did you hear this in the mainstream media...?

1. 66

   SparklingJewelposted 13 years ago

   profound accusations and proof against Kagan...
   
   
   http://www.aul.org/2010/07/video-yoest- … -hearings/
   
   complete transcript of Yoest testimony against Kagan's confirmation
   
   http://www.aul.org/2010/07/transcript-y … -hearings/

   replyreport
   1. 84

      kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Only if you believe all abortions should be illegal.
      
      I don't know the circumstances of the ACOG incident, but it sounds fishy to me. I personally know a couple women whose lives were saved by late term abortion, and my own aunt was at high risk of becoming one of them. Saying that it is "never" medically necessary is bulls***.
      
      If it comes down to a choice between the mother's life and the child's, every doctor who deserves the title would choose the mother, and governments (state or local) should not be stepping in and making that decision for them!

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I don't know, I think the mother would want to say to the doctor to save her child even at the cost of her life.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Some would, but that is their CHOICE. Nobody forces them to get a late term abortion if they are willing to accept the risk, just as nobody should force women who are NOT willing to accept the risk to take it anyway. What if they already have children? You really think they should be forced to risk leaving their living children motherless just to continue carrying a fetus that may or may not even survive to full term, and will be brain dead if it survives the birth?
            
            The fetus could even be already dead - the "partial birth" technique is one of the standard procedures for removing a late term miscarriage.
            
            Late term abortions make up only 1% of abortions for a reason - they're a last resort when something goes seriously wrong:
            
            http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/ … ;compID=39
            http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008 … -realities

            replyreport
            1. 67

               Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I don't think it is completely their choice at that stage. AFter three months, a baby can live outside the womb.  To assume that the baby is dead is kind of taking it for granted. However to say that the government shouldn't step in and make the decision for her sake and not the baby's sake at the late stages is kind of silly when you expect the government to support you at an earlier part of the pregnancy for those who want the abortion.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  After three months? Where on earth did you hear that? The most premature baby ever to survive was born at 21 weeks 6 days and had some pretty serious, lifelong medical complications as a result. Many doctors will not even attempt intensive care to save any baby born after less than 24 weeks. At that point, you've still got less than a 50% chance the baby will make it, and even if it does, it's likely to have lifelong disabilities.
                  
                  Additionally, if you had bothered to read the articles I linked, you would have noticed that one of the women's babies died while she was waiting for a second opinion to be able to get a late term abortion. It had omphalocele, spina bifida, anencephaly and would never have survived outside the womb even if it had made it to full term. You've probably heard of spina bifida. Anencephaly means the baby was missing a significant percentage of its brain, skull, and scalp (basically, everything above the level of the eyebrows); omphalocele means the intestines, liver, and other internal organs aren't inside the body cavity but instead are contained in a sac protruding from the navel region.
                  
                  The other woman's child had spina bifida and hydrocephalus. It might have survived outside the womb for a few hours or days, but more is unlikely. In cases like these, some women do elect to continue with the pregnancy, but others don't. Who are we to judge them?

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     IzzyMposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Kerry that is spot on. Babies don't survive at three months. I've just published a series of hubs around pregnancy and childbirth and everything you say is fact.
                     I'm against abortion, but late term abortion to save the life of the mother, or where the baby has abnormalities incompatible with life is perfectly acceptable, although tragic for all those concerned.

                     replyreport
                  2. 67

                     Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Sorry, it was a typo. I meant to type 6 months.

                     replyreport
      2. 59

         Vladimir Uhriposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         kerryg are you a physician? Those who are in business to perform of partial birth abortion are not ethical and not reliable. They will defend their work. We have the technology to determine ahead the risk. The birth is normal process and do not harm.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            psycheskinnerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Honestly I think anyone who has never/not in relation to medical conditions does not know what they are talking about.  It would be a nice tidy world of pregnancy was never dangerous and abortion doctors just liked killing babies for money, but I am amazed that people really believe this.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Seriously!
               
               I'm not a doctor, but as I said, I've known a few women who had to face that choice and I know how agonizing it was for them. I think it's disgusting that people who have never been in that situation feel justified in condemning them and denying women in similar situations the right to make their own choice about what level of risk to their own life and health they are willing to accept.

               replyreport
2. 66

   SparklingJewelposted 13 years ago

   ...my main points are Kagan's agenda driven ideals and her lack of experience as a judge...she is not a sound nominee for sitting on the supreme court

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately Sparkling, you never know how judges will adjudicate once they are on SCOTUS.  What were once thought to be conservative picks weren't so conservative. As for competence, one only has to look at Justice Souter's record.  The man had written nothing during his time even though he was a judge for many years prior to being on the Supreme Court whereas Justice Thomas is more prolific even though he has only been there for a short time.  His only experience was as a judge for one year on the appeals court.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      kerrygposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I have my own reasons for being disappointed in Kagan's nomination, but Yoerst's main objection seems to be that Kagan is pro-choice and there's nothing wrong with that.
      
      If she used her position inappropriately in the ACOG incident, that's a different matter, but I don't know enough about it to judge and I'm not going to take the word of a committed anti-abortion ideologue for it!
      
      The whole thing sounds fishy to me - "partial birth abortion" isn't the technical medical term for the procedure, for starters, and it is also one of the standard techniques for removing dead fetuses following a late term miscarriage, so the proposed language she supposedly changed sounds like it may itself have been a politically motivated addition. Regardless, the language she supposedly changed it to reflects actual medical reality much more accurately. "May be" does not mean "is," after all.

      replyreport
3. 60

   Jane@CMposted 13 years ago

   I think it is horribly sad when a woman is faced with that choice.  My mom was in the early 60's and I was the baby.  The doctors told her that one of us would not survive the birth (most likely me) due to complications.  Well, here I am and my mom lived until I was 18.  Back then there was no choice for late term abortion and my mom was a strict catholic so it would not have been a choice for her.
   
   I've known two woman who were carrying babies with serious medical conditions, both discovered the medial conditions late in the pregnancy.  The babies died prior to birth & both woman had to go through labor to deliver their baby.    So sad.

   replyreport
4. 66

   SparklingJewelposted 13 years ago

   ...not intended to bring up the abortion issue again..but since it is here to stay, obviously, my stance is still that until everyone recognizes the the soul's right to be born, that we are spiritual beings first and foremost and that individuals have the right to decide whether to pay for one for others, perform one on others, or have one...it will not be a settled issue.
   
   there is insurmountable karma in not recognizing the soul's right to life...do something about it before there is a pregnancy, teach our children better than how we have lived and dealt with abortion

   replyreport