No, seriously, why doesn't Larry Craig give up already?

[CalibronXXX]

Figuring out the specific risk factor for this case? Generally, though the average risk factor should be, and is, public knowledge; and it tells us that cesarean-sections are the way to go. Deciding whether the procedure is going to be done? Only if the patient isn't in a state to make that decision themselves.

I'm curious, if you people are perfectly willing, and in some cases, it seems, eager, to kill a baby shortly before it's born, why do you have a problem with killing a baby shortly after it's born? What's the big difference?

[Neeek]

1192482174[/unixtime]]Figuring out the specific risk factor for this case? Generally, though the average risk factor should be, and is, public knowledge; and it tells us that cesarean-sections are the way to go. Deciding whether the procedure is going to be done? Only if the patient isn't in a state to make that decision themselves.

I'm curious, if you people are perfectly willing, and in some cases, it seems, eager, to kill a baby shortly before it's born, why do you have a problem with killing a baby shortly after it's born? What's the big difference?

This procedure isn't normally done shortly before the baby is born. It's done much earlier than that.

However, if the choices are kill the baby or kill the mother, I'd choose kill the baby every time. Killing the mother is a greater waste of resources. Once you are choosing between two equally morally bad choices, you might as well go with a place there is some difference in value.

Seriously, to think that late-term abortions happen for any reason other than the mother fears for her life, is insane. It's simply crazy to think someone would put themself through 7 or 8 months of pregnancy if they didn't plan on having the baby.

[CalibronXXX]

We were specifically talking about partial birth abortions, of course I know most abortions happen very early in the pregnancy, or perhaps we have divergent views of the term shortly in this context.

If there's literally no other feasible way to give the mother a good chance of survival without killing the baby then I'd have to agree with you on your second point.

As to your third point; people are utter fucking morons, I would not put anything past the average person. I would totally not be the least bit surprised to read about something like this in the newspaper at least once a week; disgusted, but not surprised.

[tzor]

1192481042[/unixtime]]Isn't that risk-reward up to the doctor, not us, to determine?

What are we passing a law against, exactly? If a baby could live outside the mother, and it's killed at that point, isn't that already covered under law?

Point 1a) Risk-reward should be determined by the doctor, but there really is no "risk" for the doctor in the first place as abortion right generally trump malpractice laws.

Point 1b) But this has nothing to do with risk-reward. This is a technique designed more by lawyers than doctors.

Point 2) No, viability as an argument died (no pun intended) shortly after roe v wade. (I forget the subsequent decision.) As long as the infant is still in the woman (and as we can see from this procedure only the head needs to be in the woman) the infant has no rights under the law.

Remember it's not the pro-life crowd that wraps itself up in secrecy. When such doctors encouraged by such lawyers say "trust us" I trust them as much (or as little) as you would Mr. Bush when he says about wireless phonr tapping of American Citizens "trust us" or in other words I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them.

[Neeek]

1192485369[/unixtime]]We were specifically talking about partial birth abortions, of course I know most abortions happen very early in the pregnancy, or perhaps we have divergent views of the term shortly in this context.

Partial birth abortions are used almost exclusively in the 5th month of pregnancy. They also account for a statistically insignificant amount of total abortions (roughly .2%). People use them because they do less damage to the woman than the alternatives available at that point under certain circumstances, and they are incredibly infrequent even then. It is also the only one of the alternatives at that point that the woman can usually walk away from.

If the number of women not dead or irreparably damaged because they used this procedure is greater than 1 (and it is), then it should be legal.

[Crissa]

Point 2) No, viability as an argument died (no pun intended) shortly after roe v wade. (I forget the subsequent decision.) As long as the infant is still in the woman (and as we can see from this procedure only the head needs to be in the woman) the infant has no rights under the law.

Since you cannot point to this decision, you have to admit you fucked up and it's not true. Killing a viable (can live outside the mother) infant is a crime in the US - whether its in the mother or not. The fact is, though, that anything more than a month early isn't viable. Modern medical technology can extend that another month, but most such premature births still end in death.

-Crissa

PS: a doctor has no 'risk', as you defined it, even if they cut off a healthy limb from a patient who requested it. Yet doing so or killing puppies is a crime in the US.

[tzor]

1192519711[/unixtime]]

(I forget the subsequent decision.)

Since you cannot point to this decision, you have to admit you fucked up and it's not true.

I blame my old memory and my not taking the time to google. Honestly, it's simple and easy to do. Look what I found from the New England Journal of Medicine.

The following year, in Roe, the Court struck down a Texas law that made it a crime for physicians to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the life of the patient; there were no exceptions for the woman's health. The Court held that women have a constitutional right of privacy that is fundamental and "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision . . . to terminate her pregnancy."1 Because the right is fundamental, states that wish to restrict abortion rights were required to demonstrate a compelling interest to restrict the exercise of this right. The Court ruled that the state's interest in the life of the fetus became compelling only at the point of viability, when the fetus can survive independently of its mother. Even after the point of viability, the state cannot favor the life of the fetus over the life or health of the pregnant woman. Under the right of privacy, physicians must be free to use their "medical judgment for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."1 On the same day that the Court decided Roe, it also decided Doe v. Bolton,7 in which the Court defined health very broadly:

The medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age — relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.7

Roe and Doe together established that both physician and patient were protected by the constitutional right of privacy. In later cases, the Court continued to defer to the medical judgment of the attending physician. For example, in 1976 in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, the Court concluded that state legislatures could not determine when viability occurred; rather this "essentially medical concept . . . is, and must be, a matter for the judgment of the responsible attending physician."8 By the end of the 1980s, a pattern in Court decisions could be discerned in which abortion regulations that significantly burdened a woman's decision, treated abortion differently from other similar medical or surgical procedures, interfered with the exercise of professional judgment by the attending physician, or were stricter than accepted medical standards were struck down by the Court.9

[Crissa]

Umm, tzor, that ruling is thirty years old, and the supreme court has ruled must more recently on law...

First off, you seem to misunderstand the procedure. There is no infant. The fetus at that point cannot survive outside the mother, so when it dies is irrelevant to the operation. Not cutting someone is preferable to cutting someone, as it relates to health.

Secondly, the viability argument struck down was that the legislature could not choose a point at which a woman was required by law to carry to term... Which obviously fell by the wayside, since that's how it has been!

Thirdly, the term 'viable' in the Doe case referred to a fetus that would be able to make it to birth - not a fetus that could survive outside its mother at that moment.

And lastly, why would you take the decision out of the hands of the trained medical doctor?

-Crissa

[tzor]

1192539045[/unixtime]]Umm, tzor, that ruling is thirty years old, and the supreme court has ruled must more recently on law...

First off, you seem to misunderstand the procedure. There is no infant. The fetus at that point cannot survive outside the mother, so when it dies is irrelevant to the operation. Not cutting someone is preferable to cutting someone, as it relates to health.

Secondly, the viability argument struck down was that the legislature could not choose a point at which a woman was required by law to carry to term... Which obviously fell by the wayside, since that's how it has been!

Thirdly, the term 'viable' in the Doe case referred to a fetus that would be able to make it to birth - not a fetus that could survive outside its mother at that moment.

And lastly, why would you take the decision out of the hands of the trained medical doctor?

-Crissa

A couple of points need to be made:

1) You cite me with "old decisions." I cited the new england Journal of Medicine May 24th 2007. Are you suggesting they have sloppy research or has there been a decision made since May that now returns viability to the discussion?

2) "The fetus at that point cannot survive outside the mother" ... is a major assumption on your part. The ages for "viability" have significantly decreased over the years, so you are going to need to back that statement up if you are insisting that late term feti are not viable and cannot survive outside the mother.

3) I trust doctors ... only so far. That's why we have second opinions, peir reviews and so forth. Even if abortions were given the same medical rigor as all other major medical procedures I still would only trust them so far.

Now it's time for you to back up your statements: "the supreme court has ruled must more recently on law" and "the fetus at that point cannot survive outside the mother." Remember we are not talking about abortion in general; we are talking about a specific procedure.

[Lago_AM3P]

Anyway, it looks like Obama is starting to get real momentum--according to NPR he's overtaking Clinton in the Iowa polls and his general support across the nation is rising.

Still can't get that Pakistan quote out of my head, however, so I'm not excited as I could be. I think if there's anything we've learned in the past few months is that Pakistan is an untrustworthy country and that we should seriously reconsider our 'shun Iran' policy. As in, get rid of it.

[Lago_AM3P]

Anyway, even though Mike Huckabee's star is shining I think it will burn out very soon.

He just doesn't have the money to challenge Giuliani and the GOP is seriously underestimating how much ground social conservatism and neoconservatism has lost in the 21st century.

It's not like Giuliani has much of a chance to begin with, but if Huckabee wins the GOP no chance short of Obama being caught with a dead girl or live boy.

[Neeek]

1197303334[/unixtime]]
the GOP [has] no chance

It doesn't matter who they nominate. The only real question is whether the party will break up at this convention, or between then and the next Presidential election.

Guiliani has too many obvious and actually real scandals to survive the national election, Huckabee would get creamed by the combination of the large number of people sick of the theocrat wing of the GOP and the liberatarian wing of the GOP staying home (or even voting for the Democratic candidate) if he's nominated. Ron Paul is a nut job who would take a small slice of the middle and lose the entire GOP base. McCain has burned too many bridges, and is no longer trusted by anyone in either party. Romney wouldn't get the fundie vote, and no one trusts him either. Thompson just doesn't seem to care enough to stand a real chance of winning, either the primary or the general.

Obama will probably end up winning the Democratic nomination, and subsequently, the presidency. He will also probably usher in a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for the Dems, and retain the House.

[Lago_AM3P]

Obama will probably end up winning the Democratic nomination, and subsequently, the presidency. He will also probably usher in a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for the Dems, and retain the House.

I think you overestimate how many seats the Dems will pick up.

Right now it's the slimmest of majorities and the GOP has to defend 12 seats total. They'd have to win 8-9 of them (depending if anyone flips independent, but I doubt it) to get in that position.

[Username17]

Much as I would like the California seccession which would result from the assassination of a black president which would result from there being a black president while Alabama is still in the Union - I think you are missing out on how total a lock Hillary has on everything.

Everyone knows how not-that-bad things were with Clinton in office, and she's just too plugged into the political machine. She is the political machine that elected Bill the first time.

-Username17

[Neeek]

1197380092[/unixtime]]
Right now it's the slimmest of majorities and the GOP has to defend 12 seats total. They'd have to win 8-9 of them (depending if anyone flips independent, but I doubt it) to get in that position.

No, the Dems have to defend 12. The GOP has to defend 21 or 22, 6 or 7 of which won't have an incumbent.

[Catharz]

1197380898[/unixtime]]Much as I would like the California seccession which would result from the assassination of a black president which would result from there being a black president while Alabama is still in the Union - I think you are missing out on how total a lock Hillary has on everything.

Everyone knows how not-that-bad things were with Clinton in office, and she's just too plugged into the political machine. She is the political machine that elected Bill the first time.

-Username17

My local newspaper keeps talking about how she's ahead in the polls, but when you actually look at the numbers she's almost always been tied with Obama. I'm pretty sure that 'Clinton will win' is just part of her propaganda engine.

[Crissa]

Hillary Clinton is ahead in national polls, and only recently has been tied in state polls.

It's mostly that more people knew and chose her ahead of time; as campaigning happens, you'd expect the lesser known candidates to slowly close the gap if they're an appropriate choice.

Now, why was Keyes in the debate yesterday?

-Crissa

[Lago_AM3P]

Huckabee is catching fire like crazy.

While his religious insanity drives me to distraction, it's extremely funny watching Wall Street and the pundits explode over the momentum he's gathering.

Serves you right, you jerks.