BlogHer - Your Body and Health? Self-Autonomy Not Yours if You are a Woman - Comments

The term was also developed

nelle2nelle — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:32:25 -0500

The term was also developed for the purpose of going after abortion rights as a whole... see the NPR article linked to in one of my other posts in this thread.

nelle

Opinion

shelleyp — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:08:23 -0500

People are expressing opinions that differ from yours -- your assertions are really no less 'rhetoric' than supposedly what we're saying.

What does differ is that we don't seek to enforce our opinions on you; you do seek to enforce your opinion on us. Nothing will ever change that -- no one is forcing you to have an abortion, but you're trying to force others from not having that choice.

People don't have abortions because it's easy and it's a quick form of birth control. The vast majority -- if not all -- of late term abortions is because something is terribly wrong with the fetus, or having the baby or continuing to carry the baby could be dangerous for the mother.

Let me ask you: would you rather both the mother and baby die together? As long as it's not 'grusome', is that alright then?

Actually, I believe you're also in error about what the fetus does or does not feel -- so perhaps your indulging in a little rhetoric yourself, no? Or are you a qualified medical person, and have specific evidence of this?

The term "partial birth" is

Dana J. Tuszke — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:42:19 -0500

The term "partial birth" is not misleading. It is just that.

My comment below describes the procedure. It's cruel and awful.

Dana from The Dana Files.

This is not a step down,

Dana J. Tuszke — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:37:03 -0500

This is not a step down, finally it is a step up. Partial birth abortion is cruel and violent.

The Supreme Court describes the act perfectly:

The Act does not regulate the most common abortion procedures used in the first trimester of pregnancy, when the vast majority of abortions take place. In the usual second-trimester procedure, "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), the doctor dilates the cervix and then inserts surgical instruments into the uterus and maneuvers them to grab the fetus and pull it back through the cervix and vagina. The fetus is usually ripped apart as it is removed, and the doctor may take 10 to 15 passes to remove it in its entirety."

While you've referenced the right of those of us who are religious to believe what we wish, one would hope that even those who are atheists would believe this to be a terrible and inhumane way to die. This is not destroying the separation of church and state. We're not talking about the left's excuse that "it's just a bunch of cells". This is an actual fetus being destroyed and killed.

I'm happy to see that the court has upheld this ban.

Dana from The Dana Files.

Mom101If you want to talk

Terri987 — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:39:58 -0500

Mom101

If you want to talk about rhetoric, merely read this thread and any other on abortion. Most of what is written here is rhetoric. When I enter these discussions, that is all that is thrown at me.

You may think it's insulting, but I have yet to see one pro-choice person voice agreement about placing ANY limits on abortion. Sure there may be an expression of "well, we wish it didn't have to happen," but I have never heard, on this thread, on the national news, or in everyday life, a pro-choice person say that there is ever an inapproppriate time for abortion or a type of procedure that is too ghastly.

This type of abortion is gruesome and horrible. The doctor literally crushes the skull of the infant as it is being born, or dismembers it in the womb before removing it. That is horrible. There is no getting around it. The baby, itself, is not given any anaesthetic. It is not drugged and then removed. Their nervous sytems are fully developed. We dont even put animals down in such a brutal manner. That is not rhetoric. That is cold, hard fact.

Wheat Among Tares

Check out...

nelle2nelle — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:43:18 -0500

the stats and such at Guttmacher Institute. The vast majority of later term abortions are for health reasons. And really, if one thinks about it... if you carry that amount of time, it really is unlikely one will terminate unless health is an issue.

nelle

Very concerned about this....

Mom101 — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:18:10 -0500

When I see the arguments from the anti-abortion pov rise to the rhetoric of discussing 7 month abortions...well let me not pull punches here. It's ridiculous.

I'd like to know where you're getting the perspective that pro-choice advocates are all fine with third trimester terminations without giving it another thought. It's insulting, if I may be frank. The vast vast vast majority of women do not approach this topic lightly at all and I know of none who do not have their own limits.

This aside, terms like "partial birth" only serve to inflame and mislead further. The whole debate has become a semantic game now, and the winner is the side who can come up with the most visceral terminology, the most headline grabbing phrase.

Sadly, facts, science, progress and common sense are often the losers. At least today.

Thanks for this Suzanne.

http://mom-101.blogspot.com

We're sliding...

nelle2nelle — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:50:04 -0500

One can only imagine where we go from here. Ginsburg became my hero today...

First, this NPR article.

For all those who think this ruling is a good thing, abortion cannot be stopped by prohibition. What it does is marginalise and criminalise, forcing women into more dangerous situations.

Not all, but certainly some that I encounter also are for abstinence only teaching, and to me... that is contradictory. So too being against universal health care.

Yes, I know this is banning d & x and not abortion... but is there any doubt this was done to clear the path for increasingly restrictive steps?

Margaret Atwood, I curse you for writing A Handmaid's Tale (and having a copy land in front of my nose.)

nelle

Here Here

shelleyp — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:57:28 -0500

Well put, well said, well argued.

Questions are always fine

Suzanne Reisman — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:01:07 -0500

It's not wrong to ask whether it is wrong for a healthy woman to abort a healthy 7 months fetus, but people who ask the question must be willing to accept the reality that it doesn't happen. Plus, this decision is NOT about healthy women aborting healthy 7 month old fetuses, it is about preventing unhealthy women from getting medical procedure that can help them.

Also, in my mind, there is no method of abortion that is wrong if it preserves the health and life of the woman. It sucks that anyone has to have one, and my priority is always to make it safest. If that sounds barbaric, so be it.

Suzanne, BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminsim & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Excellent resource

Suzanne Reisman — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:43:15 -0500

Thanks SJ. I will absolutely use this chart in the future!

Suzanne, BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminsim & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Well put, Suzanne. I like

iasshole — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:37:09 -0500

Well put, Suzanne. I like the way you're cutting through a lot of the histrionics and hyperbole that surround an issue like this.

But if you're going to keep making posts like this, you're going to need this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v498/Scorpi084/FETUS.gif

Suzanne, I never said that

Terri987 — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:23:29 -0500

Suzanne,

I never said that these abortions represent the majority of abortions performed on women.

My understanding is that this applies to third-trimester pregnancies. 21 weeks is not in the third trimester. Seven months is the beginning of the third trimester which is why I use it as an example.

Pro-choice people are always throwing out the hypothetical questions to pro-life people: What if it's rape? what if it's incest? What if the mother's life is in danger?

Why is it so horrible to ask a question in that same vein. What if a healthy seven-months-pregnant woman wants an abortion? IS it always OK? Is there ever a time to say NO?!

Is there ever a method of abortion that is wrong?

Wheat Among Tares

I'm very disturbed by this ruling..

zchamu — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:15:29 -0500

I'm horrified at this ruling, not in the least because the "logic" and "reasoning" and "facts" behind it are completely flawed, if not outright false.

If you want to make a law, make a law. But don't completely misrepresent the facts in order to do so. What on earth does that say about the people who voted for this ruling? Are they naive, do they not fact check for themselves, or do they simply choose the facts that fit their political agenda?

Wait, this is the same government who swore there were WMDs in Iraq. Never mind, I answered my own question.

ThreeSeven... not just a number anymore

Talk about misleading!!!

Suzanne Reisman — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:02:19 -0500

Technically, abortion is legal until 28 weeks, but it is so rarely done on healthy women with healthy fetuses that it makes no sense to ban an entire procedure based on the arguement that women callously and commonly choose to about fetuses that cross the line of viability. A mere 1.2% of abortions in the US take place after 21 weeks, a far cry from your example of 7 months!!!! Only 2% of abortion providers in the US even offer abortions up to 26 weeks, and a whopping 2 clinics do procedures up to 28 weeks. The vast majority of those procedures are on fetuses with severe life-threatening issues.

Because this ruling does not distinguish between when abortions happen and why, it opens a door to ban abortions in the earliest stages. In fact, 90% of abortions take place in the first 12 weeks. To say that this is good because it stops women who are seven months pregnant from having abortions both is ignorant of why they have them and misleading as to who is stopped from having abortions by this law.

Suzanne, BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminsim & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

Your Body and Health? Self-Autonomy Not Yours if You are a Woman

Suzanne Reisman — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:18:13 -0500

The US Supreme Court upheld for the first time a ban on abortion that does not allow doctors to consider a woman's health needs. As Nancy Keenan wrote at NARAL's website:

The Court has disregarded the medical opinion of leading doctors who oppose the ban. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologistsâ€”which represents 90 percent of the OB GYNs in this country â€” says the ban is harmful to women's health and interferes with medical decision making.

Ann at Feministing quotes Justice Ginsburg's moving dissent. One critical point: Ginsburg notes that the decision "blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions."

Jessica, at Bush v Choice Blog, quotes Keenan further:

The Court has given anti-choice state lawmakers the green light to open the flood gates and launch additional attacks on safe, legal abortion, without any regard for women's health."

There are many readers here at BlogHer who will applaud this decision, believing that there is no difference between pre- and post-viability abortions. There are others who believe that as soon as a woman becomes pregnant, her life and well-being are superceded by a fetus's inalienable right to life. Their personal, deeply held religious convictions guide them to this answer. Meaning: pregrant women lose their right to make decisions for themselves because others know what is better for them. Since almost every woman of reproductive age can become pregnant any time they have sex, this includes almost all women of child-bearing age.

Each of those people has the right to follow her conviction. However, this is not what I believe. In the same way that I would never force a woman to have an abortion to save her life or preserve her health, I deeply resent that others now can put my life and health in jeopardy because their religion says it must be so. This is the most heinous violation of a separation between church (which here is dictating policy) and state, and a violation of my full rights as a human being to make decisions that affect primarily me. The slope to eradicating self-autonomy is a slippery one. We just took the first step down.

Suzanne also blogs at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants