"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:e7CdnSVJI4iSuzGiRVn-vA@comcast.com...

"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twofuckspam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:boh7dt$1ekt14$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:E56dnfMNoYOkizGiRVn-vA@comcast.com...

"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twofuckspam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bogu1b$1dnfmc$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ifCdnSh90Ol0NDaiRVn-vw@comcast.com...

"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twofuckspam@hotmail.com> wrote in

message

news:bof0k0$194nml$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:Od6dnTEga-v2mTaiRVn-hA@comcast.com...

"--sexkitten--" <ladyhawk_twofuckspam@hotmail.com> wrote in

message

news:boerms$1d3lgn$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Osprey" <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:hOmdndgb767YUjeiRVn-iQ@comcast.com...

"Dr. Jai Maharaj" <usenet@mantra.com> wrote in message
news:life-22bn87357f.20031106@news.mantra.com...

In article <_Gzqb.131673$Fm2.108365@attbi_s04>,
Bush Lies <lier@hotmail.com> posted:

Second Judge Issues Abortion Law Injunction

Constitution to be replaced by the King George

The Constitution is being treated like the UN -- use

or abuse it as needed.

Who is the Constitution being treated like the UN?

Why isn't a fetus given the same unalienable rights the

rest

of

us

are

given?

That is the right to life liberty and pursuit of

as

given

to

us

through the Declaration of Independence.

Our constitution is supposed to uphold the Declaration

Independence

Where did this idea come from? (I'm not being rude, just

wondering).

The

D

of I was simply a notice to England that the colonies were

forming

their

own

country. The Constitution laid down the rules for running

that

country.

They

were two entirely seperate documents.

So why isn't the fetus allowed to have this unalienable

right?

Now, back to the PBA argument.

They are saying banning the PBA puts women's lives at

How?

The same way banning amputations would. No doctor is going

to

want

to

cut

off a limb, but occasionally you're not going to have a

choice-

it's

the

limb or the whole person.

Why is killing the fetus necessary?

To shrink the skull so that the head can be pulled thru the

cervix

without

causing bleeding or damage to the woman.

Why is that the better choice than saving the fetus AND the

mother's

life?

Because if the woman is the one at risk, they are going to try to

save

her

with the least possible amount of damage to life and limb.

So screw the child if there is a chance to save the child

Yup. Who is the important patient?

No, LIFE is important to BOTH.

The woman might beg to differ. So might her doctor.

If the child has a chance as well as the mother, BOTH are important

In a late- term abortion it isn't always possible to save the child.

Would

you prefer that they cut her open and put her life at risk to save an
encephalitic fetus, for example? Cesareans are dangerous.

Actually they are MUCH safer now, than before. In fact I have read

articles

where some doctors prefer C-Sections to Birth

They do. Cesareans are more expensive than vaginal births.There's been a
flap about this going on the last ten years or so- too many doctors are
scheduling unnecessary c- sections (at greater risk to the woman) because
the profit margin is higher.

Safer for baby, and safer for mom.

Which do you

think would cause more damage- shrinking the fetus and pulling it

thru

the

vaginal canal, or cutting the woman open and letting her bleed?

Who said anything about "letting" her bleed.

A C-Section, VERY small cut, straight to the uterus, pull the child,

out,

continue to make sure mother is alive and child.

5 to 6 inches across the pubic line.

yep

You know where most of the blood comes from on a C-Section?

The placenta.

I have watched 2 C-Sections personally and was amazed at first how

small

the

cut was, and how little blood there was, except for the placenta

http://www.ican-online.org/resources/statistics4.htm
The risk of a mother dying from a cesarean is small but is still
considerably higher than with a vaginal birth:
Maternal death with cesarean: 4 in 10,000
Maternal death with all vaginal births 1 in 10,000
Maternal death with elective cesareans 2 in 10,000
Maternal death with all normal vaginal births 0.5 in 10,000

We can look at numbers like that all day long, and it doesn't mean those
procedures CAUSED the deaths

We could likewise look at mifeprestone and not say that it CAUSED Ms.
Patterson's death. Complications from it (and inadequate aftercare) did.

People die in hospitals every day, some due to OTHER complications.

In this case the complications would generally be blood loss and infection
from a six- inch hole in the belly.

If you are talking about a troubled pregnancy the risk is naturally

going

to

increase.

After all if her life is the part that is at risk, the object is

to

get

the

fetus out right?

Why kill the fetus, when the fetus can be saved with a C-Section

AND

her

life too?

So then what if the fetus isn't viable?

In that stage of the pregnancy? Not likely, I would imagine in

all

cases the fetus is viable.

Cite?

My opinion

Pregnancy is not a fun and exciting thing. No woman is going to go

seven months of hell just to abort for the fun of it.

Well if you look at some of the reasons some of these people are giving,

have to disagree.

You will find some of these quotes in this very thread


Abortion may be performed at later periods usually for the
following reasons:

undiagnosed pregnancy until the late term,

an abnormal fetus

teen age pregnancy

time to raise money to pay for the abortion,

physician shortage in many counties

state imposed waiting periods.





None of those reasons above addresses a woman's health

No, but that was what we were discussing here. Make abortion more readily
available, cheaper and less shameful to do in month 2 and you won't have
women waiting till month 5. Then those problems will go away.

There is absolutely nothing about PBA that makes good sense,

nothing

at

all.

How many cases have there been where a woman's life was

risk

and

they

HAD

to kill the fetus to save her?

No idea.

Explain why they had to kill the fetus to save her,

instead

of

saving

the

fetus and her, through a C-Section

If you have a woman who is already injured, and losing

blood,

what's

going

to happen if you cut her open?

They can control bleeding in surgery. A c-section can still

be

done.

If they could control bleeding in surgery no one would ever

in

surgery.

They can control bleeding.

They can try to control bleeding. If they could totally control

bleeding

no

one would ever die in surgery.

No one can "totally" control, but they can control it enough with

today's

technology.

You know as well as I know in today's technology things are so

advanced.

Things have advanced in many fields, but how come the death rate for
childbirth has remained steady?

Going to happen, no matter what. I don't think that can ever be

prevented,

I am sure though we will continue to work harded to minimize it.
And I bet you those numbers have decreased DRAMATICALLY over say, the

20 years

Holding steady since 1982.
www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00054602.htm

Refer to above stats on cesarean births.

Getting cut open anywhere carries a risk.

yes I saw the chance it was 0.0004%

That is actually very low

Tell that to the women that got the bad end of the statistic. It's
statistically safer to abort in the first trimester.

Getting cut open in a problem

pregnancy is a bigger risk.

I am trying very hard to find ANY justifications for PBA, and I

finding

absolutely none.

And these people that are trying to block the ban, are going to

have

to

fight very hard to convince people that PBA is the right choice,

when

there

are other methods that can save both mother and child.

Not going to be too difficult. They already did block it.

They blocked it, but they are going to have to answer the hard

questions

to

prove it is actually necessary to allow PBA's

And what I find amazing is before all this started, you had so many
pro-choice/aborts screaming PBA's were not real.

That's interesting. Who said that?

Oh you haven't been paying attention have you. Mizzy, Pat Winstanley

two big ones for denying PBA's are real

especially Mizzy

Were they arguing with the terminology or the procedure itself?

I know that the term "PBA" itself is an invention, but the procedure

was

invented to describe was the very real D&E.

And yet, here many are trying to defend PBA

I don't see that happening.

Furthermore, not one person yet has been able to present any

documented

cases where PBA was the correct choice.

You do realize that those case files are protected by

confidentiality

laws?

names are yes, numbers are not.

How many women do you know of would allow their name to be

to

the

howling misinformation mob, with the information that she had a

They can present the information and protect the person

Fetus is saved, as well as woman.

The argument to support PBA's will not hold water until they

can

actually

present real cases as to where PBA was the only option

Those questions are for ANY pro-abort.

Now naturally they will dodge this because they will

there

is

no

such

thing as a pro-abort.

But there is, and most of these pro-choicers in here if

not

all,

are

pro-abort.