Re: What Is A Partial Birth Abortion?
From: Andrew Folley (agfolley@hotmail.com)
Fri Apr 20 15:52:35 2007
Joanne writes: I will firmly stand on this issue being one that must be
decided between the
woman, her physician and her support system: whether that is a church and
religious organization, her parents, her spouse or significant other or the
"family of choice" for those whose genetic family is so dysfunctional as to
be
non-supportive.
Response: This would be true if their were only 2 parties involved (ie
physician and woman) Abortion involves 3 parties. The purpose of the state
and the government is to protect the rights of the people. The state has an
obligation to speak up on behalf of its unborn citizens. The Governement is
not praciticing medicine, it is practicing protection of civil rights of the
unborn.
Joanne wrietes:
The fear of those in favor of all CONTRACEPTION (lets make abortion an
extremenly rare event this way) is that the right to contraception for all
was
decided by the Supreme Court in 1972 based on the concept of Right to
Privacy
that was developed in the Supremen Court's decision allowing married persons
access to contraception in 1965. This Right to Privacy is not directly
stated
in the Consitution and its Amendments, but is based on conepts put forth in
several of the amendments. The Roe v Wade decision in 1973 was directly
related
to the Right to Privacy of the two preceeding decisions.If we do reverse Roe
v Wade - then we also put the concept of Right to Privacy at risk.
Response: Makes sense as long as you assume the unborn baby has no rights.
Where is the "right to privacy" when the 20mm scution curette comes throught
the front door?
cyrus the virus
>From: "Dean Huffman ." <dean@thehuffpeople.net>
>Reply-To: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net
>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net>
>Subject: Re: What Is A Partial Birth Abortion? Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007
>14:57:22 -0500
>
>.
>
>I agree with almost everything you say. I take issue, however, with the
>point
>about the Catholic Church finding abortion acceptable up to the point of
>quickening. Actually, that was only for female fetuses. Male pregnancies
>could
>be terminated only to the point that the uterus extended into the abdomen,
>about 12 weeks. I have never been able to discover, however, how, in the
>1800's, one could determine the sex of a gestation prior to abortion.
>
>Historically, at least in the united states, the abortion statutes were
>enacted
>to protect the health of the mother (the prevention of septic abortions)
>rather
>than because of any concern for the unborn fetus. Too bad that Congress
>does not
>go back to that basic issue -- considering what is good and safe for the
>pregnant person.
>
>It seems that for far too many in the "pro life" corner and in Congress,
>life
>begins at conception and ends at delivery. I would prefer them to worry as
>much
>about the "born" as about the "unborn".
>
>If I were to choose sides, I am in the "pro choice" camp. I think we should
>try
>to make elective abortions a very rare occurance. But I do not think the
>government should be sticking its nose into people's private business. And
>I
>especially do not think that government should be doing things that
>increase
>the incidence of abortions, such as limiting availablity of contraceptives.
>
>--
>
>On a lighter side ...
>
> At a meeting of clergymen, the issue came up as to when
>life
>begins. The Catholic Priest said that, of course, life begins at
>conception. No
>question. A Protestnat clergyman said that he though life began at the time
>of
>viability -- at the time the fetus could live free of its protection in its
>mother's womb. The Episcopalian thought that life began at quickening, when
>the
>spirit entered the body.
>
>Finally the Rabi spoke up. He said, "Life begins when the kids leave home
>and
>the dog dies."
>
>- - - -
>
>From: "Joanne Bulley, MD" <islesannie@gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: What Is A Partial Birth Abortion?
>Date: Apr 19, 2007 2:03 PM
>
>Well ... to open -- or rather stir the can of worms that is already open
>...
>
>The Catholic Church, until the late 1800's did consider abortion acceptable
>up
>until "quickening" - around 16 weeks. It has not always been anathema.
>
>For whatever it is worth: there are very different Religious definitions
>and
>understandings of when to consider the "soul" entering the growing
>conceptus /
>embryo / fetus.
>
>I firmly believe that we need to MINIMIZE the need for abortion - but that
>it
>does need to be both safe and legal. No One Likes Abortion.
>
>And as for the "other side" - so the fetus is getting to have more rights
>and
>protection and services available than the newborn and any other living,
>breathing-room-air human being.
>
>As for "human life begins at conception": what about molar gestation? what
>about
>an ectopic with a heart beat?
>
>I will firmly stand on this issue being one that must be decided between
>the
>woman, her physician and her support system: whether that is a church and
>religious organization, her parents, her spouse or significant other or the
>"family of choice" for those whose genetic family is so dysfunctional as to
>be
>non-supportive.
>
>If you read the information from all the "Pro-Life" organizations, the goal
>is
>NO contraception (not even for those who are married). It is easy to get
>folks
>hating a procedure that is only rarely the procedure of choice. From there
>it
>is chip away until Reproductive Rights -- including filling a prescription
>for
>birth control pills for a married woman -- are impacted negatively.
>
>The fear of those in favor of all CONTRACEPTION (lets make abortion an
>extremenly rare event this way) is that the right to contraception for all
>was
>decided by the Supreme Court in 1972 based on the concept of Right to
>Privacy
>that was developed in the Supremen Court's decision allowing married
>persons
>access to contraception in 1965. This Right to Privacy is not directly
>stated
>in the Consitution and its Amendments, but is based on conepts put forth in
>several of the amendments. The Roe v Wade decision in 1973 was directly
>related
>to the Right to Privacy of the two preceeding decisions.
>
>If we do reverse Roe v Wade - then we also put the concept of Right to
>Privacy
>at risk.
>
>On a realted subject while I am on this soapbox and stirring the can of
>worms /
>Pandoras box ... Pharmacists should not be allowed to reject legal
>prescriptions for contraception or requests for Plan B based on religious
>preferences. Where does that stop: a pharmacist who believes someone
>should
>not be on chemo because it is countermanding the disease that was God's
>care of
>that human being? How about the Pacifist who is 100% against all armed
>conflict
>and Capital Punishment?: does that person get to choose to not pay taxes
>that
>support killing and maiming human beings that are already born and just
>going
>about their daily business?
>
>Obviously this hit my soap box and support of each human being having to
>make
>this decision as an individual.
>
>There is strong evidence that the better the women's health care and the
>more
>access to complete information and contraception, the lower the abortion
>rates,
>the lower the poverty rates of women and children and the ripple effect
>goes on
>and on.
>
>Well ... that was quite wordy - but all of it is related - and related to
>each
>of us and our daily office and out of office care of women.
>
>Ready for the firestorm.
>
>Joanne
>
>At Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Andrew Folley wrote:
> >
> >"Kill 32 people in Virgina and they call you a psychopathic murderer,
>kill
>1
> >million babies every year and they call it womens rights..." go
>figure???
> >agf
> >
> >>From: Louana M George <westsidebirthservice@juno.com>
> >>Reply-To: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net
> >>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net>
> >>Subject: Re: What Is A Partial Birth Abortion?
> >>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:46:52 -0500
> >>
> >>We must all remember that medically there is no actual "partial-birth
> >>abortion" this is just a political term. The politicians are
>attempting
> >>to whip up an emotional frenzy for the medical D&E or D&X (look
>up the
> >>history on this debate and you'll find the political branding of this
> >>procedure).
> >>Louana
> >>
>
>--
>Joanne Bulley, MD, FACOG
>Solo gyn
>Keene, NH USA
>
