President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[fredinator]

I'm not arguing the abortion issue at all. What I took issue with is the fact that she's defending late term abortion by saying that sometimes it's required to save the life of the mother. That is simply not true. If she wants to support it, fine, support it, but don't use "it's to save the mother's life" to hide behind. Let's just say that a woman does develop a life threatening illness-the baby is viable, at the very earliest at about 23 1/2 weeks. So, why would they perform a late term abortion to save the mother's life instead of delivering the baby and trying to save it? My point is that the termination of the pregnancy is what will save the mother's life-not the intentional termination of the life of a potentially viable baby. So, that's what I meant by saying she didn't know what she was talking about.

I am very passionate about abortion but I also respect that some people see it differently than I do. What I don't respect is people using incorrect information to try to support their position on it.

Come on--I asked my sis about this today and she's been an OB/GYN nurse for 36 years... She has never seen one done personally, never known a doctor who performed one--she said it really isn't a necessary procedure since there are other ways to save the mother's life if needed without doing this partial birth thing. She told me the only procedure akin to this one that she has seen or heard of personally was a baby with multiple inutero fatal abnormalities along with a giant head from hydrocephalus where it couldn't be delivered without endangering the mother's life and the doctor injected either the amnio fluid or the baby with potassium...

This partial birth thing has been completely blown out of proportion...

[Angel]

Come on--I asked my sis about this today and she's been an OB/GYN nurse for 36 years... She has never seen one done personally, never known a doctor who performed one--she said it really isn't a necessary procedure since there are other ways to save the mother's life if needed without doing this partial birth thing.

Exactly.

She told me the only procedure akin to this one that she has seen or heard of personally was a baby with multiple inutero fatal abnormalities along with a giant head from hydrocephalus where it couldn't be delivered without endangering the mother's life and the doctor injected either the amnio fluid or the baby with potassium...

This is not done to protect the mother's life. In the scenario you describe, the baby's anomalies are not compatible with life-in which cases some mothers elect to terminate the pregnancy. Injecting the baby with potassium in no way protects the mother's life. She will still have to deliver the baby and whether it is dead or alive does not make a difference.

[fredinator]

Natalie, in the instance I described, the mother's life was in danger--my sister was there. You are making a lot of generalizations.

[Angel]

Natalie, in the instance I described, the mother's life was in danger--my sister was there. You are making a lot of generalizations.

I am not saying the mother's life was in danger-I am saying that injecting the baby with potassium was in no way protective of the mother. The termination of the pregnancy was protecting the mother, injecting the baby with potassium was not. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been done-I'm just saying that it did not in any way improve the mother's chances of survival.

You are right, I wasn't there, but trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

[fredinator]

Oh, for heaven's sake, we all know what you are talking about--you bring up vag's and cervix's CONSTANTLY--you must be awesome at cocktail parties. My sister's been doing this probably twice as long as you have and I bet there are a lot of folks on this board who have relatives who did this very thing too.

[Angel]

I don't do cocktail parties.

I'm not going to argue with you about who's smarter, me or your sister, because quite frankly, I don't care. I've participated in many pregnancy terminations for reasons exactly like the one you've described and never, never, never, never have I ever seen a time when it was necessary to terminate the baby's life prior to the delivery in order to save the mother's life. There ARE times when it is necessary to end a pregnancy to save a mother's life and if that happens prior to a baby being viable then yes, it is necessary to sacrifice the life of the baby for the life of the mother. If the condtion arises after the age of viablity there is no need to terminate the life of the baby to save the life of the mother. Granted, the baby may because of problems related to prematurity but it is not necessary to end the baby's life to save the mother-only to deliver the baby.

[fredinator]

Well, you should lighten up a little. It's not a freaking issue of who's smarter--it's just a job like other jobs. However, my sister IS quite smart and she has experienced at least one occasion (the one she told me about today) where it was necessary to terminate the fetus. Very rarely has she not deferred to what a doctor's opinion was and in this case the doctor's opinion was the mother's life was in danger, the fetus had terminal abnormalities, so the pregnancy was ended.

[Angel]

Natalie, in the instance I described, the mother's life was in danger--my sister was there. You are making a lot of generalizations.

and PS, to assume that you are more well versed in this area because your sister may have been a nurse longer than me is quite a generalization as well.

[fredinator]

I am more well versed in this area because she in this instance she was there and assisted the doctor. You haven't--and don't get me wrong, I admire ANY nurse especially after some of the other comments she has made in the past... I could never do what you all do..

[Rockindeano]

Cannot you two argue about vaginal knowledge supremacy in PM? This is fucking embarrassing to watch.

[Angel]

Well, you should lighten up a little. It's not a freaking issue of who's smarter--it's just a job like other jobs. However, my sister IS quite smart and she has experienced at least one occasion (the one she told me about today) where it was necessary to terminate the fetus. Very rarely has she not deferred to what a doctor's opinion was and in this case the doctor's opinion was the mother's life was in danger, the fetus had terminal abnormalities, so the pregnancy was ended.

OH MY HELL! I am not saying the pregnancy did not need to end-and in this case the baby would have died shortly after birth anyway so potassium or no potassium, it doesn't matter either way. Let's look at another scenario....

Mom is 25 weeks and develops severe HELLP syndrome (go ask your sister) and her life is in danger. The pregnancy needs to end either by induction of labor and vaginal birth or c-section. My point is that there is no reason to perform a partial birth abortion-where the labor is indced and the baby's life is ended just prior to the birth-by very brutal means. Whether they end the baby's life or deliver the baby alive will not affect the mother's health status.

[Angel]

Cannot you two argue about vaginal knowledge supremacy in PM? This is fucking embarrassing to watch.

This has nothing to do with vaginas.

[fredinator]

You should be glad that I am trying to point out that this partial birth thing is another scare tactic by conservatives; one of them probably read about this thing somewhere and glommed onto it and repeated it over and over again like it happened all the time... I only mentioned a vag once and that was out of necessity, lol.

[Angel]

You should be glad that I am trying to point out that this partial birth thing is another scare tactic by conservatives; one of them probably read about this thing somewhere and glommed onto it and repeated it over and over again like it happened all the time... I only mentioned a vag once and that was out of necessity, lol.

I agree, it doesn't happen all the time. The issue I had was with Hillary Clinton saying she supports it when it needs to be done to save the life of the mother....and well, you all know the rest of the story.....

[fredinator]

Well, you should lighten up a little. It's not a freaking issue of who's smarter--it's just a job like other jobs. However, my sister IS quite smart and she has experienced at least one occasion (the one she told me about today) where it was necessary to terminate the fetus. Very rarely has she not deferred to what a doctor's opinion was and in this case the doctor's opinion was the mother's life was in danger, the fetus had terminal abnormalities, so the pregnancy was ended.

OH MY HELL! I am not saying the pregnancy did not need to end-and in this case the baby would have died shortly after birth anyway so potassium or no potassium, it doesn't matter either way. Let's look at another scenario....

Mom is 25 weeks and develops severe HELLP syndrome (go ask your sister) and her life is in danger. The pregnancy needs to end either by induction of labor and vaginal birth or c-section. My point is that there is no reason to perform a partial birth abortion-where the labor is indced and the baby's life is ended just prior to the birth-by very brutal means. Whether they end the baby's life or deliver the baby alive will not affect the mother's health status.

I see what you are saying--the mom needs to deliver regardless of the danger but that's evidently what the doctor thought. Anyhoo, I will ask her... By the way, KEVIN COSTNER is DEAD!!!!!!

[fredinator]

My son just told me he was shot and killed in a bar!

[fredinator]

In Cleveland!!

[fredinator]

My son just told me, "a" Kevin Costner died--that bastard, lol. Please disregard the nonsense above.

[Angel]

Please disregard the nonsense above.

OK, I will.

[fredinator]

, touche... (My son is in there cackling about it...)

I guess what I'm trying to convey is that partial birth abortions are done rarely so why is there so much hype about it?

[Rockindeano]

:) , touche... (My son is in there cackling about it...)

I guess what I'm trying to convey is that partial birth abortions are done rarely so why is there so much hype about it?

Becuse the religious right is fucking wacked and needs the drama to enhance their agenda. They need to be stopped.

[Angel]

:) , touche... (My son is in there cackling about it...)

I guess what I'm trying to convey is that partial birth abortions are done rarely so why is there so much hype about it?

Becuse the religious right is fucking wacked and needs the drama to enhance their agenda. They need to be stopped.

[Rockindeano]

:) , touche... (My son is in there cackling about it...)

I guess what I'm trying to convey is that partial birth abortions are done rarely so why is there so much hype about it?

Becuse the religious right is fucking wacked and needs the drama to enhance their agenda. They need to be stopped.

Roll your eyes somewhere else. You live in the darkest reddest state known to man. Get a clue.

[Angel]

:) , touche... (My son is in there cackling about it...)

I guess what I'm trying to convey is that partial birth abortions are done rarely so why is there so much hype about it?

Becuse the religious right is fucking wacked and needs the drama to enhance their agenda. They need to be stopped.

Roll your eyes somewhere else. You live in the darkest reddest state known to man. Get a clue.

Where the hell is all this hate toward me coming from??? Seriously? I'm a "notveryprettyface" in one thread and a stupid republican in this one...sheesh.

You are right, I do live in a "red" state, and I love it, get over it.

[Rockindeano]

I never called you a notveryprettyface, as you have been extremely kind to me.......however, I think the religious right is indeed dangerous and their agenda is scary. Look at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman and Sharron Angle and then get back to me if you're comfortable with them. They are scary bitches.

[Angel]

I never called you a notveryprettyface, as you have been extremely kind to me.......however, I think the religious right is indeed dangerous and their agenda is scary. Look at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman and Sharron Angle and then get back to me if you're comfortable with them. They are scary bitches.

That comment wasn't necessarily entirely directed toward you...just a general question.....

[fredinator]

What I hate about it is that a bunch of right wing conservative men (mostly) jumped on this frightening, gory procedure which really isn't practiced very much and then used as propaganda to scare a bunch of people into voting according to their agenda. I think this is what Dean means, right Dean?

[The_Noble_Cause]

You mean Reagan and that large majority Republican House and Senate?
Ronnie never had his party in control.

Ever hear of the veto? Besides, the GOP controlled the Senate throughout Reagan's entire term. And the specific example I mentioned, the Greenspan Soc. Security Commission, was appointed by Reagan, not the Dems in the House. So I'm not sure what your point is, if you had one. The fact of the matter is, Reagan's high-spending ways weren't the result of a defiant out-of-control MoveOn.org congress. On countless issues, Reagan compromised with Tip O'Neil for the good of the country. By his second term, he was sharing jelly beans with his arch nemesis, the red Soviet menace; frying the brains of most troglodyte Cons, like yourself, who considered it the ultimate act of Chamberlain-style appeasement. That's his legacy in a nutshell - NOT the Michael Moore ripoff film you unquestioningly posted.

[donnaplease]

I'm not arguing the abortion issue at all. What I took issue with is the fact that she's defending late term abortion by saying that sometimes it's required to save the life of the mother. That is simply not true. If she wants to support it, fine, support it, but don't use "it's to save the mother's life" to hide behind. Let's just say that a woman does develop a life threatening illness-the baby is viable, at the very earliest at about 23 1/2 weeks. So, why would they perform a late term abortion to save the mother's life instead of delivering the baby and trying to save it? My point is that the termination of the pregnancy is what will save the mother's life-not the intentional termination of the life of a potentially viable baby. So, that's what I meant by saying she didn't know what she was talking about.

I am very passionate about abortion but I also respect that some people see it differently than I do. What I don't respect is people using incorrect information to try to support their position on it.

When a woman develops Eclampsia it is a VERY serious situation that can kill her. And the stress of the pregnancy is generally what causes it. The treatment for Eclampsia... birth.

Dean, this isn't abortion. It's an unnecessary & brutal murder disguised as a medical procedure, plain and simple. I'm not gonna debate conception vs viability when it comes to a first trimester abortion. As you say, that is the law and it should be upheld. My feelings on those are dependent upon the situation, but in NO case that I'm aware of would I EVER advocate a partial birth abortion. When Hilary said that it was ok to preserve the health of the mother or her ability to later conceive, she lost me. It was a bullshit argument - one without an iota of merit.

[conversationpc]

I'm not arguing the abortion issue at all. What I took issue with is the fact that she's defending late term abortion by saying that sometimes it's required to save the life of the mother. That is simply not true. If she wants to support it, fine, support it, but don't use "it's to save the mother's life" to hide behind. Let's just say that a woman does develop a life threatening illness-the baby is viable, at the very earliest at about 23 1/2 weeks. So, why would they perform a late term abortion to save the mother's life instead of delivering the baby and trying to save it? My point is that the termination of the pregnancy is what will save the mother's life-not the intentional termination of the life of a potentially viable baby. So, that's what I meant by saying she didn't know what she was talking about.

I am very passionate about abortion but I also respect that some people see it differently than I do. What I don't respect is people using incorrect information to try to support their position on it.

When a woman develops Eclampsia it is a VERY serious situation that can kill her. And the stress of the pregnancy is generally what causes it. The treatment for Eclampsia... birth.

Dean, this isn't abortion. It's an unnecessary & brutal murder disguised as a medical procedure, plain and simple. I'm not gonna debate conception vs viability when it comes to a first trimester abortion. As you say, that is the law and it should be upheld. My feelings on those are dependent upon the situation, but in NO case that I'm aware of would I EVER advocate a partial birth abortion. When Hilary said that it was ok to preserve the health of the mother or her ability to later conceive, she lost me. It was a bullshit argument - one without an iota of merit.

I've never understood the rationale at all for ever performing a partial-birth abortion. Some wackos say that it should be necessary to save the life, or even "health", of the mother. My question is...If the baby is born all except the top of the head to be brutally murdered, then why not just complete the birth altogether. It's not going to harm the woman's health in any additional way to just pull the head out the rest of the way. Unbelievably barbaric.