Comments on: Late-Term Confusion

by: The Mahablog » The Kennedy D&E

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:37:44 +0000

[...] After the Supreme Court upheld the “partial birth” abortion ban in April I wrote a couple of posts (”Late-Term Confusion” and “More Late-Term Confusion“) about how the Fetus People celebrating the end of “late-term abortion” had been seriously misled. I predicted the FPs would be in for a shock when they realized what the decision was really about, and that it did not “save” any “babies” at all. [...]

by: The American Street » Blog Archive » Late-Term Confusion

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:57:06 +0000

[…] Time and time again I am struck by how little people know about abortion law and practice in the U.S. This includes most people with firm opinions on abortion. For example, earlier this week I noticed one right-wing blog after another celebrating the end of “late-term abortions,” by which they obviously mean abortion of a viable fetus, presumably for frivolous reasons. Example: Most Americans, even those who are pro-choice, understand how sick this procedure was. If a late term pregnancy was so harmful to the mother’s health, then the mother should just deliver the baby and give the baby a chance to survive. But this procedure wasn’t really about saving the life of the mother. It was about killing an unwanted baby. … […]

by: The Mahablog » More Late-Term Confusion

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:10:58 +0000

by: sofla

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:37:14 +0000

The alternative to dilated intact extraction, whose existence is the predicate of the claim that so-called partial birth abortion is ‘never medically necessary,’ is to kill the fetus with saline poisoning, and then cut it into pieces in utero with a saw of some description, and then suction out the pieces.

How that is supposed to be less gruesome, or even less ‘painful’ to the fetus, escapes me.

And indeed, given this ‘victory’ in the SCOTUS ruling, the FALLBACK option above, which makes ‘PBA” unnecessary, will likely be attacked, on similar grounds.

by: Good Nonsense

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:23:21 +0000

This post says everything…

…that needs to be said about the Supreme Court’s abortion decision. And if it doesn’t, this one does.

by: skippy

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:23:02 +0000

who wrote that sentence? an amphibian?

possibly a marsupial.

hey! i resent that remark!

by: Heading Left » Blog Archive » Supreme Court Restricts Abortion Rights

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:33:42 +0000

[…] *Mahablog predicts: I think we can count on conservative state legislators to use today’s ruling as an excuse to write abortion laws that are even more restrictive than the one covered in the case decided today. We can also expect that in some states the ruling will be used to intimidate abortion providers from performing second-trimester abortions by any means. It’s going to get interesting. […]

by: maha

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:38:40 +0000

Maybe a fish. Something that spawns.

by: marijam

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:06:33 +0000

They want each state to decide. Personally, I’m sitting on the fence on this one as I’m past child-bearing due to personal decision - as is my daughter.

Its up to people to vote for a President or have it decided for them by the people who did vote.

I do think partial birth can seem to be barbaric but then I know about how medicine has outpaced nature, I know about the grotesque results having worked in a state hospital for the “disadvantaged”. I can’t imagine a woman wanting to have such a procedure done, I can only imagine a woman knowing it’s up to her to have the procedure or perhaps die herself or suffer dire consequences such that she can’t take care of herself or her family.

Righties don’t seem to care about the danger to the mother, or those a dead mother may have to leave behind. In this they are cruel. They are also cruel in not being willing to help the child after it has been born, or the mother - but then that’s welfare and promotes irresponsible behavior. Not the child’s fault, but it’s the principle that matters to them, not the end result.

If abortion should become illegal, it will only become illegal for those who can’t afford to go to another country or pay for a black market abortion. The rich will do what they want and cover it up.

by: joanr16

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:55:39 +0000

Canadian Reader, no offense against amphibians (or marsupials) meant. maha came up with a better example than mine… of a species that doesn’t deliver its young in the same manner as humans. The author of that ridiculous quote at the top of the post seems confused about human reproduction in general.