Welcome to Gaia! ::

Let's say that I have no problem with abortion being legal. It's a woman's right, I say, and that I think it's perfectly fine.

I think that my support of abortion would diminish, just on how gruesomely abortions are performed. I mean, for the love of god, do they have to do the things they do to that unborn child?

The forms of abortion are many, and all of them are brutal beyond belief.

The worst one I know of is the saline injection abortion, where they use salt to suck the moisture from the baby until it's dead from dehydration. There's often a risk of salt poisoning to the mother, and often, the baby may still be alive when it is extracted.

Performed during the second trimester (4-6 months) of pregnancy, Dilation and extraction is done by using A pliers-like instrument because the baby's bones are calcified, as is the skull. The abortionist inserts the instrument into the uterus, seizes a leg or other part of the body and, with a twisting motion, tears it from the baby's body. This is repeated again and again. The spine must be snapped, and the skull crushed to remove them.

These sound vicious, and I just think that, abortion, if I did support it, shouldn't be so brutally disgusting. It's bad enough to kill someone, but to kill it like someone who doesn't even have the right to live, when all they've done is be the product of a young woman's sexual decisions.

This is also one of the reasons I don't support abortions. People have the right to lie, and if you think you have the right to kill them(which you don't), they shouldn't suffer through pain like one would experience in these types of procedures.

My question to people, or choicers, more specifically, would be how is it viable for you to support these violent acts? Maybe if abortion wasn't so horrifying, I might be able to understand the whole "It's a woman's right" argument; but as it is, abortions, to me, seem unsupportable from a moral and logical standpoint. It's not a womans right to get someone to kill the life that grows inside them. Not for frivolous reasons.

I said "a product of a young woman's mistakes" but I meant it because men are not the ones who *have* the abortions, and often, they are not the ones who make the decision to have one. The woman is responsible for getting the abortion, it's her body, not the man's, and she chooses to have it terminated.

Secondly, the dilation and cutterage procedure, in which the baby is cut up, sucked through a vacuum tube, and the uterine walls are scraped, is just as brutal. It is an option in first trimester abortions, and is just as dispicably horrifying.

Dilation and extraction is a second trimester abortion, as well. However, to myself, it doesn't matter what trimester it's in. It still ends a life in a brutal fashion, that's all there is to it.

[ Message temporarily off-line ]

You're right, vacuum aspiration is performed in the first trimester. But it doesn't happen like you described--as I said, the fetus is too small.

Brutal-
2 : befitting a brute : as a : grossly ruthless or unfeeling
Calling abortion brutal isn't a fact--it's an opinion.

What you were saying sounded very much like pity tactics to me. But if you don't consider those pity tactics, that's your prerogative.

Describing rare abortion procedures that are only done for the sake of the mother's life in gross detail doesn't really sound like a logical argument to me, really.

The partial-birth abortion bans you speak of are different than what was established in Roe v. Wade.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/ABORTION/Roe.html


The partial-birth abortion bans that have been passed in many states prohibit not just late-term abortions, not just late D&X procedures--but even common procedures performed in the first and second trimester. These are different from Roe v. Wade.

I believe that abortion should be:
1. Legal for any reason throughout the first trimester;
2. Illegal in the second trimester except for health and life concerns for the mother, or if the fetus is badly disfigured or has a genetic defect;
3. And illegal in the third trimester except for the health and life concerns for the mother, or if the baby is badly disfigured or has a genetic defect.

Roe v. Wade basically supports that, except that states aren't required to pass restrictions after viability. I think they should be required to do so.

"Partial-birth abortion" bans don't do what the public thinks they do--they pass restrictions that are beyond Roe v. Wade.

Elective third-trimester abortions aren't legal, and they never have been.

90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester.

Legally, men should have no say.

But I do believe that women should seriously talk to the father before having the abortion. I know that men sometimes care about their unborn offspring. Women should consider the feelings of the father before having an abortion. Likewise, a man should consider the feelings of the pregnant woman before trying to guilt her into having a child she does not want.

I am gung-ho for the legal rights of fathers, though. Men shouldn't have to support children they don't want when women have the right to an abortion. Here's a great plan that I think would make it almost fair for both sexes: http://www.unm.edu/~keithw/mindRamblings/abortion.html

It still isn't totally fair--but it isn't exactly fair that women have to do all the work involved with pregnancy, either.

EDIT:

Now I understand what you're saying.

Dilation and cutterage is different from Dilation and Extraction.

D&C:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_manu.htm
"A hand-held syringe creates a tiny, localized vacuum that removes the embryo. It is as powerful as the suction provided by conventional vacuum pumps, but is more focused. The amount of cervical dilation is less than with a conventional abortion because of the smaller size of the instrument."

"The technique is limited to the interval between 3 to 6 weeks of gestation (as measured from the day that the last period ended)."

D&E, or D&X:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm
"The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb."



Hope that clears things up.

TO ADD:
I think that D&X's are horrible procedures and I do not think they should be legal except in extreme cases.

RT.Org says they are performed in the fifth month an after--and my best friend was born at six months. There is a lot of developing in one month, but still...

I stand by my statement--this procedure should only be done if it is absolutely necessary--in the cases of harlequin fetus or hydrocephalus, or if it is the only way to preserve the mother's life.

Again, a woman has the right to an abortion, but the responsibility to have it early.

RU-486 is ok with me.

I like this plan: http://www.unm.edu/~keithw/mindRamblings/abortion.html

I like that plan. I like it a lot.

I agree. While I don't like the idea of abortion, I still think the mother should have the last word. And I think the most common method of abortion is in the first trimester and is performed by a doctor scraping the baby's cells out of her uterus.