Letters to the Editor
-
Who knows?
It has NEVER been the law that a woman's life or health will be allowed to be put in danger, even in the third trimester..when abortion is otherwise illegal. What is banned is a procedure that takes place when the fetus is viable, and is not medically necessary.
Anu Singh
And because the AMA ruled that the procedure is never medically justified, discussions of "health of the mother" are also irrelevant.
Anonymous
The problem with this proceedure is that it is "Late Term" (3rd Trimester) when most baby's survival rate is at its highest. Not to mention most babies survive when given a chance throughout the 3rd trimester.
ATSJer
Are these statements really true? I just got done reading about the ruling in the NYT, and they describe it as a 2nd trimester procedure (it would have had to have been to be protected under Roe v. Wade), that the ruling is the first that does not respect the health of the mother, and that the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology says the procedure is "sometimes medically necessary" to protect the health of the mother.
So are these statements unclear or untrue, or is the NYT wrong, or what?
-
stupidity defined
If you're against abortion, don't have an abortion god dammnit! If you're against gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex!! Why is everybody always so concerned about what everyone else is doing?!?!
And if you don't like slavery, don't own a slave, and if you don't like murder, don't murder anyone (etc. ad infinitum).
Make decisions based on your own moral compass and leave everyone else alone. Stop trying to push your moral beliefs on other people
Which is precisely what Hitler did. All those bigoted Allies, trying to tell Hitler what to do.
-
???????
What a ridiculous rebuttal. Hitler? Really?? Murder and slavery? I can tell I hit a chord with you seeing as you saw it necessary to personally insult me by calling me stupid when we're simply having a discussion of opinions. You know exactly why your rebuttal is wrong and if you don't then you, my friend, are the stupid one.
-
A doctor's right to choose
Those that are interested in what effect this may have on a woman's health should read the article salon printed nearly 5 years ago called A Doctor's Right to Choose.
There are medical reasons as to why doctors use the intact dilation and extraction procedure and it is they, not the Supreme Court, who should determine if the procedure should be carried out. To all the people bleating about how grotesque's the procedure is, well, surgery of all sorts is not pretty. Getting my impacted wisdom teeth extracted from my smaller than average jaw was pretty 'gross'. Still, you weren't the ones who had to do it. Luckily, I had a professional do the job and I trust he knew better than me or any of my non-doctor friends how best to do it.
http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2002/07/24/late_term/index1.html?pn=1
-
Thanks, brave "Anonymous"
Whichever one you were, who said we need to quit arguing about when life begins, and when something is a human life: I couldn't agree more.
But if a human life is INSIDE MY BODY, and needs to use it to grow, it is none of your business whether I allow that body to grow or not. Nor is it the government's.
And for the poster who didn't like using the term "pro-choice," I suggest "anti-forced-pregnancy." Do we really want to use the power of the state to force a woman to have a baby? Reducing her status to that of an incubator? Does no one find it ironic that five men have made this decision for more than half the population of this country? Does no "pro-life" person (ha! talk about bad terminology!) see that this essentially reduces women to second-class personhood?
It's like screaming in the wind, isn't it? Jennilaya has it right. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. And please, people, vote for the right people in the future and get these yahoos out of power as quickly as we can!
-
Terrible decision
The decision is a hodge-podge of assertions: that there is doubt that intact D&E is safer for some women some of the time, that during an abortion removing part of the fetus's body basically constitutes "delivery", and that it's important to protect women who might regret their decision to have an abortion. (Also, the mention of viability of the fetus is not a commentary on the health of the fetus- only gestational age.) I'm no lawyer, but the decision doesn't seem logical or orderly. The long description in the Court's decision of the puncturing of the fetal skull to remove brain matter, obscures the medical reason for this type of procedure: the severe hydrocephaly of the fatally malformed fetus. This is the unpleasant yet all too real reason for such actions- the fetal head is so big it cannot be delivered safely vaginally, unless it is reduced in size. It seems all too likely that this ruling will result in the compromised health- or death, of a woman whose medical treatment has just been chosen, not by her doctor, but by 5 court justices.
-
Incubators on demand?
So I guess some women will now be forced to become 'Incubators on Demand' in order to accommodate the needs of a parasitic growth. How is this better?
-
Jennilaya
Here's why your argument, as structured, is stupid. (And I apologize if you inferred I was calling you personally stupid.)
Your argument: "I you don't like _____, don't do/have _____."
Do you see how flawed that is and how many monstrocities could be justified by an argument structured this way?
It completely tries to bypass the moral nature of what it is that's being discussed, a point I emphasize with exaggeration (you know, as in good satire) with the examples of Hitler and slavery.
-
"The decision is a hodge-podge of assertions"
You're obviously talking about Roe v. Wade, right?
-
Stats and real stories
vchtalkwrites: "Give us statistics and real stories, not the he said/she said stories the MSM are giving us."
To be fair, there just isn't a lot of good, complete information out there. A tour of the NIH website brings up next to nothing.
That being said, MSM should use the term "dilation and extraction" more and explain what the procedure is better than it's been done. It's appalling how many of us are prepared to outlaw a procedure we know nothing about as opposed to being humble enough to allow women and doctors to make their own informed decisions.
P.S. I just checked The Planned Parenthood website and it has some women's stories: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/abortion-access/abortion-ban-6185.htm