pretty easily. the test is that of viability: when a feuts is capable of surviving via 'mechanical' means on it's on. knowing when this can take place is the province of doctors of which i am not one. it's not that complicated. stop acting like you are catching me in an inconsistency. if i were you, i would demand a refund from your purchase of the "shemp-o instructional video series".

Why are you avoiding answering this question, Huge Ron? At least post your opinion - you must have one, you have one on every other subject.

What is your definition of viability?

What term would you use to describe someone who firmly believes in a woman's right to choose not to have an abortion?

I am not surprised that anyone spent no time responding to this or Ron.

unless it took you 10 minutes to think of your post, i answered kms' question (and yours since it is the same).

luckily data entry requires no grammatical syntax...

"shemp-o instructional video series'


Good one Ron you got me there, we are just one big brain, we all feel the same way, argue the same way....I have been put in my place.

By the way, I took it as a compliment being linked with Shemp....

You should. Shemp is a man of vision

The Visionary in fact!!!!

i decided against saying anything mean or condescending in response to this. for you: to each, his/her own.

This thread has officially reached the end of its useful life.

I can see from your oh-so-charming response that I've not written clearly enough for you to understand my meaning. I apologize, and will attempt to rectify this error.

"Partial birth abortion" is not a medical term. It is a colloquial term, a rhetorical term, even a political term. But it is not a medical term. You could not direct a surgeon to an operating theater with the command, "Perform a partial birth abortion on Mrs. Forbush" without eliciting another 20 minutes of discussion of what exactly you were asking for.

"Intact dilation and extraction" is the proper name of the medical procedure. It is used to terminate pregnancy past 20 weeks of gestation in cases where fetuses are dying, malformed, or threatening the woman's health or life. (Malformed, in this case, means where major organs have failed to develop so abnormally that they cannot be corrected surgically and the fetus will not survive.) Threats to the mother's health might include kidney problems, toxemia, risk of stroke or heart failure.

Personally, I would not have chosen to hang my rhetorical hat on a procedure that makes up fewer than 2/10ths of 1 percent of abortions performed in the US. But, you, TMOS and Tom have shown great gusto in regaling us with graphic descriptions of the procedure that you must wish to use it as your synecdoche for the whole topic of abortion.

Since you've chosen to argue at the extremes, I have no trouble meeting you there. I will ask you to justify why you object to this method of removing a dead or dying fetus from the mother. I will ask you why you insist on the birth of babies without lungs, or spinal cords or brains so that they may die moments later. I will ask you why the momentary survival of such a baby is worth risking the life of the mother in delivery. Or why the life of the baby is worth more than the life of a mother with a good chance of dying in childbirth.

I'd ask why other methods of late-term surgical abortion, with their significantly higher risks of complications, hemorrage and infection are preferable to intact dilation and extraction.

Is that clearer?

Maybe some of the documeted language from the actual legislation known as the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, complete with citations of the medical community concerning "threatening health of the mother," is in order:

13) (14) Pursuant to the testimony received duringextensive legislative hearings during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses, Congress finds and declares that:

(A) Partial-birth abortion poses serious risks to the health of a woman undergoing the procedure. Those risks include, among other things: an increase in a woman's risk of suffering from cervical incompetence, a result of cervical dilation making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture, abruption, amniotic fluid embolus, and trauma to the uterus as a result of converting the child to a footling breech position, a procedure which, according to a leading obstetrics textbook, "there are very few, if any, indications for . . . other than for delivery of a second twin"; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child's skull while he or she is lodged in the birth canal, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.

(B) There is no credible medical evidencethat partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum.

(C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion is "not an accepted medical practice," that it has "never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development," that "the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown," and that "there is no consensusamong obstetricians about its use". The association has further noted that partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is "ethically wrong," and "is never the only appropriate procedure".

(D) Neither the plaintiff in Stenberg v.Carhart, nor the experts who testified on his behalf, have identified a single circumstance during which a partial-birth abortion was necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

(E) The physician credited with developingthe partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.

(F) A ban on the partial-birth abortionprocedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

(G) In light of this overwhelming evidence,Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such aprohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life.

Of course a bunch of anti-abortion fanatics in Congress SAID that in their legislation. It's laughable nonsense, but it plays well with their base! They could pass a bill saying 2+2=5, too and it would be much the same thing. It's not reality, just conservative politics.

Once again, notice the Yossarian pattern. When confronted with facts and documented sources, he demeans the sources and brushes them off disparagingly. Typically weak response, but we are certainly not surprised in any way.

You're joking, right? This is pure propaganda.

you really don't get it, do you?

The passage you quoted *asserts* that evidence exists, but does not offer it. Can you tell the difference between the two, TMOS?

Ahh, now I see. So when a public law is passed in which elected officials are publicly stating the, ooops *asserting* , the background that supportsd the cause of that law being passed, this is not tantamount to any tenable facts, but when AMLBarbarian gives a rambling extrapolation a few posts above in response to Swimware, ASSERTING a number of supposed facts about partial birth abortion, for which no sources were provided, this we should take as reality.

Hmmmm, once again, willfull blindness wins the day. for the libs.

So the answer would be 'no', you cannot tell the difference.

Well, let's see, TMOS... here's an example...

A 'statement of fact' from the legislation:


Here's an abstract of a peer-reviewed study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2004:



Please reconcile the 'facts' stated in the legislation with the 'facts' provided in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

A paper written by the Women's Health Collaborative, with the History of D&X, Medical Necessity, Medical Risks, and statistics provided by various obstetricians on number performed, those that were elective, etc:

http://www.womenshealthcollaborative.org/PositionPapers/PartialBirthAbortionPosition.doc

1) Two abortion physicians, one in Ohio and one in California, independently developed variations on the method by extracting the fetus intact. The Ohio physician, Martin Haskell, called his method "dilation and extraction," or D&X. It involved dilating the woman's cervix, then pulling the fetus through it feet first until only the head remained inside. Using scissors or another sharp instrument, the head was then punctured, and the skull compressed, so it, too, could fit through the dilated cervix

2) It is impossible to know for certain how many partial-birth abortions are performed annually. However, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted in a 1995 Nightline interview that he "lied through his teeth" about the number of partial-birth abortions performed each year. He conceded that such abortions are fairly common.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year.
Ron Fitzsimmons, told the New York Times (Feb. 26, 1997): [b]"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." [/b]

3) In 1993, the American Medical News (the official newspaper of the AMA) conducted a tape-recorded interview with Dr. Haskell concerning this specific abortion method, in which he said:
And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.

4) Dr. James McMahon, the other developer of the D&X, said that of the more than 2,000 partial-birth abortions that he had performed, only 9 percent were for any maternal [health] reasons. Of that 9 percent, the most common indication [reason] was "depression." Furthermore, he stated that about 80 percent of abortions he had performed after 21 weeks were "non-elective." However, he included as "non-elective": "depression," "pediatric indications" (i.e., the mother's youth), and a variety of fetal or maternal health problems that are not life-threatening

5) Given the lack of evidence that there is a medical necessity for the procedure, the Women’s Health Collaborative concludes that for the vast majority of women, undergoing a partial-birth abortion introduces unnecessary health risks.

6)Unlike abortion procedures in earlier months, a partial-birth abortion takes three days to complete. The abortionist begins by dilating the woman's cervix for two days.
The Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for the Truth (PHACT), a coalition of several hundred doctors who specialize in fetal medicine which is dedicated to studying partial-birth abortion, came to the following conclusion:Our research of the subject leads us to conclude that there are no obstetrical situations that would necessitate or even favor the medically unrecognized partial-birth abortion procedure as the safest or most appropriate option. Indeed, we have concerns that the procedure may itself pose serious health risks for women.

The middle and remaining sections of the paper are also quite informative. I recommend a full reading.

Dodging the question, and yet still typing a lot. Typical.