Quote:
timj219
1) What I'm fixated on is sticking to the subject.
|
The subject--broadly speaking--is the recent Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the PBA Ban, any issue related to its reasoning and logic is well within the subject
You're also apparently fixated on the goal of killing babies (which is NEVER medically neccesary to do a late-term termination of a pregnancy) as opposed to terminating a pregnancy (which sometimes IS neccesary---although can be accomplished just as effectively for the life and health of the mother through full live delivery).
Quote:
timj219
2) There is no such thing as a "PBA". What I and ACOG are talking about is "Intact Dilation and Extraction"
|
Ever heard of the terms slang or euphemism? There IS such a thing as "PBA", it is a term used specifically in reference to the procedure in question. That statment is about as stupid as saying their is no such thing a "reefer", that we are talking about "marijuana" in a discussion of drug legalization.
Quote:
timj219
3) Abortion is a legal procedure. ACOG claims that in some circumstance Intact Dilation and Extraction is the safest method to accomplish that procedure. Congress (and now the court) have ignored the medical advice of the doctors most intimately familiar with the issue in an effort to "protect" women by denying them what is sometimes the safest method of abortion. Trying to frame the issue in any other terms is just dishonest.
|
Actually there is NO law declaring "abortion" legal, each and every method of proceedure is subject to its own forms of regulation and restriction. In the case of THIS method of abortion, it is now ILLEGAL (in case you hadn't been paying attention). Going back to my earlier analogy of a drug discussion, that is about as stupid as defending pot smoking because "smoking is legal".
The AMA has ruled that PBA/ID&E is NEVER medically neccesary for the life or health of the mother. In EVER instance the delivery could be completed WITHOUT resulting in the death of the baby with NO adverse consequences to the mother.
The life/health needs of the mother are what requiring termination of the PREGNANCY, and in case you hadn't figured out by now based on the billions of people walking the Earth, it is NOT always neccesary to terminate the baby in order to end a pregnancy (in fact most births in this country are now induced--JUST as is the case in ID&E--the only difference being that in the ID&E the doctor, after inducing labor, then artificially forestalls delivery in order to kill the baby before it has fully emerged from the uterous.
Your problem is that you are utterly fixated on the notion that the medical purpose of the proceedure is to terminate the CHILD rather than the PREGNANCY. When the ACOG says it is sometimes the preferable method, it is comparing it ONLY to other options which result in the death of the baby, and specifically excluding all options for terminating the PREGNANCY, which (as is factored into the AMAs findings) includes live-birth.
Quote:
timj219
The idea that there is some form of abortion which does not actively and purposefully kill the baby/fetus takes my breath away.
|
That's because like most people, you are ignorant. The fact of the matter is, despite the contemporary tendency to use the word abortion as specifically referring to a termination of a pregnancy, which as you say purposefully kills the baby, is NOT supported by the ACTUAL definition of the word:
Quote:
Abortion
1. Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2. any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, esp. during the first six months.
|
Notice the emphasis on termination/ending of the pregnancy rather than the baby. In practical terms, prior to "viability" they are one and the same, but not by definition.
Quote:
timj219
This court bent over backwards in order to hand the religious right a political "victory" on this issue. Of course it's not really a "victory" at all for people who wish there were less abortions. But it's a great soundbite for republican politicians and it does penalize a small number of women who may suffer health problems as a result of their doctor no longer being able to offer this option. And I guess that's good enough for some people.
|
How wrong you are, the court has finally taken a small step to standing fully erect on this issue. It is Roe v. Wade and all the subsequent decisions that have affirmed/expanded its central holdings which have been ideological back-bending, in order to uphold the PBA ban, or even to flat out overturn Roe would require mere deference to our Constitution, not hardly bending over backwards.
Hell, even O'Conner aknowledged in a case where she had the deciding vote that Roe was wrongly decided and had to invoke stare decisis to affirm it.