ARTICLE: Nothing Hidden in Partial-birth Abortion

[STR Ambassador]

(Originally published in 1996)

The controversy surrounding D&X is not like other abortion debates, because D&X is no ordinary abortion. One strains to be able to understand the procedure in civilized terms. Partial-birth abortion makes irrefutable what has been obvious to so many for a long time.

Nothing Hidden in Partial-birth Abortion by Greg Koukl

What is partial-birth abortion? To help answer that question for the legislature, Representative Canady presented Congress with five simple line drawings. They were captioned by seven brief, precise sentences describing the process.

Dr. Haskell, who as of 1992 had already performed over 700 of these abortions, said the drawings were accurate "from a technical point of view." The captions were virtually identical to a description of D&X abortions published in the LA Times, June 16, 1995.

The National Abortion Federation (NAF), however, called the material "sensationalized drawings and graphic language to attempt to enflame opposition to this surgery."
Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) actually tried to prohibit the lawmakers from seeing the sketches during public, congressional debate on HR 1833.

One LA Times columnist claimed the procedure "has been successfully and inflammatorily mischaracterized as the heartless slaying of the helpless with scissor jabs to the skull and a sucking out of the brains."

A Clear, Medical Description

To settle the controversy, I refer now to a description from Dr. Martin Haskell's own instruction manual, "Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion." It was included in presentation materials of the National Abortion Federation (notice this is a powerful, pro-abortion organization), entitled "Second Trimester Abortion: From Every Angle," pages 30-31. This material was distributed at the NAF Fall Risk Management Seminar, held September 13-14, 1992, in Dallas, Texas.

"The surgeon introduces a large grasping forceps, such as a Bierer or Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus.... When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity. The surgeon then applies firm traction to the instrument causing aversion of the fetus (if necessary) and pulls the extremity into the vagina....

"With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities.

"The skull lodges at the internal cervical [opening]....The fetus is oriented dorsum or spine up. At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and 'hooks' the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down)....

"While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.

"...The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

"The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient."

This procedure is almost never done before viability. By Haskell's own admission, two thirds of the children are still alive when he "forces the scissors into the base of the skull." He adds, "When I do the instrumentation on the skull [thrusting the scissors into the cranium]...it destroys the brain sufficiently so that even if it (the fetus) falls out at that point, it's definitely not alive."

D&X is Not "Surgery"[B]

One strains to be able to understand this procedure in civilized terms. There's no need to resort to "sensationalized drawings and graphic language." Dr. Haskell's description speaks for itself.

This procedure cannot be sanitized or legitimized by calling it "surgery," as the NAF repeatedly does. Partial-birth abortions are not surgery. Webster's NewWorld International Dictionary defines surgery as "the treatment of disease, injury, or deformity by manual or instrumental operations, as the removal of diseased parts or tissue by cutting."

First, there is no disease or injury; this is a pregnancy, not a sickness. Indeed, there may be deformity in the child, but the D&X procedure does not remove the deformity; it removes the child. Second, the only cutting done is in the back of the baby's skull to end its short life, not to treat its defect.

Surgery removes a disease, an injury, or a deformity; an abortion removes a child. The use of this term treats a baby like a disease.

[b]Nothing Hidden

Partial-birth abortions make irrefutable what has been obvious to many for a long time: abortion brutally kills a human child. You can no longer get away with distracting terms like "fetus" or "conceptus."

Nothing is hidden in D&X abortion. This is not a piece of tissue or a mere part of a woman's body. This is a little boy or girl dangling between the legs of its mother. You can clearly see its sexual organs, male or female. It squirms and kicks. Its hands open and close, grasping for something to hang onto, until the moment when the doctor's instrument pierces the back of its skull. Then, of course, everything goes limp, because the baby is dead.

Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse from Dayton Ohio, accepted assignment to Dr. Haskell's clinic because she was "strongly pro-choice." In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, nurse Shafer described the end of life for one six-month-old "fetus."

"[Dr. Haskell] delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head....The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall....[Then] the baby was completely limp....After I left that day, I never came back."

That child, a baby boy, had Down's Syndrome. The babies in the other two abortions she assisted in that day were perfectly healthy, she testified.

Amazing Justifications

The things people say to justify D&X are amazing. Some of the attempts are more sophisticated, and I'll speak to them in the next section, but some defy belief.

One woman told a radio interviewer that she preferred partial-birth abortion because the baby was delivered whole and not chopped up into pieces. It gave her the opportunity to say good-bye. As the NAF material puts it, "Removing the fetus intact meant that the family can see it, hold it, and mourn their loss."

Another said it's the most "humane" way for the child itself. I thought this was an odd thing to say for a couple of reasons.

First, the question at hand is the morality of killing the child, not the manner of the killing. Our concern is not finding the best way to take a child's, but whether it's right to dispose of children at all.

Does it somehow strengthen a killer's legal defense because it took one shot to the back of the head to dispatch his victim? Imagine the appeal: "Your Honor, it was the most humane way; he didn't feel a thing."

A second thought occurs to me, though. If this is the most humane way for the baby, what then of the morality of other abortions that are not so humane? Doesn't this automatically call into question other more "inhumane" forms of abortion?

What of the mother, who is conscious during the whole gruesome procedure? What must she be thinking as she watches her newborn child hanging between her legs? It's not crying yet, because its head is still in her vagina, though it would cry, in most cases, if it was simply given some air.

What must be going through her mind as she watches the doctor methodically suction out the brain tissue of her own flesh and blood--and in some cases remove his vital organs--while he's still alive, then gives one last tug to expel the baby's shapeless head and lifeless body?

Ignoring the Obvious

What goes through your mind when you contemplate the reality of this procedure? Sometimes it's possible to talk about an issue in the sterility of a classroom or a radio talk show. When we get a clear, unambiguous look at the particular thing we're discussing, though, words of justification fail us.

There is a moral quality to partial-birth abortion that is self-evident. This is why Pat Schroeder doesn't want line drawings displayed in Congress. All you have to do is picture it and you know immediately what's going on. Yet it's a medical procedure being performed on a regular basis, protected by the laws of our government.

Why don't more people see this? Because of our moral confusion. We're dizzy with the speed of our own moral decline.


Stand to Reason - training Christians in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org - http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/nothing.htm

[dizzle]

Thank you for posting this!!!!

[Da Lone-Warrior]

As I understand it, the current bill on PBA is very similar to a bill that was already ruled unconstitutional. As such, this bill has a higher risk of also being ruled unconstitutional.

I'm sure one could form a bill that would be less likely to be ruled unconstitutional, but I'm not sure that it is in the interest of the Republican Party to do so. If the law is overturned by the Sup Court then it will likely put pro-lifers into a frenzy and they will turn out to vote in the next election so that Dubya can appoint a supreme court justices that will make such a bill constitutional.

So, while I hate PBA, I think that one should change abortion law based on stage of pregnancy, not the type of abortion, and I fear that the current bill has been formed with a view, not to reduce the number of said abortions as quickly as possible, but to manipulate pro-lifers politically to continue to give their much-needed votes reliably to the economic-conservative-dominated republican party.

dlw

[Thomas2003]

Today @ 11:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=237640#post237640)
Love-Warrior:

As I understand it, the current bill on PBA is very similar to a bill that was already ruled unconstitutional. As such, this bill has a higher risk of also being ruled unconstitutional.

I'm sure one could form a bill that would be less likely to be ruled unconstitutional, but I'm not sure that it is in the interest of the Republican Party to do so. If the law is overturned by the Sup Court then it will likely put pro-lifers into a frenzy and they will turn out to vote in the next election so that Dubya can appoint a supreme court justices that will make such a bill constitutional.

So, while I hate PBA, I think that one should change abortion law based on stage of pregnancy, not the type of abortion, and I fear that the current bill has been formed with a view, not to reduce the number of said abortions as quickly as possible, but to manipulate pro-lifers politically to continue to give their much-needed votes reliably to the economic-conservative-dominated republican party.

dlw


This is controversial?

We need to stack the Supreme Court with men of good character that rule according to Law:

2 Samuel 23:3
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just , ruling in the fear of God.

One thing is for certain, the democrats are not going to support anything godly. If you want the democrat vote, just stand up and pander to the dredges of society. While the Republicans certainly aren't righteous, they at least don't vomit at the concept of Justice.

I think we need to restore the vote to property ownership - this would negate the biggest portion of the power base of the democrat party - throw that ring back into the fires of mordor from whence it came.

Cordially,


Thomas

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Thomas2003:

This is controversial?

We need to stack the Supreme Court with men of good character that rule according to Law:

2 Samuel 23:3
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just , ruling in the fear of God.



What is controversial is if they have fashioned a bill that is likely to be ruled unconstitutional so that the issue will loom large in the next election. That means that some abortions will still be legal in the next year or so because of their political maneuvers.

One thing is for certain, the democrats are not going to support anything godly. If you want the democrat vote, just stand up and pander to the dredges of society. While the Republicans certainly aren't righteous, they at least don't vomit at the concept of Justice.

I think we need to restore the vote to property ownership - this would negate the biggest portion of the power base of the democrat party - throw that ring back into the fires of mordor from whence it came.

Cordially,

Thomas

Why would property owners be any more Godly? I think that the Dems have been captured by interests with some serious wrong ideas, but we have no exit threat in the Republican Party and that means our sway within the Repubican Party is correspondingly less. Too many Religious Right leaders are such strong partisans, I mean Pat Robertson endorsed Ahnold cuz he also is weight-lifter.

If we changed our political goals re:Abortion and were willing to consider becoming swing-votes then it would be easier to get bipartisan support to change our current laws and that would result in their being fewer abortions in our country.

There are many, many devout Christians among non-property-owners who should never be divested of their right to vote.

dlw

[Queen]

Ewww

That is why we have a law that abortion is only allowed in the first trimester. This is so cruel....reading it made me sick, so I stopped.....

:bawl:

[bar Jonah]

Yes, let's restrict abortion to the period of time when the murder is pretty much invisible, so we don't have to deal with the disgusting reality of it... We can just treat it as if we're doing away with a nasty virus or something else inconvenient and invisible to the naked eye.

Nevermind that this is just as alive, and just as human...

[Queen]

Okay, I understand.....You are right of course.....but only partially. I have worked in a pre diagnostic lab and believe me, some genetic abbreviations are too cruel for words. To abort the child is not murder, it is compassion.

I have told this before in another posts. We have to look at every decision individual. We have no reason to judge one of the most difficult decisions a woman has to make in her life, neither must we judge when the woman decides against abortion. They are the only ones that can judge about the life of their unborn child, because THEY (!) have to live the rest of their lives with this knowledge. Not we. But there is a difference of being compassionate or being cruel. You must make sure none of these unborn children suffers too much!

I ones refused to do an experiment with embryo's of chickens. It was cruel and I could look at pix in a book and learn enough about embryology without hurting/killing life. I would not know what I would do if I got pregnant. I can die during pregnancy because of my bad health so I am very careful, but nothing protects 100%....so what if I belong to those women that get pregnant even when they protect them selfs for pregnancy?

I am just very glad that I never had to decide about life or death of my child. I would not be able to do that. It is my worst nightmare. But I have seen such horrible disorders that I never, never judge those who decide to have an abortion, neither judge those who decide to keep their child.....even if the child is healthy, but the mother is too young or raped or whatever......having an abortion is not the same like shopping for a new dress......remember that before you judge those who have had an abortion. They mourn their lost child.....always! whatever their reason was

Lots of love,
Queen

[bar Jonah]

Queen, I appreciate what you're trying to say, but if you're not willing to ban abortion for everyone except those cases of the child suffering from a horrible birth defect... then stop bringing it into the discussion; as such, it is nothing but a red herring and a straw man argument. You can't use that as a defense of abortion if you believe it should be legal in all cases. If the issue is all cases, then birth defects have nothing to do with the question of ban or don't ban.

Why was it wrong to participate in that experiment involving a chicken fetus, but you're not opposed to making it illegal to end the life of a living, unborn human based on the issue of convenience?

Queen:
I would not know what I would do if I got pregnant. I can die during pregnancy because of my bad health so I am very careful, but nothing protects 100%....so what if I belong to those women that get pregnant even when they protect them selfs for pregnancy?

Lots of love,
Queen
Queen, with all due respect, if you are biologically capable of becoming pregnant, and you're having sex, then you're not protecting yourself from becoming pregnant. You're just decreasing the likelihood of such a life-threatening pregancy which you yourself admit would be a nightmare for you. A medical study just a year or so ago found that a couple having sex an average amount (approx. 2-3 times a week) for three years with a condom every time has a roughly 50% chance of getting pregant. As I just saw them make note on a rerun of Friends the other day (of all places) ... condoms are 97% reliable.

Multiply that 3% chance for every time you have sex with a man... and you get a dangerous likelihood of making that nightmare a reality. Something to seriously consider... I don't say this out of moral indignation but out of a genuine concern for another human being.

Because I have been involved in a similar circumstance, myself. I lost my virginity to a woman whose tubes were tied. We used protection. One time and she got pregant the first time. Because her tubes were tied, it was a "tubal pregancy" which threatened her life if she didn't terminate it. I will always stand on the statement that there is no such thing as "safe sex," ... it is a myth.

My own child was dead before I even knew I was a father. I got the phone call a couple hours later. Congratulations, Jim... you're the father of a dead baby.

I wouldn't wish that on another human being on earth, including you, Queen. Everything I say here is said from love; I hope you'll take it in that spirit. Take it from someone who has lived through the nightmare.

[Queen]

I am sorry to hear that. That must have been horrible to not be able to decide what to do..........I hope the soul of the child has found peace......(for you that is in heaven). You are in my thoughts.

And you are right, if you don't want to get pregnant, you can stop having sexual intercourse. But for me it is also a way to express my love for my husband. Because I have this risk, I am not able to do that? That would be too hard....I always keep in mind when I ovulate, so I avoid having sex during that period.....that is the best I can do, in combination with other protection.

Even the birth control pill isn't 100% safe....so even happens when women are prepared and very careful.

It is a difficult subject and you are right that the life of the unborn child is important enough to protect. That is why it is so important that there is good sex education in schools and so on. Because many girls get pregnant out of ignorance. And sometimes a pregnancy for a not fully grown body is life threatening....

If you don't want your healthy baby you can give it up for adoption. That would be a respectful act for the child.

I believe life starts when it is still a zygote, and to me all life is sacred. But I have seen the "dark' side of pregnancy and of the development of unborn children. The last thing I would want if to see a life suffer. But I respect it when a couple decides to let the baby be born, because of their religious believes. Who am I to judge. I am not standing in the shoes of those people. I always say that if you will keep the baby, no matter it's health don't use the prediagnostic possibilities, because it is a difficult and stressful road. If you need to prepare for a handicapped child, you can use it, but there is always a change you miscarriage because of the procedure, even if the embryo/fetus is healthy!

That is why I look at the decisions individually, because it is not possible to judge them all equally.

I know you didn't meant any disrespect....I don't approve of abortion as a contraceptive...to me that is wrong, and even then, if the child isn't accepted, what will it's life be like?

Lots of love ans sunshine and again, I am sorry you had to endure that. We sometimes forget the feelings of the father in these sensitive discussions...
Queen

[bar Jonah]

Then, Queen, let's decide to ban abortion in the all cases except those where the mother's life is in significant danger (not just "health" which can be a cop-out), or when the child will have serious birth defects to the degree you referred to.

I want more than that. But if you put that on a piece of paper and shove it in front of me, I will sign it so fast I might tear the paper it's written on.

Can you say the same?

[Queen]

No, because why has a seriously handicapped unborn child less rights then a healthy unborn child. Is it's life worth less? Why should that be allowed to be aborted and for other reasons not. Is a 13 year old pregnant girl able to raise a child? Doesn't has a woman the right to choose for her child's life and give up hers. Why make a difference in situation where we are merely outsiders? Like I said we have to look at every story individually, because we don't know the real reason, we can't look inside the heart and the mind of a woman who has to decide to end the life of her unborn child.

I understand your POV, because you had a terrible experience with this. The woman was wrong not to inform you sooner.....she was so wrong to leave you out of the decision and I understand your pain.

We also have to keep the dialogue going, because things and views change over the course of years and adapt to the new ages. Keep talking about it and avoid that it will be used as a contraceptive........but what will happen if we forbod abortion under certain circumstance? Do women really have to go to back-alleys again to be butchered llike just a few years ago? Do we want scary young teenager death, because they were treated horribly by such illegal butchers, instead of getting proper care from official doctors?......Think about those sides as well

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[bar Jonah]

Queen:
No, because why has a seriously handicapped unborn child less rights then a healthy unborn child. Is it's life worth less? Why should that be allowed to be aborted and for other reasons not. Is a 13 year old pregnant girl able to raise a child? Doesn't has a woman the right to choose for her child's life and give up hers. Why make a difference in situation where we are merely outsiders? Like I said we have to look at every story individually, because we don't know the real reason, we can't look inside the heart and the mind of a woman who has to decide to end the life of her unborn child.

I understand your POV, because you had a terrible experience with this. The woman was wrong not to inform you sooner.....she was so wrong to leave you out of the decision and I understand your pain.

We also have to keep the dialogue going, because things and views change over the course of years and adapt to the new ages. Keep talking about it and avoid that it will be used as a contraceptive........but what will happen if we forbod abortion under certain circumstance? Do women really have to go to back-alleys again to be butchered llike just a few years ago? Do we want scary young teenager death, because they were treated horribly by such illegal butchers, instead of getting proper care from official doctors?......Think about those sides as well

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen
She wasn't wrong, because she didn't know, herself, that she was pregnant. It totally took her off guard, too. She was feeling ill, and as her tubes were tied, the last thing she expected was to find she's pregnant.

As for taking every situation on a case-by-case basis, I don't know of any situation where it would be right to end a child's life after he or she is born... and if the child is just as alive and just as human before birth, the same applies.

Although there are some intellectuals and professors who are openly proposing that a mother should have a right to terminate the life of her child up to 2 years after birth. One of them received an international "ethics prize" of some kind for his work. Absolutely disgusting, insane. But it seems that's the direction we're "progressing."

(Or regressing, as the case may be.)

[Queen]

I understand that she had a difficult choice (and no other because she could die.) I meant that she had to include you in this....but it is (you are right of course) not my right to judge people I do not know personally. Sorry if I have gone to far. I merely wanted to express that I do understand your feelings of....helplessness in such a situation

Two years after birth??? Even when they are healthy??? WHAT????? I can't believe what I am reading.

I can understand that parents decide not to treat a severly handicapped child and let nature take it's course. As long as there is no pain during that period (which we can provide artificial, tahnk goodness). Passive euthanesia.....but that is true for all ages. I also respect that. But to terminate the life of a child after birth (even after the first trimester of pregnancy) is so.....unreal?? I do not understand what you are saying here? Is this passive euthanesia or is this active termination???

weird "progress"........

Lots of love and sunshine (and my apologish again)
Queen

[bar Jonah]

Active termination. They propose clinics, just like abortion clinics.

After all, they point out... up to the age of two, a human child is no more intelligent than a chimp or dolphin, just an animal. Still not a true "person."

[Queen]

???????

Well, I think all life is equal, no matter what your intelligence is.....

If someone has a mental disability that avoids him/her to reach the age of 3 yo mentally is he/she not allowed to live??/ I think even a fly has the right to live!!!

What a :rant:

I must say I am apalled by this so called progress

:shocked:

[bar Jonah]

Then why won't you agree to protect life that isn't threatened by serious birth defects? Healthy human life? Nearly all abortions are for convenience, not for health reasons. What's stopping you from putting your money where your mouth is?

[Queen]

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/pry/abr_netherlands_12.html

Here is the conclusion of a survey....This gives you a little insight in our view on this isssue (compared with New Zealand...so it might not be equal to the USA statistics)

There is a worldwide interest in why the Netherlands has the lowest abortion rates in the western world. This study has been based on a comparison of the differences between practices in New Zealand and the Netherlands. Nevertheless I believe the findings in this report should be of interest to any country which would like to see a reduction in the extent to which women seek to terminate unplanned pregnancies by abortion.

These conclusions bring together the various strands in the research I began when I visited the Netherlands in April 2000.

The Law:
It is clear that the law has little bearing on abortion rates in these two countries. While abortion is available as a woman's right to choose in the Netherlands, it remains a criminal offence in New Zealand unless the mother's life or health is seriously endangered by pregnancy.

Despite these differences in the law, the 1999 abortion rate — based on abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 — in New Zealand was 2.4 times the Dutch rate for the same year.

I did however come to the conclusions that provisions with regard to counselling services were an important factor governing the differences between the two countries.

Counselling for women considering abortion:
Even though counselling is not mandatory under the New Zealand law, counselling services are an integral part of the work carried out in the country's four abortion clinics where some three-quarters of all abortions are performed.

There are significant differences between the two countries in the procedures for counselling. First there is the legal requirement in the Netherlands that the woman's doctors shall discuss alternatives with her and if the woman decides on termination shall make certain she is making the decision of her own free will and not to please some other person.

There is no such requirement in New Zealand. Counsellors are however offered guidelines as to the professional standards of social workers.

Mrs de Boer from the Ministry of Health in the Hague pointed out that only 3 or 4 of Holland's 17 abortion clinics provide a counselling service. Most counselling is independent of the clinics. Much of it is provided by the woman's own doctor, by independent counsellors, psychiatrists, psychologists, spiritual advisors or groups such as VBOK and FIOM. This provides for a much greater diversity in attitudes compared to those prevalent in New Zealand where counselling is concentrated in a small group of social workers employed to work in abortion clinics or registered hospitals.

It is interesting to note that during 1999, 5,787 women were counselled by the pro-life agency VBOK and that the Dutch Government was prepared to pay the salaries of 4.5 of their social workers. In New Zealand this has so far been unthinkable although some public funding is made available to groups like Pregnancy Help because they provide a support services for mothers and pregnant women.

All of which highlights what I regard as another major difference between the two countries and that is the tolerance which is a feature of the Dutch culture.

Dutch Tolerance
It saddens me to have to say this but on the whole New Zealanders tend to be intolerant of those the establishment and the media choose to marginalise. Here, winning is everything.

When New Zealand's All Blacks lost out to France during the Rugby World Cup in 1999 and when our Olympic athletes received only one gold medal at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, our churlish behaviour towards those involved was an embarrassing example of the country's intolerance.

As a nation we seem to have been shaped by our first– past–the–post political history, which means that winners take all. Many New Zealanders struggle with consensus and compromise.

By contrast, consensus is an integral part of the Dutch culture. Even though the pro-abortion movement won out when the abortion laws were enacted in 1981, the Government offered the pro–life movement an opportunity to be involved in the counselling services. It is the same with the work VBOK does in providing a pro–life education programme, which reaches about a third of the students attending secondary schools in the Netherlands. As with the provision of counselling services, it is very hard to imagine the N.Z. Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child being allowed to take a pro–life education programme into one third of our state secondary schools without protest from teaching professionals.

While there are teachers prepared to allow school counsellors to take students to abortion clinics without the knowledge or consent of the girl's parents, there is often considerable intolerance towards those who promote chastity for young women.

In Holland there are teachers who say to VBOK we don't agree with your stand on the abortion issue but our students have the right to make up their own mind on this matter.

I am in no doubt that those students who have been given an opportunity to consider the programme provided by VBOK are in a better position to make an informed decision about the impact abortion could have on their own life or that of a friend than those deprived of such information. They are in a better position to evaluate for themselves the downside of abortion with its attendant physical and emotional complications. They are also in a better position to reflect on the value they consider should be placed on the life of a child before birth.

Given the widespread concern at abortions levels in many countries, it would surely be prudent to follow the lead set by the Netherlands in this regard.

Contraception
Having studied the use of contraception in New Zealand and the Netherlands it seems to me there are two overriding issues. One concerns the methods that are used and the other concerns the extent to which contraception fails.

In comparing the use of contraception by women in their twenties and thirties in the Netherlands and New Zealand, two striking differences emerged:

• New Zealand women in their twenties place a much greater reliance on the condom than Dutch women despite the evidence that this method has a very high failure rate.

• New Zealand women in their thirties rely on sterilisation much more than Dutch women. Sterilisation has a significantly lower failure rate than the pill which is used by most of the Dutch women.

From the information available it seems there is not a significant difference in the extent to which teenagers at first intercourse in both countries rely on the pill, the condom or indeed non-use of contraception.

The other key feature concerns contraceptive failure. From my discussions with Dr Janey Rademakers it seems the Netherlands is absolutely up–front about contraceptive failure. In New Zealand, contraceptive failure is one of our best kept secret. A significant focus of the approach adopted in the Netherlands is to minimise levels of contraceptive failure. New Zealanders generally are unaware of the extent to which the condom and the pill can fail.

It was recently suggested in the New Zealand media that the condom had a high failure rate. Family Planning responded by saying it is irresponsible and misleading to claim that condoms fail.

In 1997 I met with Sue Ineson from the Family Planning Association and asked her why they keep on telling young people they can have sex safely if they used contraception when she knew as well as I did the extent to which it failed. Ms Ineson replied: “We don't say it is safe, we say it is safer.”

I replied: “When you say safer, they hear safe.”

Those countries which are serious about wanting to reduce levels of induced abortion have to take an honest and hard headed look at the extent to which so called 'efficient' contraception fails. People need to know they cannot rely on contraception and they need to know the risks they face if they do rely on them. The evidence is clearly set out in this report.

They also need to acknowledge the importance of teaching girls how to recognise the signs that tell them when they are ovulating.

The Family Planning Association
Another significant difference between New Zealand and the Netherlands is the status of the Family Planning Association. Dr Janey Rademakers told me the association plays a very small part in Dutch society today. Their role has been taken over by general practitioners.

That cannot be said of New Zealand where the Family Planning Association, is a major player in the whole spectrum of issues related to reproduction. It is the country's major pro–abortion agency, referring many women and girls for abortion from the network of clinics it operates throughout New Zealand. It also plays a major part in providing sex education resources for schools and sexuality courses for young adults.

Its power was displayed in an interesting way in 1999 over the issue of informed consent.

In 1998, when Bill English was the Minister of Health he published an informed consent booklet which was distributed to all GP's and medical centres as a resource to assist women who might be considering a termination of pregnancy. The booklet was the one which had originally been prepared for the Abortion Supervisory Committee and which had been dumped because staff in the abortion clinics did not want this informed consent booklet.

Bill English was to encounter a remarkable degree of intransigence from within his department when he wanted this book published. Staff from the Ministry of Health did all they could to block its publication.

Nevertheless, by October 1998, the Minister had achieved his objective. Some 25,000 copies of the informed consent booket had been published and distributed throughout New Zealand. The N.Z. Family Planning Association returned the copies it received.

The booklet was well received by most of the country's doctors. They found it helpful to have a simple, clear, neutral resource they could give to their patients. Providing patients with informed consent material is a standard part of medical practice in New Zealand today.

During 1999, Bill English moved out of health portfolio and became the Minister of Finance. Soon after he took up his new responsibilities, the Ministry of Health withdrew the informed consent booklet. When I rang the Ministry to ask about this I was told there had been complaints about it from the Family Planning Association which disputed the accuracy of the foetal photographs in the book. They had been taken by the world renowned medical photographer Lennart Nilsson. There were three photographs. They showed the foetus at the seventh, eleventh and twelfth week after conception.

Dutch cultural values
For all of that I have come to the conclusion that one of the most important difference between New Zealand and the Netherlands springs from those aspects of the Dutch culture which influence the extent to which teenagers and young women are sexually active outside a committed relationship.

Data provided in the Latten and de Graaf Report provided a picture of a country in which a surpringly large proportion of young women are prepared to safeguard their fertility and avoid the risks associated with premature and casual sexual relationships.

Similarly, the 1995 survey of 7,299 Dutch teenagers reported in Jeugd en seks — Youth and sex revealed a significant difference in the age at which young girls first become sexually active.

The research showed that young Dutch women are much less likely than New Zealanders to place themselves at risk. There appears to be a strong cultural emphasis on individual responsibility, on avoiding unplanned pregnancies and on respect for unborn life. Abortion is regarded as a last resort.

The data also showed that young Dutch women tend to be older than their New Zealand counterparts when they first become sexually active and those who enter into de facto relationships are much less likely to do so while they are still in their teens.

Those who argue that it is unrealistic to encourage young women to postpone becoming sexually active, need to think again. Convincing research from the Netherlands show it has happened there much more so than it has in New Zealand. This is taking place in a thriving, modern democratic country where the young people are intelligent and very well educated.

It provides a logical explanation as to why Holland has the lowest abortion rate in the Western world. It was Dr Janey Rademakers who said to me, “the more I talk to people from other countries, the more I think we are liberal but we have all kinds of boundaries.”

[burgy]

On partial birth aborton:

1. The fact that the procedure is "bloody" has nothing to do at all with the question is it ever necessary.

2. On my web site are six testimonies from persons who have had such a procedure. I recommend reading them for a personal and human view of the issue. The web page is:

www.burgy.50megs.com/six.htm

3. Here is one of those testimonies, made before Congress:

Testimony of Vikki Stella Before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Opposition to H.R. 1833/S. 939 (which would have outlawed PBA)

November 17, 1995

I'd like to thank the Judiciary Committee for asking me to speak at this important hearing. My name is Vikki Stella. My husband Archer and I live in Naperville, Illinois, in the western suburbs of Chicago.

I am nearly eight months pregnant. Our son is going to be born soon -- probably sooner than you might think, because I am diabetic and my babies grow much bigger, much faster than for other women. We have two daughters already, ages eleven and seven, and Lindsay and Natalie absolutely cannot wait to have a little brother to fuss over. My husband is just about to burst with joy over his son. In the midst of our happiness, though, there is still the pain of what happened to the son we almost had. . .and the apprehension over what Congress is trying to do to families like ours.

A year and a half ago, I was in my third trimester of pregnancy with a much-wanted son. Because I'm diabetic and my health is of particular concern, I'd had even more prenatal tests than most women: amnios, ultrasounds, the works. A few weeks before the world ended, my doctor pronounced my pregnancy "disgustingly normal." Then at 32 weeks, I went in for another ultrasound, and everything fell apart. Ultimately, my son was diagnosed with at least nine major anomalies, including a fluid-filled cranium with no brain tissue at all. He would never have survived outside my womb.

I almost had to be carried out of the doctor's office. My husband was literally holding me up on my feet. Never in our lives had we imagined that a disaster like this could happen to us. We went home to our house in Naperville with a room prepared for a little boy -- clothes folded, crib up, walls painted--and we cried.

My husband is in private business now, but he was a practicing physician for some years, and he knew even better than I that there was no hope for this pregnancy. The diagnosis had been confirmed by a perinatologist with a level II ultrasound.

We found the only answer we could: a surgical abortion procedure performed by a physician in Los Angeles. When we got to his clinic, we knew we were safe. As a diabetic, I knew that the controlled, gentle nature of this surgery was much safer for me than induced labor or a c-section, since I don't heal as well as other people. We found out that our baby would die peacefully and painlessly, from the combination of steps taken to prepare for the surgery. He would be brought out intact, though the doctor would have to use a spinal needle to take some fluid off his head so that my cervix wouldn't rupture. And then we could hold him and say our goodbyes.

That's just what happened. And, as promised, the surgery preserved my fertility. This past spring we discovered I was pregnant again. Then the doctor from Los Angeles, the doctor who saved my life, health and sanity, the doctor whose picture I still keep up on my refrigerator, called and said Congress was thinking about banning the surgery I had. Would I go to Washington and tell them my story?

I agonized. This isn't an easy story to tell. It's a very private pain, and my community is very conservative. I feared what the neighbors would say, that they wouldn't understand, that they wouldn't allow me near their kids anymore. But finally our outrage at the lies and misinformation being spread about this procedure grew too great, and my husband and I agreed that I should tell all of you about our son, Anthony.

Since then I've been fighting to stop this bill, known as the "Partial- Birth Abortion Ban" Act. With other mothers like me, I've tried to make sure the truth is heard, not the right-to-life propaganda that starts with the outrageous and inaccurate name of the bill. It's been an education, I must say that. I've heard the worst one human being can say about others, without ever knowing them or having walked in their shoes. For example, I've been told that mothers like me all want perfect babies, that we're having abortions because of cleft palates and missing fingers. Well, yes, my son had a cleft palate. I wish to God that was all he had! He wasn't just imperfect -- he was incompatible with life. The only thing that was keeping him alive was my body. He could never have survived outside my womb, so I did the kindest thing, the most loving thing I knew to do. I took my son off life support.

When I came back to Washington the second time, my oldest daughter asked me why I was going. I told her what I had told both girls the first time, that I was going because of Anthony. Lindsay's eleven, and smart. She wanted to know why I had to go to Washington because her baby brother died. So I sat her down and told her the whole story. When I finished she looked up at me with her great big eyes and said, without hesitation, "Mom, you did the right thing." It's a sad thing when an eleven-year-old is wiser than some United States Senators.

Next month, our son will be born. And in our joy over this new baby, my husband, my daughters and I will remember our first son, and how the way his short life ended made it possible for this new baby to be born. We hope that other families like ours will be given this same chance. We hope the Senate will listen to the voices of families and reject S. 939.

Burgy

[Da Lone-Warrior]

So, the reason for the surgery was to end the life of the basically brain-dead fetus as an act of mercy and to protect her life?

I mean, it seems to me that in her case, the unborn fetus was basically legally dead already.

This is why I think the real political issue should be when we legally define human life as beginning. Then, we can deal with situations like this one, where the fetus is brain-dead/with a very high probability of mortality, with reference to that law.

The problem with PBA is that so many abortions aren't like that one and the fetus is developed at quite an advanced stage.

dlw

[Queen]

burgy,

Thanks for sharing this. This sounds a lot more peaceful than the other story. It was still hard to read, but this is not a horrific as it sounded in the first place. I know that in Holland we have induced labor in these cases, but I don't know if this procedure is allowed here. Reading your story, it sounds like it is something we would allow as well.

Thanks again for sharing. This made me change my mind about this kind of abortion.

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Bill the Cat]

Burgy, my question is, if the baby in the testimony you provided had no brain tissue at all, then how was the heart beating? The heartbeat is controlled by the medulla oblongota, correct? If the child had no medulla, then there could be no heart beat, so was she telling the whole truth?

[Queen]

Bill,

That is possible, because the baby lives in the mothers womb, and having a lot of fluids in your skull instead of brains, doesn't mean there is no brain tissue at all. I have done reseach on spina bifida and children with an open skull or without brains can be born after a notmal period of pregnancy. It happnes and the heart is still beating. It just needs a little electric pulse. I have also witnessed hearts beating without a body. Little hearts of a rat. They were removed from the body of the rat and placed in a sort of artificial bloodflow (not real blood, but a fluid with nutrients and oxygen). With a simple electric pulse the heart would start beaiting again....no brains are needed......you can do this with human hearts as well. Although that would be not allowed......(poor rats by the way....but that is another discussion.

And what about people who are braindeath after a serious accident? With the help of oxygen they can stay alive for a long time, although there is no brain activity at all.

In a hospital they stop re-animation after a certain amount of time, because the brain suffers too much and will die if it is deprived of oxygen....not because they can not get the heart working. You can get a heart beating after two hours if necessary, the brain is the weak organ here.

So, yes it is possible. The mother provides the oxygen and nutrients for the heart of the child......

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 03:44 AM post located here (http://ls101.serverindo.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=249655#post249655)
Queen:

Bill,

That is possible, because the baby lives in the mothers womb, and having a lot of fluids in your skull instead of brains, doesn't mean there is no brain tissue at all. I have done reseach on spina bifida and children with an open skull or without brains can be born after a notmal period of pregnancy. It happnes and the heart is still beating. It just needs a little electric pulse. I have also witnessed hearts beating without a body. Little hearts of a rat. They were removed from the body of the rat and placed in a sort of artificial bloodflow (not real blood, but a fluid with nutrients and oxygen). With a simple electric pulse the heart would start beaiting again....no brains are needed......you can do this with human hearts as well. Although that would be not allowed......(poor rats by the way....but that is another discussion.

[QUOTE] And what about people who are braindeath after a serious accident? With the help of oxygen they can stay alive for a long time, although there is no brain activity at all.

In a hospital they stop re-animation after a certain amount of time, because the brain suffers too much and will die if it is deprived of oxygen....not because they can not get the heart working. You can get a heart beating after two hours if necessary, the brain is the weak organ here.

So, yes it is possible. The mother provides the oxygen and nutrients for the heart of the child......

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

OK, I was under the impression that the brain regulates heart beats, but, I am no biologist...

[Queen]

Nah, that is okay. You are right, it is regulated by the brain, but the heart is able to work on it's own.

:lol:. well, thank goodness not all people are biologists....what would the world do with all these biologists? :huh:

:lmbo:

You just had awaken my teacher personality....and I just had to react....:tongue:

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[RumTumTugger]

10-08-2003 @ 09:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=237640#post237640)
Love-Warrior:

As I understand it, the current bill on PBA is very similar to a bill that was already ruled unconstitutional. As such, this bill has a higher risk of also being ruled unconstitutional.

I'm sure one could form a bill that would be less likely to be ruled unconstitutional, but I'm not sure that it is in the interest of the Republican Party to do so. If the law is overturned by the Sup Court then it will likely put pro-lifers into a frenzy and they will turn out to vote in the next election so that Dubya can appoint a supreme court justices that will make such a bill constitutional.

So, while I hate PBA, I think that one should change abortion law based on stage of pregnancy, not the type of abortion, and I fear that the current bill has been formed with a view, not to reduce the number of said abortions as quickly as possible, but to manipulate pro-lifers politically to continue to give their much-needed votes reliably to the economic-conservative-dominated republican party.

dlw

No it is not simular to the previous legeslation it answered Justice O'Conners objection to it being to vague and it would mean any abortion coudl be denied this one is about a specific procedure that is only used meaning that it should pass muster if O'conners Breyer and Ginsberg remember that the Constution says what it means not what they want it to mean. there is going to be a challenge only because the pro abortion(o sorry Pro-choice) advocates do not want any restrictions on abortion which is why they continue to fight even that legislation that mandates Informed consent. And what is wrong with making sure that Constitutinalist get instead of Activist get on the courts.

I'd be more upset over what the Democrats in teh Senate are doing now with there uncostutional filibuster on the Executives Branches choices for federal courts. Call your senator especially if they are one of those Democrats and demand they do their duty and allow for an up or down vote on President Bushes instead of Hypocritaly demanding a super majority

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I am happy to stand corrected.

I believe that Roe did allow for restrictions in the latter two trimesters, so the SC challenge would have to be from Doe-V-Bolton, where "health" was defined very very vaguely so as to provide a loop-hole that would permit abortion on demand regardless of the stage of pregnancy.

dlw

[bar Jonah]

Exactly, Love-Warrior. The "health" red herring is unacceptable, because it can mean anything in the world. EVERY pregnancy has health risks to the mother, by definition! Good grief! Any exception for the "health of the mother" makes the legislation absolutely impotent, and the anti-life side knows it.

I can sign on to legislation the makes exception for the imminent risk to the life of the mother. I also believe this is an unacceptable exception except where the unborn child will be lost no matter what... but it would be a step in the right direction, and wouldn't be pointless like legislation with the "health" exception.

[C. D. Ward]

10-13-2003 @ 01:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=242568#post242568)
RightIdea:

Although there are some intellectuals and professors who are openly proposing that a mother should have a right to terminate the life of her child up to 2 years after birth. One of them received an international "ethics prize" of some kind for his work. Absolutely disgusting, insane. But it seems that's the direction we're "progressing."

(Or regressing, as the case may be.)

I try to stay abreast of contemporary moral philosophy, but I'm not aware of any academics who make such arguments. Do you have any names or other references? I'd be very curious to see the line of "reasoning" they attempt to use to justify such a position.

The closest I can think of is Peter Singer (although he's not won any "ethics prizes" of which I'm aware) who argues that involuntary euthanasia of newborn infants can be morally justified in certain situations. The situations generally include severe physical or mental birth defects. His argument is excerpted from Practical Ethics at this link (http://www.petersingerlinks.com/taking.htm).

That's not at all to say I completely agree with his line of reasoning; I don't, but one can read for oneself that he's discussing newborns, and not 2-year olds.

C. D. Ward

For RTT: a filibuster is not "unconstitutional". Article I, section 5, clause 2 specifies "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." Filibusters are permitted under Senate rules and are thus not "unconstitutional".

[RumTumTugger]

Today @ 07:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=251640#post251640)
C. D. Ward:



I try to stay abreast of contemporary moral philosophy, but I'm not aware of any academics who make such arguments. Do you have any names or other references? I'd be very curious to see the line of "reasoning" they attempt to use to justify such a position.

The closest I can think of is Peter Singer (although he's not won any "ethics prizes" of which I'm aware) who argues that involuntary euthanasia of newborn infants can be morally justified in certain situations. The situations generally include severe physical or mental birth defects. His argument is excerpted from Practical Ethics at this link (http://www.petersingerlinks.com/taking.htm).

That's not at all to say I completely agree with his line of reasoning; I don't, but one can read for oneself that he's discussing newborns, and not 2-year olds.

C. D. Ward

For RTT: a filibuster is not "unconstitutional". Article I, section 5, clause 2 specifies "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." Filibusters are permitted under Senate rules and are thus not "unconstitutional".

C.D Ward. It may have been Peter Singer that is being spoken of I think I heard something this past week about an award for him

As for the Filibuster it is unconstitutional when they use it to demand a super majority vote instead of the simple majority Constitution calls in the Advise and Consent duties spelled out for the Senate on the Excutive branches Candates. Pure and Simple C.D. the Democrats using the Filibuster are using so that the rest of the Senate cannot do their duty because they know if it went to a vote the candidates would pass And they don't those Candidates. I say we must call them and tell them to do their Constitutionally mandated duty and vote yes or no on the candidates and stop playing partizen politics with our right to Justice. BTW who said.

"I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported . . . ."
answer Senator Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

"We had nominations that were filibustered. This was almost unheard of in our past. . . . It is used, Mr. President, as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.

Answer: Senator Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, 1/4/95

Said The Senate Should Not"[O]bstruct The Process And Prevent Numbers Of Highly Qualified Nominees From Even Being Given The Opportunity For A Vote On The Senate Floor."

Answer: Senator Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 5/14/97)

of the Senate "[A]ccept Our Responsibility And Vote People Up Or Vote Them Down. . . . If We Want To Vote Against Them, Vote Against Them."

answer (Senator Patrick Leahy, Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

"It Is Our Job To Confirm These Judges. If We Don't Like Them, We Can Vote Against Them

answer Senator Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, 9/16/99)

"[W]e Are Charged With Voting On The Nominees. The Constitution Does Not Say If The Congress Is Controlled By A Different Party Than The President There Shall Be No Judges Chosen."

answer Senator Chuck Schumer, Congressional Record, 3/7/00) note here his use of the Consitution to argue against Filibustering.

And what one thing do all these Senators have in common? they are all now filibustering President Bushes nominees. So what is so different now C.D. hmmm.

I say the Democrat Senators get off their Hypocritcal you know whats and do the right thing. Allow the vote up or down. as it says in the Constitution.:rant:

[bar Jonah]

C.D., I don't know what to tell you, except that this isn't even news. I was commenting on this international news tidbit 5 or 6 years ago at my radio station in Japan on my afternoon show. Old news.