"Partial-birth" Abortions?

[MsRay]

It seems like that mid- to late-term abortions are on their way to being banned. Slate.com's (http://www.slate.com/id/2090201/) William Saletan reveals that the term used in the topic subject is a misrepresentation of the actual procedure that was promoted to make the ban easier to pass in the minds of the populace.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Rick Santorum, opened the debate by saying, "The term 'partial birth' comes from the fact that the baby is partially born, is in the process of being delivered. … Here is this child who is literally inches away from being born, who would otherwise be born alive." Majority Leader Bill Frist, the Senate's only doctor, concluded the debate by describing the procedure as "destroying the body of a mature unborn child."

President Bush exploits the same illusion. In his State of the Union address this year, he said the bill would "protect infants at the very hour of their birth."

That's just false.What are your views on these types of abortions? Were they changed after understanding what they really are?

I would like to read other viewpoints if anyone could offer an article or the like.

[joeyjoey]

It's just another case of the public being misinformed or lied to for political purposes. There's no need for comment on the technicalities of the procedure...the name partial birth is just a false name given to make it seem much worse than it is.

[Leon]

Forget what the public has been fed and let's look at what D&X or PBA or whatever people want to call this.

Basically, an elective abortion in the last semester is something I am against for, although I am pro-choice. I've watched the pregnancy of my wife, seen the sonograms, and while we were in the high risk for a premie birth at 21 weeks, I did so much research on what is developed and what isn't.

Basically after week 20, the fetus has all parts set except the expansion of the lungs which happen at 24. There's absolutely no reason for late term abortions when they are elective. I don't care what means are used, it's just not ethical, moral, or right.

[jameznyhc]

i totally agree w/leon iam pro-choice but its gotta be done before late pregnency if you saw medical pictures of a partial birth abortion you would be out of your mind to agree with that if someone wants an abortion they should get one in the first 8 weeks

[*~Eleni~*]

I would only object to an abortion in the third trimester..only after any and all prenatal diagnosis tests are administered. Some parents are at increased risk of having a baby with a genetic disorder (the mother being over 35 is one) or other problem and may want to have one of these tests. Knowing about problems before the baby is born may help parents make decisions about health care for their infant. Certain problems can be treated before the baby is born, while other problems may need special treatment right after delivery. In some cases, parents may decide not to continue the pregnancy. An amniocentesis is generally administered in the 14th - 18th week of pregnancy. Complete results are available 2-3 weeks afterwards. (Certain results can be reported as quicly as 2 days after the test)
The desicion to terminate a pregnancy is not always one made lightly, or just because they "dont feel like having it" it can be for hundreds of reasons..I agree there must be some type of control over this epidemic but on the other hand, no one should be forced to bring a life onto this earth if they are certain they cannot handle it.

[kiara42]

I am pro- choice but waiting that long to decide to have one i am against. In my opinion, even if the child was born with a genetic disorder, that child still has a right to live. We shouldn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy because they will be special. Maybe because i work with Multiple handicapped kids, well not kids they are from 12-21, and it effects me.

[MsRay]

Originally posted by kiara42
I am pro- choice but waiting that long to decide to have one i am against. In my opinion, even if the child was born with a genetic disorder, that child still has a right to live. We shouldn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy because they will be special. Maybe because i work with Multiple handicapped kids, well not kids they are from 12-21, and it effects me. Seeing how genetic screening will become more routine, do you feel that future financial concerns should be considered when a woman or a couple is told that their child carries a genetic disorder that will inevitably cost a great deal to cope with? Do you feel genetic screening should be carried out at all?