Strike two for Partial Birth Abortion BanFollow

Hmmm. I actually agree with Smash. If a women has difficulties or dies during birth the chance the child will have difficulties as well is pretty high. Not to mention growing up motherless(often times blaming themselves for this). If the child is aborted, the mother can most often get pregnant again. Granted sometimes this is not the case, but not on the average.

In most cases I am against abortion, however, I think in the event it threatens the mothers life, it is most definitely a viable option.

That's not irrationality, that's a real life description of many members of the pro-choice lobby. And you have already expressed reservations about reasonable controls over doctors with no qualms about providing partial birth abortions, no questions asked. That immediately flags you as a member of that particular camp.

There is nothing untoward or onerous about having an independent medical review board providing oversight for doctors performing partial birth abortions any more than it is for every other medical procedure done by doctors across the United States.

From what I can read from your posts, you are having a knee jerk reaction against the idea of abortionists being monitored for poor judgement. If you are typical of the pro-choice crowd, this is very telling of the political capital you are willing to squander to continue allow the death of babies.

Totem

Think we've moved on from the "mother or baby's life" question, Smash.

I'd have no problem with a medical review board overseeing this and all non-emergency surgical procedures, as long as the review is not used to prevent or circumvent the procedure per se. So, sure, take a random sampling of scheduled surgeries and review them expeditiously and question or pass them.

The timing, of course, is the critical factor when any elective but urgent procedure is proposed, whether it's a gall bladder or a heart bypass or a catastrophic pregnancy. If the review board is slated to review a case but doesn't get to it before the scheduled date then I'd have to say the procedure should go forward and the review can happen after the fact.

For that matter emergency procedures should be subject to review after the fact as well, whatever the outcome.

Edited for clarity since you people post too fast.

Edited, Fri Aug 27 16:37:40 2004 by SamiraX

Totem, you're trying to attribute statements to me that I've never made.

Is your position so weak?

Edit: The position Samira outlines is pretty close to something I would be comfortable with. It is not what was being put forward by the anti-choice people in this thread.

Edited, Fri Aug 27 16:42:23 2004 by Yanari

Not true. My sister was pregnant not to long ago. The fetus was growning abnormally on the wall of her uterus. If she had kept it there was 80% chance she would never have another child, and that the child she would have would have defects. Also she ran the risk of it rupturing her uterus abnormally and bleeding internally. Rather than jeopordize her future family she chose to have it aborted.

I'm not sure what you're taking issue with here. I'm essentially agreeing with you, or rather you with me since I've been posting this ideology all along.

My small always was in reference to Smash's mispelling of the word... three times.

Abolutely not.

Oversight of the decision violates doctor/patient confidentiality. Oversight of the proceedure is fine.

Anything that ties the doctors hands to asses risk to the mother is a poltical wedge for conservatives to persecute doctors who act to save mother's lives.

Unnacceptable and without any logical reasoning at all.

All right, Yanari, I'll summarize what has been said between you and me so far.

Me: "I have no trouble with that definition, SammyX, provided that it should be left to the doctor's judgement overseen by an independent medical review board."

You: "What other medical decisions should we take out of the hands of patients? You're on a slippery slope here."

Me: "Bullsh1t, Yan. Since when does the patient know what medical condition of theirs is life threatening? And to prevent an unscrupulous doctor from being a cash-n-carry doc-in-a-box where everybody knows this is where a girl can get an abortion, no questions asked, the independent medical review board checks to see that the procedure is required or necessary."

You: "Totem, you're so irrational on this topic it's not worth discussing with you."

All I have stated is that docotrs should have medical oversight to prevent abortions being carried out with the life of the mother being the excuse for doing them. You obviously disagreed with me, which places you firmly in the abortions-at-any-cost camp.

Feel free to correct your position if I have somehow misstated your quoted remarks.

Totem

I support partial birth abortions to save the life of the mother. I also support abortionas at any stage of the baby's development where the mother's life would be forfeit if the child came to term.

I support prosecuting doctors to the fullest extent of the law for abusing their medical license by conducting abortions under the umbrella of saving the mother's life, when it is nothing but a smoke screen to provide abortions on demand. The medical review board would be given authority to oversee the criteria used to determine the needed extent of the abortion, the procedures used, and the track record of the doctor performing these surgeries.

I do not advocate abrogating doctor/patient confidentiality. The board would govern issues strictly concerning the abortion including the medical criteria leading up to it, the procedure itself, and post operative care.

Totem

As long as you continue to maintain that a viable human life has no rights.

What you propose essentially gurantees that a mother will die because a doctor fears consenquences of a review of the decision.

Why would a doctor be afraid of another board of doctors reviewing his recommendations and performances of a surgery based on his/her best medical opinion?

Why would a doctor be afraid of another board of doctors reviewing his recommendations and performances of a surgery based on his/her best medical opinion?


Because it's a both a poltical issue and one of judgement. Conservative activist groups will push boards to intrepert the risk to the woman very conservatively, and hence Doctors will let women die rather than risk their carreers.

Ah, yes. I'm being an *** because I believe that a viable human being has as much right to any and all life saving measures as you or I. Nice logic from the poster child for white guilt.

You're being an *** because the definition of "viable" changes daily. So you may as well say "I have no reason why I belive this, I do, JUST BECAUSE!!"

White guilt? Where the hell did that come from, cracker?

Edited, Fri Aug 27 17:12:13 2004 by Smasharoo

Smash, why would oversight stop abortions being carried out to save the life of the mother? Surgeries are done every day with medical oversight with no fear of reprisals-- just as long as the criteria are met for the procedure and the skill of the surgeon is adequate. Deaths occur on the operating table on a daily basis with no punitive measures. After all, that is part and parcel of the risk of invasive surgery.

An independent medical review board simply watches for unscrupulous and incompetent doctors, that's all-- something I'd think everybody could get behind.

Totem