how to live their personal lives."

- "The actual law is hardly a case of dominion over man"

I appreciate your diligence, and if you feel that I have not sufficiently answered the main points of my argument I will accept that.

I will also disagree if you think that means that I think you have proven your argument. It only means that I will at some point decline to continue working to disprove a multitude of points.

I don't mean to be discourteous, I'm just simply not inclined to continue much longer.

I'm obviously not trying to match your diligence here. I'm sorry about that, but I'm really just something of a diletant (sp). My heart is not in this, and so I do not give your work the attention it deserves, and I apologise. But let me for courtesy sake try to answer your last post.



"Abortion providers are the only ones who do the D&E/PBA procedure. No one else. It is not used for the health of the mother."

Then in that case, the amendment wouldn't apply, so this cannot be an argument against the amendment.

Or, it means that the amendment itself has no argument against the ban as written.


The regulation of D&X in late third trimester/after 26 weeks is what it's about; it is for that period that the health of the woman should be made an exception, and judged by her doctor, not a far away politician.

Exactly. The previous point I made pertains. The amendment simply adds too much wiggle-room for the unscrupulous. It would be interesting to know if the conception (pun intended) of the amendment began in a lawyer's office or a doctor's. The language of the ban itself provided all of the necessary leeway for the doctor's judgement in a real medical crisis.

The news of the last couple of days contains an illustration of why the amendment is unecessary. As I was pointing out, the judicial branch of government can be trusted to handle any legal problems.

A pair of cojoined infants (Siamese Twins, the 19th century vulgarization) had to be separated or they both would die. The rub was that only one could live.

The religious extremist [I decline to use the inflammatory term "bigot" again] parents thought it wrong to make the choice of which one should live and which should die.

On an expedited basis, the case was handled and the ruling was in favor of the doctors against the parents.


***
I think are agreed about the need to ban PBAs, but we may never sort out the HOW from the WHY as to the main point of my use of the issue to support my contention that the influence of the Feminist extremists is pervasive.

That was the point (I think!?!) and I believe it is proven.

The only folks fighting for PBA is the abortion industry and the Feminists and their fellow travelers in Congress. The majority of folk, on the Left as well, I think, agree that the ban should take place. The potential for disagreement between politicians seeking to hold power on/over the Right and the Left has been used skillfully to maintain the practice by continuing to divide Right and Left.


"As the law reads now, the procedure is legal the day before. I imagine it might even stand up if a doctor decided to perform it after labor began."

You imply here that in the US it is legal to abort a 9 month old fetus, even if its mother is completely healthy, and if itself is completely healthy, just at the woman's whim...

Can you provided me a source of information where I could verify that the above exemple does occur, even for abortions past 26 weeks? or even 24 weeks?

This is a reasonable request. I don't know if I can find it or not, since I didn't learn of it on the internet and I have not recorded broadcasts I have seen/heard or saved clippings from periodicals/newspapers I have read.

I can look and see if there is anything verifiable on the net. (Actually, you seem better at that sort of thing than me! But I'll see what I can find!) Would you accept a "Christian" source?


"They [Pro Life adherents] believe that life begins at conception and that it is more than the unfortunate or errant woman who's life and health are at risk."

That's their belief. Why should they impose their religious bias on others about other's personal lives?

What if the religious bias is right? What if the secular bias is wrong, born from desire, rather than from evidence?

You do not know when Life begins. Conception makes as much sense as any other arbitrary point in the pregnancy you might name.

In any given region of political autonomy, one side or the other will have their bias enforced. Which is why I think autonomy should be more regionalized than it is.

But in terms of a compromise since regional autonomy is unlikely, I believe that health can be understood as an overiding concern prior to viability, after which Life or Death choices must be in the physician's hands.

(But even that will have as many loopholes as lawyers can concoct!)

I appreciate your diligence, and if you feel that I have not sufficiently answered the main points of my argument I will accept that.

I will also disagree if you think that means that I think you have proven your argument. It only means that I will at some point decline to continue working to disprove a multitude of points.

I don't mean to be discourteous, I'm just simply not inclined to continue much longer.

I'm obviously not trying to match your diligence here. I'm sorry about that, but I'm really just something of a diletant (sp). My heart is not in this, and so I do not give your work the attention it deserves, and I apologise. But let me for courtesy sake try to answer your last post.



"Abortion providers are the only ones who do the D&E/PBA procedure. No one else. It is not used for the health of the mother."

Then in that case, the amendment wouldn't apply, so this cannot be an argument against the amendment.

Or, it means that the amendment itself has no argument against the ban as written.


The regulation of D&X in late third trimester/after 26 weeks is what it's about; it is for that period that the health of the woman should be made an exception, and judged by her doctor, not a far away politician.

Exactly. The previous point I made pertains. The amendment simply adds too much wiggle-room for the unscrupulous. It would be interesting to know if the conception (pun intended) of the amendment began in a lawyer's office or a doctor's. The language of the ban itself provided all of the necessary leeway for the doctor's judgement in a real medical crisis.

The news of the last couple of days contains an illustration of why the amendment is unecessary. As I was pointing out, the judicial branch of government can be trusted to handle any legal problems.

A pair of cojoined infants (Siamese Twins, the 19th century vulgarization) had to be separated or they both would die. The rub was that only one could live.

The religious extremist [I decline to use the inflammatory term "bigot" again] parents thought it wrong to make the choice of which one should live and which should die.

On an expedited basis, the case was handled and the ruling was in favor of the doctors against the parents.


***
I think are agreed about the need to ban PBAs, but we may never sort out the HOW from the WHY as to the main point of my use of the issue to support my contention that the influence of the Feminist extremists is pervasive.

That was the point (I think!?!) and I believe it is proven.

The only folks fighting for PBA is the abortion industry and the Feminists and their fellow travelers in Congress. The majority of folk, on the Left as well, I think, agree that the ban should take place. The potential for disagreement between politicians seeking to hold power on/over the Right and the Left has been used skillfully to maintain the practice by continuing to divide Right and Left.


"As the law reads now, the procedure is legal the day before. I imagine it might even stand up if a doctor decided to perform it after labor began."

You imply here that in the US it is legal to abort a 9 month old fetus, even if its mother is completely healthy, and if itself is completely healthy, just at the woman's whim...

Can you provided me a source of information where I could verify that the above exemple does occur, even for abortions past 26 weeks? or even 24 weeks?

This is a reasonable request. I don't know if I can find it or not, since I didn't learn of it on the internet and I have not recorded broadcasts I have seen/heard or saved clippings from periodicals/newspapers I have read.

I can look and see if there is anything verifiable on the net. (Actually, you seem better at that sort of thing than me! But I'll see what I can find!) Would you accept a "Christian" source?


"They [Pro Life adherents] believe that life begins at conception and that it is more than the unfortunate or errant woman who's life and health are at risk."

That's their belief. Why should they impose their religious bias on others about other's personal lives?

What if the religious bias is right? What if the secular bias is wrong, born from desire, rather than from evidence?

You do not know when Life begins. Conception makes as much sense as any other arbitrary point in the pregnancy you might name.

In any given region of political autonomy, one side or the other will have their bias enforced. Which is why I think autonomy should be more regionalized than it is.

But in terms of a compromise since regional autonomy is unlikely, I believe that health can be understood as an overiding concern prior to viability, after which Life or Death choices must be in the physician's hands.

(But even that will have as many loopholes as lawyers can concoct!)



"And for a father to have no say in the matter is a further matter that is not sufficiently answered by the argument that it is the woman's body"

Again, I have to quote myself:
...the foetus is inside the woman's womb, and it is the woman who would have to go on with the pregnancy against her will, while the man would only be there and wait...

Have you ever waited with a wife bearing a child? I have heard that a husband might have quite a lot to do...

It is NOT only about the fact that it's the woman's body: it's about her life, physically and psychologically, wholly.

This is NOT about men at all is it?

That the man who ejaculated in her a few months ago have the power to force her against her will to continue her pregnancy when she doesn't want, now that would be a clear case of unjust domination..."

If he forced her against her will to conceive, that is rape, one of the exceptions that most Pro Lifers are willing to tolerate. If it was consensual, then they were taking their chances.

Drugs feel good, too. Doing some of them can have unintended but predictable consequences, too. If the consequence of sex is birth, then it also involves another individual, more arguably so in a legal sense, after viability.

- "(...)this just can't be a question of women wanting to dominate men: it's simply a question of women wanting to keep their right over how to live their personal lives."

This is NOT only NOT about the man, it is NOT about the infant. It is ONLY about the woman.

- "The actual law is hardly a case of dominion over man"

The reproductive rights of men are of no weight whatsoever, by law, as the Feminists intended.


Men are dominated.


================================================== =========

I'll try to take time to check out the link you provided.

"'Then in that case, the amendment wouldn't apply, so this cannot be an argument against the amendment.'
Or, it means that the amendment itself has no argument against the ban as written"

The ban, as written, removes from the doctor his/her prerogative to judge wheter the particular condition on the treated woman in the late term (after 26 weeks, say) of her pregnancy endangers severely her health. The amendment gives them back this possibility.

So, that the ban has been vetoed out, is not some kind of victory for so-called "extremists" Feminists; it is rather a defeat for those religious bigots that anyway wanted a fuzzy legislation that could be misinterpreted or extended to other kinds of abortions or at other stages of the woman's pregnancy.

The present law on abortion is in no way the result of so-called "Feminist extremists"; that feminism and other advances of our societies have made it is undeniable.

The religious bigots' will to ultimately prevent women from having any choice in having an abortion or not is a regression in individual freedom.

BTW:

extremist : (noun) somebody with extreme opinions: somebody who holds extreme or radical political or religious beliefs

bigot (noun) intolerant person: somebody who has very strong opinions, especially on matters of politics, religion, or ethnicity, and refuses to accept different views

Feminism isn't necessarily extremist; imo, the extremist' factions inside feminism haven't much impact on today's society. What Gil try to describe as extremist feminism is rather a feminism that is extemely far from what he would accept... but that doesn't make it extremist Feminism!
The actual law on abortion, and the veto of the ill-written ban discussed here, are no extremist point of view; the TRUE extremists are those that wrote the ban, excluding from it legitimate exceptions, and refused an amendment that would have put in those exceptions and insured it to become law. The TRUE extemists are those that ultimately attack individual freedom and try to push down other people's troath their beliefs, especially when it doesn't concern the religious bigots themselves.

As for bigotism, as defined above, it applies oh! so well to the mainstream political religious zelots that try to legislate other people's ways of living their personal lives. The main point in that definition is intolerance. The feminists/Feminists may be insistant on what they believe, but it is about individual freedom, about what individuals can have the right to do with themselves, in the matter of abortion. Whereas the Religious Right (in its political incarnation at least) is about intervening in that personal area, without care of what those women want for themselves. That is intolerance. That is religious bigotism.


"The language of the ban itself provided all of the necessary leeway for the doctor's judgement in a real medical crisis."

No. Read again. It only talks about life-endangerment, without talking about health endangerment. You might say this last one doesn't exist, but others do. And anyway, that should be for the doctor to decide.
The amendment isn't bogus; without this amendment (which was a compromise in itself from the "left"), the ban is utterly unacceptable.
In fact, the more I read it, and the more I see its description from relgious bigots web sites, the more I see that it should entirely be rewritten so as to me more precise as to the medical terms and procedures.


"I think are agreed about the need to ban PBAs"

Rather, to regulate them, and only for late third trimester abortions, so as to ensure that they are done for health risk reasons if the fetus is viable.


"The only folks fighting for PBA is the abortion industry and the Feminists and their fellow travelers in Congress. The majority of folk, on the Left as well, I think, agree that the ban should take place. The potential for disagreement between politicians seeking to hold power on/over the Right and the Left has been used skillfully to maintain the practice by continuing to divide Right and Left.
"

If by PBA you mean D&X, then you can't say that the "majority of folks on the Left as well" are against D&X; the ban we were talking about in this thread is supposed to be that procedure as taken place in late third trimester of pregnancy. That this may not still be clear is a direct result of the ill-written/well-scheamed ban the bigots have proposed.


-'As the law reads now, the procedure is legal the day before. I imagine it might even stand up if a doctor decided to perform it after labor began.'
-'Can you provided me a source of information(...)s?'
-'I can look and see if there is anything verifiable on the net. (...) Would you accept a "Christian" source?'

I can accept a christian source. Wheter I can accept a bigoted source (right or left) is another question... Please choose it carefully. I've seen some "christian" source stupidely saying that abortion and feminists are works of the antichrist... I hope you won't give me that kind of bull*** of a site!
Also, please consider the link I gave in my previous post, and do consider again my original question:
"You imply here that in the US it is legal to abort a 9 month old fetus, even if its mother is completely healthy , and if itself is completely healthy , just at the woman's whim...
Can you provided me a source of information where I could verify that the above exemple does occur, even for abortions past 26 weeks ? or even 24 weeks?"


"What if the religious bias is right? What if the secular bias is wrong, born from desire, rather than from evidence?
"

Since we can know with absolute certainty on neither, the individuals should make their own choices here, concerning abortion.
Women, under the present law, have that choice. A choice that the religious minded people (ok, i'll let go of "bigots", even if you won't let go of "extremists") want to crush out.


"On an expedited basis, the case [Siamese twins] was handled and the ruling was in favor of the doctors against the parents"

Of course, these were not fetuses (fetii?, don't know either!).
But that's not your point anyways.
In the case of abortion, the pregnant woman and the doctor agree; noone from outside has anything to do with it... but of course, as one can read, the ill-written ban mentions that the plaintiff can not only be the male genitor ("father"), but also the grand-parents if the woman is less than 18 y.old. Unacceptable as well, and it's a wonder why an amendment on that wasn't asked for... too much compromises were made already by the left by asking only the health risk amendment, but still people like you wouldn't accept that.


"If it was consensual, then they were taking their chances.
"

They take their chances if they don't use proper contraception methods (which a lot of religious extremists also want banned, not surprisingly...).
But obviously, if the woman becomes pregnant, then she's the one that will be physically affected by the pregnancy; the man, mostly, has to wait. And if the "Right" has its way, he can force the woman to continue her pregnancy against her will, with all that this implies for her physically and mentally.
That's undue domination of the man over and against the woman.


"- '(...)this just can't be a question of women wanting to dominate men: it's simply a question of women wanting to keep their right over how to live their personal lives.'
This is NOT only NOT about the man, it is NOT about the infant. It is ONLY about the woman."

Because only the woman is concerned here. It is not the man's life and health and condition which is at stake. This is a pregnancy, which is a dramatic change in a woman's life and body. And so it should be her choice, and her choice only, wheter or not to continue her pregnancy; and she can consult whomever she wants to take her decision. But the decision is hers.
As for the fetus, giving it full human rights is only a way for the religious extremists to push down other people's throats their beliefs.


"The reproductive rights of men are of no weight whatsoever, by law, as the Feminists intended"

On birth of the child, then they have their rights relative to the child.
What religious extremists want, ultimately, is that the male genitor have as much right as the pregnant woman from the moment of conception, going as far has giving him the right to force the woman to continue her pregnancy against her will if she doesn't want the continuation.
The actual law is no dominion over man.
But the religious extremists do want to go back to a time and laws when and where women were under the dominion of men.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." --1 Corinthian 14:34-35




"I'm obviously not trying to match your diligence here. I'm sorry about that, but I'm really just something of a diletant (sp). My heart is not in this, and so I do not give your work the attention it deserves, and I apologise."

As I said many posts ago, this isn't a time limited thread.
We have all the time we care to give it.


And maybe, just maybe, others will also post their opinions here.
Especially the ladies...

We've reached a point where I beleive we are simply finding ways to repeat our positions.

If the difference between extremist and bigot is a matter of whether or not the extremist will tolerate the transgression of their beliefs, then I submit that I could as easily and as justly apply the term bigot to a lot of folk on the Left.

Whereas the Religious Right (in its political incarnation at least) is about intervening in that personal area, without care of what those women want for themselves. That is intolerance. That is religious bigotism.

Said the Religious Bigot: "Whereas the Godless Left (in its political incarnation at least) is about intervening in that sacred area, without care of what God wants Himself. That is folly. That is atheist arrogance."

But that has not been the thrust of my debate. Here is where I depart from the political Religious Right. (As a matter of fact, I served as County chairman of the local branch of the Christian Coalition and was a founding board member. It made the front page when I resigned.)

As I have said, my indictment against the Church that I rebuke and the Republicans that I excoriate is worse than my observation about the intent and influence of the extremists of the Left. I sometimes do not have words to express what I feel about that.

I'm glad you have decided to drop the noun. Extremist will do, and it serves this debate well enough.






***
The point I was making about the Siamese Twins case this very week, is that the judicial system can be trusted to do the right thing. It is obviously not the intent of the ban as written to destroy a mother's health. Any such situation involving a birth that caused such dire health concerns would be life-threatening, too, without a doubt.

Again, the medical community is against it. The abortion providers are for it.

"Health" without the technical definitions you want to see legislated is too vague.

"Health" with the technical definitions you want to see legislated would in itself create problems galore.

The essential political problem again comes around to Big vs. Little Government.

There is a societal problem that society is not dealing with and so needs a government solution. The question then becomes a matter of how much or how little involvement is needed.

If we must by law, start precisely defining "Health" for all circumstances (and this is precisely how such things start), then, in the long run, you are removing the judgement of the doctor and the patient for far more than this procedure.

The intent of the ban is clear, and if we cannot trust our judiciary to maintain its proper interpretation, then we must change our entire system of government, starting with the medical community.

The "health" issue down here remains one of the great battlelines between Right and Left. We currently have the best medical industry in the world, for all its faults. We have no wish to socialize it, and wind up with something like what the rest of the world has. But we are being taken there incrementally, since the Clinton health care takeover failed in 1993.

*ding*

...and I'm out of time! Off to work!

I just wanted to respond to the comment Gil made about the man having a role during childbirth and labour. Thirty years ago the father did not have any other role than to take his wife to the hospital, pace in the waiting room and hand out cigars when it was over. Going back further, when women gave birth at home, the woman was encouraged through labour and childbirth by a mid-wife and her female relatives. Again, the father waited downstairs and paced, having fetched the mid-wife. I would say that the father's greater involvement in a woman's pregnancy (child-birth classes, encouraging the woman through labour, attendance at and participation in the birth) is a result of some of the feminism you seem to revile Gil. So on one hand, according to you they want to take away paternal rights, while on the other, as I see things, they have given more of these rights to men.

"If the difference between extremist and bigot is a matter of whether or not the extremist will tolerate the transgression of their beliefs, then I submit that I could as easily and as justly apply the term bigot to a lot of folk on the Left."

As clearly seen and defined, the views you represent can very well be said to be extremist.
But you use that word about feminists like a burning arrow, what you yourself would call "inflamatory" if coming from someone else.
You are no less extremist than those you accuse them to be.


"I'm glad you have decided to drop the noun. Extremist will do, and it serves this debate well enough"

The noun bigot was as well deserved, if not more, by the relgigious extermists in politics and elsewhere, than the word extremist mis-applied to the actions of feminists and those like me who support their views.
Again, the only extremism I can understand in the feminist view is that they are extremely far from what you would like them to say (ie that the man who enpregnated a woman has the right to force her against her will to continue her pregnancy, even if her doctor say it will leave her with severe health problems).

I'm not glad to drop the noun, for it is an appropriate response to your mis-labeling of feminism. I drop it because I can't play your game to that extreme...



"The point I was making about the Siamese Twins case this very week, is that the judicial system can be trusted to do the right thing"

It would be wrong to delay an abortion for health reasons because of an ill-conceived legislation that would require a judge to decide if the doctor is right or not about his diagnosis of the situation.
The doctor should be the one to make that decision, with the ascent of the woman.


"Again, the medical community is against it. The abortion providers are for it"

Firstly, you talk about "abortion providers" as if they were not part of the medical community. They are part of it.

Secondly, you seem to think the AMA is the medical community. Wrong.
Read the link I gave about the New England Journal of Medicine.


"'Health' without the technical definitions you want to see legislated is too vague.
'Health' with the technical definitions you want to see legislated would in itself create problems galore."

But without any "health risk" exception, that ban of yours is unjust, untrustable, and much, much more vague than any notion of "health" one could conceive.


"If we must by law, start precisely defining "Health" for all circumstances (...) you are removing the judgement of the doctor and the patient for far more than this procedure"

One must leave it to the doctor to decide if the woman's health is at risk or not.
To say that a doctor could lie just to give the woman an abortion is the ultimate way to remove from him/her the judgment of the situation, which is what the ban advocates.


"The intent of the ban is clear, and if we cannot trust our judiciary to maintain its proper interpretation, then we must change our entire system of government, starting with the medical community."

The ban clearly doesn't include the woman's health risk as an exception, only her life risk. The ban is clear in removing from the doctor the power to judge if the woman's health is at risk.


"We currently have the best medical industry in the world, for all its faults. We have no wish to socialize it, and wind up with something like what the rest of the world has"

What do you mean by that?
Do you mean that it is a good thing if people who can't afford proper medical insurance receive medical attention of less quality?

A health care system doesn't exist to make profits. By definition and need, it will lose money, which the state should absord the cost.

But of course, that is our opinion up here; maybe we're too 'liberal' for you folks down there...



Eruve

Glad to see you back.
A post to the point.
I should learn to make such posts one day!

Eruve, I do not revile feminism, certainly not in the textbook/dictionary context. My argument is with the extremists who have succeded in pressing their agenda.

In a dialectic sense, we have had (in law & custom) thesis: Patriarchy, we now have antithesis: Matriarchy, and it is to be hoped that some reasonable synthesis will derive. This debate is an example of how such things happen. If they happen at all. When they don't, the result has historically been bloodshed. That is an evil I would see averted. Regional autonomy, or tyranny, seem to be the only alternatives offered. As this debate illustrates, the two sides are very far apart in terms of a fundamental worldview and it is difficult to even understand how the other side arrives at its conclusions.

As I said in an earlier post, I support quite a lot of the notions of feminism.

And please don't believe the stereotypes and the revisionism that suggests, indeed, demands that we believe, that husbands had little to do with helping their wives through pregnancy prior to the counter-cultural revolution.

I suggest rather that in every house where love dwelt, there were attentive nurturing husbands. If they had known of Lamaze breathing back then, I imagine they would have done it. It is unfair to judge the Past by the Present.

I don't believe the recent trends you mention are a matter of the rights of men. They are, rather, modern improvements in our understanding of how to nurture a family that certainly owe much of their adoption to the feminist movement.

But the fact remains that an extremist position is law. The argument that the attempt to overthrow the law by other extremists is moot.

PBAs are legal and paternal rights are trammeled. This is the irrefutable situation at hand.



juntel, for what its worth, I would not have the father make the entire decision. Such things can be expedited so that a judge can make a fair and impartial decision in a timely fashion, where such laws obtain.


================================================== ========

My boss will be back from the dentist soon, and I have taken too much time!

I sincerely hope you don't think we are in a matriachy!

matriarchy
1. social order where women have power : a form of social order where women are in charge and are recognized as the heads of families, with power, lineage, and inheritance passing, where possible, from mothers to daughters
2. community where women have power : any community, society, or social group that is based on matriarchy. Also called matriarchate
3. organization where women have power : any form of organization or government where women have power

patriarchy
1. social system in which men dominate : a social system in which men are regarded as the authority within the family and society, and in which power and possessions are passed on from father to son
2. patriarchal society : a form of society based on a system of patriarchy


Evidently, none of the two definitions completely apply to our two societies (US and Canada).
But of the two, matriarchy is very very far from what we have, whereas patriarchy is very close still.

And let me point out that getting away from patriarchy doesn't get us closer to matriarchy.


"But the fact remains that an extremist position is law"

Not a fact, but a belief comming from an opposing set of belief.
What is law right now is a more just position that what the religious extremist would like to have, which their ban was but one element.


"PBAs are legal and paternal rights are trammeled"

D&Xs are legal, as described in the link that I gave you (from New England Journal of Medicine).
Paternal rights are where they are needed: after birth; before that, giving the male genitor an undue right over the woman's choice to force her to continue her pregnancy against her will would be more than extremist: it would be going back to days when... well... to days when religious extremist where in full power.

There will never be a consensus reached.

I must admit, Gilthalion, that I really didn't see the merit of your idea about it being decided on a state-by-state basis before.

However, I must say that it's looking quite appealing right now... In fact, it would seem that this is an issue of such severity that it would justify separation here in Canada, where state-by-state decisions are not an option...

Would it justify it??? Well, let's do it. What's your opinion so I be against?

Fine, here's my opinion.

Abortion is cold-blooded, paid murder.
In all trimesters.
Under all circumstances EXCEPT FOR ONE.
At any point after conception.

The one exception?

When the life (not the "health") of the mother is on the line.

And if I felt that, if Saskatchewan separated, this would be put into the law, I would gladly vote to separate from the rest of Canada.

Some things are simply more important than taxes, or money, or the flag.

And I think that the lives of hundreds of thousands of defenseless humans is one of those things.