Welcome to Gaia! ::

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/19/schneider.abortion.politics/index.html

Sorry for the confusion.

I got this from Wikipedia (which I know many people discredit these days).

Quote:

[edit] Intact D&X surgery
Preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a suction curette.[13]




In an article entitled "Did I Violate the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban?" (Slate, Oct. 22, 2003), abortion provider Warren Hern described a procedure that might be interpreted as falling into the category:

Earlier this year, I began an abortion on a young woman who was 17 weeks pregnant. Because of the two days of prior treatment, the amniotic membranes were visible and bulging. I ruptured the membranes and released the fluid to reduce the risk of amniotic fluid embolism. Then I inserted my forceps into the uterus and applied them to the head of the fetus, which was still alive, since fetal injection is not done at that stage of pregnancy. I closed the forceps, crushing the skull of the fetus, and withdrew the forceps. The fetus, now dead, slid out more or less intact.

—Warren Hern, Warren M. Hern


[edit] Circumstances in which the procedure is performed
IDX, along with dilation and evacuation (D&E), early induction of labor, and rare procedures such as saline abortions, are only used in the late stages of pregnancy. Late-term abortions (abortions at 21 weeks or later) account for 1.4% of all abortions in the USA.[14] Intact D&X procedures are used in approximately 15% of late-term abortion cases. This calculates to between 2,500 and 3,000 per year, using data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute for the year 2000. They are typically performed between the twentieth and twenty-fourth week of gestation.[15]


Women choose to have late-term abortions for a variety of reasons. Once the decision to have a late-term abortion has been made, a woman or doctor may choose IDX over other available late-term abortion procedures because:

The woman does not have to experience labor.
The woman does not have to undergo abdominal surgery.
The procedure results in a largely intact body over which the parents may grieve.[8]
Sharp instruments are inserted into the uterus fewer times than in a D&E abortion.
The fetus may have hydrocephalus, where the head may expand to a radius of up to 250% of a normal skull at birth, making it impossible for it to pass through the cervix. If live birth is desired, the physician may drain the excess fluid in utero using a syringe, or a caesarian section with a larger than usual incision can be used. If abortion is desired, D&X may be the simplest procedure.
Reasons a woman or physician may not choose IDX, opting instead for another abortion procedure, include:

IDX requires a larger dilation of the cervix than D&E.
Podalic version (turning the fetus into a breech position) can be dangerous to the woman.
The incision in the fetal skull is made blind; the physician may miss and injure the woman's cervix.
Although prominent defenders of the method asserted during 1995 and 1996 that it was used only or mostly in acute medical circumstances, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (a trade association of abortion providers), told the New York Times (Feb. 26, 1997): "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."[16] Some prominent pro-choice advocates quickly defended the accuracy of Fitzsimmons' statements.[17]Pro-life organizations opposed to the method have asserted that in the vast majority of cases, neither the mother nor the fetus suffers from any substantial medical disorder.[18]

End quote.

My opinion is that UNLESS there is a medical reason for the procedure there is no reason to do it at such a late date. If there IS a medical reason do it, but let the baby be born alive. If it's far enough along it can survive with proper attention. If it is just too early then it will die a natural death and the family can mourn a completely intact baby. BTW, hydrocephalus is NOT a reason to perform the procedure, since the excess fluid can be drained off without killing the baby.

This is a victory for our side...and we're one step closer to enslaving all women! Mwahaha...um, wait. That would include me... sweatdrop

My thoughts: It wont last. Next year or soon after it will be completly overturned. Secondly, I thought it was commen sence to know that a law or ruling is only valid to a human being up to the point where their life is in danger. We have laws against the killing of another human, but that law flys out the window when one human was killed because they endangered the life of another.

Our victory: It'll be short lived.

Moving forward: ONE STEP FORWARD AND TWO STEPS BACK! THIS KIND OF DANCE CAN NEVER LAST!

Blood: It makes my throat tickle whee

Gettign off: I have an S&M fetish 3nodding

Pokemon: Yay! Cashcowalicious! Or, if you prefer, cashcowabunga dude!

I though partial birth abortion was banned? It's like killing a baby being born? Why wait for it to be born to kill it? It the woman was dying, they would of done something before she's about to give birth (most likly c-section and get it out that way so they can try to save both, that is their oath).

That is alot more cruel then giving a murder leathel injection yet people have a fit about that saying "it's cruel and unusal punishment" yet alot wanted to kept abort up until birth neutral

People are weird.

Yes i'm so anti-choice rolleyes Their pro-murduring innocent kids then.

Partial birth abortions have been found to be majorly unnecesarry as well as dangerous to the health of the woman as well as a majority of people agree that it is an affornt to humanity in general (I cant quite grasp how the majority can say this about partial birth abortion but not about any otherform of abortion, I guess they are only judging on level of development, which sickens me really.)

If the upporters of woman's rights wanted to do te right thing to help woman, they too would appose such a procedure, since it posses such a health risk.