Hello, guest
|
Name: M
[ Original Post ]
I was watching an interview last night with Bill Clinton and Larry King. When he was president he vetoed the bill to ban this procedure. Why? He said he spoke with several pro-life advocates who had actually had the procedure and that he believed that by not allowing the ban to take effect that he was actually taking a pro-life action. He spoke of one lady who was pregnant and her child had a condition in which the baby's head was so large it was determined that it would not live. It was also determined that if a c-section was performed that the woman would suffer such damage that she could never carry another child. He believed this procedure would allow her to have children in the future. Thinks are never simple when it comes to these controversial issues.
Your Name


captcha

Your Reply here


 
Name: marija | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:06 PM
mmmmm it is contraversial, but either way the vote went...people would still be up in arms about it...IMHO 

Name: marija | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:07 PM
i dont think on topics such as these...that thereis a happy medium :-( 

Name: atomicsnowflake | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:08 PM
That's not true! A traditional midline c-section incision doesn't render the woman damaged at all! It's perfectly reasonable to deliver by section! 

Name: atomicsnowflake | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:09 PM
A c-section does not cause internal damage! No matter what is removed from the womb! 

Name: homemommichele | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:09 PM
Exactly, The nurse is correct again. 

Name: marija | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:11 PM
maybe the baby had deformed somehow and the big head was in the way of a normal c-section?!?!?! 


Name: marija | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:12 PM
ok...that looks even dumber written. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:14 PM
He said on the interview last night that the baby's head was so large that a c-section would have caused unrepairable damage. 

Name: atomicsnowflake | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:15 PM
Yes, but they wouldn't make a lower incision - it would be a midline one - which is vertical. It's still possible to carry a baby after this type of incision - you just have to be more careful that's all!

(hi michelle)!!! 

Name: M | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:15 PM
Have you heard that former NY mayor Giuliani might run for president? Here are his views. I think he would have this overturned.:
*****
TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.

GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.

- CNN December 2, 1999 

Name: atomicsnowflake | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:15 PM
that's crap! The womb is capable of huge expansion! If she was able to carry this deformed baby, then an incision simply wouldn't cause damage! I'm tellin' ya! 

Name: atomicsnowflake | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:17 PM
Wombs aren't fragile flowers you know! They're one of the strongest organs in the body - they have to be! They have excellent healing abilities! 

Name: M | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:17 PM
Apparently Clinton had a speech on this subject years ago and had 2 or 3 women beside him who were prolife who had this procedure. He used their cases to justify not supporting the bill. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:18 PM
He mentioned the name of the condition that this baby suffered from on tv last night. I do not remember what it was called. I will see if I can find it. 

Name: atomicsnowflake | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:19 PM
whatever.....I have to go out now.

I have witnessed abortions! I have even scrubbed up for them! They're gruesome......God knows how much the baby's suffer!

They're not for me. 

Name: homemommichele | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:29 PM
Ladies I had two kids, one just under 10 lbs, one over 10 lbs. BOTH from a c-section with a incision in my lower abdomen...a horizonal one. Believe me I would not have wanted to push their heads out of my bottom!! I am also (if I chose, which I do not) able to continue having babies (though the next would probably be 12 lbs!!).
The condition you are referring to is hydrocephalus (water on the brain).
There were also countless DOCTORS that stated during Clintons term who said this procedure should never be used. This view and his refusal to ban this hideous act is the one and only one reason I NEVER would vote for Clinton.
A.S. I cannot imagine having to scrub for that!! Here in the US we can ask to be excused from assisting with something that we are morally opposed to and they will try to get someone to do it, however if no one else is available...... Luckily I did not do surgery or L&D I just cared for the babies once they were allowed to be born!! 

Name: M | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:32 PM
Here is a transcript:

*****

KING: Some of the bases we will cover tonight. The Supreme Court has said "partial birth" abortion is wrong. The woman will not be blamed, but the doctor can get up to two years. Thoughts?

CLINTON: Well, you know, I vetoed that bill twice. And I think it is a great victory for the political strategy of the anti-abortion movement. But I do not believe it is a pro-life decision.

KING: No?

CLINTON: I do not. Not a pro-life decision, because let me remind you, when I vetoed that bill, I had standing in the White House with me an evangelical Christian who had had the procedure who was pro-life, an Orthodox Jew who had had the provision who was pro-life, and another Christian who had been pro-choice.

All three women and their husbands and physicians, but two of the three had had the provision were pro-life. They did it because their children were -- I mean, their unborn children were severely hydrocephalic, they were certain to die either before, during or immediately after childbirth.

And the doctors told them that if they did not reduce the size of these babies' heads, which were swollen very high -- very large, that delivering them, even by cesarean section, might so damage the women that they might not be able to bear other children.

And they told me that they would other never want to use this procedure, that no one would want to do this unless there was some medical necessity for it. But it sounded gruesome. You could use -- you can label it and no one ever knew the facts.

It was a perfect political strategy. Who can be for "partial birth"
abortion? It is a great line. But the truth is the doctors who did it and the women who agreed to have it -- as I said, I talked to two of them who were pro-life, anti-abortion, they did it because they thought it was a pro-life position. They thought it was the only way they could go on and have further children.

KING: So you don't see Roe versus Wade in danger?

CLINTON: No, I do think it is in danger. But all I'm saying is I don't believe that this was a victory for the pro-life forces. I think
-- you know, I think abortion is a difficult decision. I agree with the Roe v. Wade decision because I don't think we ought to criminalize this.

I think it is somewhat hypocritical, frankly, to make the doctors criminals and leave the mothers off.

KING: That is two parts (INAUDIBLE).

CLINTON: You can't go around saying, well, this is killing, and then you have an essential accomplice here, the mother. The mother can't do this -- I mean, the doc can't do it without the mother. But we are not going to charge them, we are only going to charge the doctor.

So they know how hard this is. This is -- but as a political strategy for the anti-abortion movement, it is a great triumph. And they do -- they have put Roe v. Wade at risk. I just don't agree with the decision.

And I don't think it is pro-life. I think that the -- I vetoed those bills because I thought that if they passed it would make it harder for women with problem pregnancies to have other children. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:36 PM
I am not saying I am for this procedure. I am just presenting what bill clinton said. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:37 PM
His reasoning that vetoing the bill was actually prolife was that "I vetoed those bills because I thought that if they passed it would make it harder for women with problem pregnancies to have other children" 

Name: homemommichele | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:45 PM
You know, it is not admitted. However many many women I have seen that have had abortions....sometimes multiple ones, later have premies, who are at risk due to low birth weight. This has been my observation just from taking care of the babies and observing the medical history of the mother. It only makes sense..you are disrupting a natural process, the hormones have already started being produced to maintain and nurture a pregnancy. If you disrupt that un naturally, esp multiple times, it makes sense that the body would get screwed up from that. So the argument that allowing the abortions so that it is a "pro-life" decision to allow them to have other kids later is a little faulty. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:48 PM
There is also a theory that having an abortion increases a woman's risk of breast cancer because it disrupts hormones. Some think this theory was created to scare women. 

Name: homemommichele | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:50 PM
No M, it was not "created to scare women"
It only makes sense. You are disrupting a normal process and normal hormones. It is common sense. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:53 PM
Myths
Over the years a few myths have been spread about abortion, particularly from people that do not agree with it. Some of them are that: abortion increases the risk of breast cancer and endangers future childbearing; a woman will have difficulty conceiving or carrying future pregnancies; subsequent births will result in the delivery of stillborn babies; a woman will become sterile; or that the fetus feels pain during an abortion. All of these myths are untrue. Legal abortion is safe, usually will not cause future complications, and the fetus, at the time of abortion, has not yet developed the nerves to feel pain. 

Name: homemommichele | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:56 PM
And your info comes from where M??????
I Have SEEN IT!!
Hormones interrupted UNNATURALLY]]..COMMON SENSE!!
I am providing real info here, if you are going to dispute it please use FACT not reactions from the abortion industry determined to keep up their million dollar a year job butchering babies. Thank you. I am done on this subject for now, I have informed based on personal observation and medical fact (hormone levels, the way the body prepares for pregnancy) you have provided misinformation from the NARL people...I know what as a logical person I would believe. 

Name: cinner29 | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:57 PM
Hey M......I have been reading this post and I have to ask....was your last post your thoughts...or a copy/paste. About the myths? 

Name: M | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:57 PM
Current Knowledge

In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings, titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, can be found at http://www.cancer.gov/canc
erinfo/ere-workshop-report

Name: cinner29 | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 2:59 PM
I'm just curious.....only because I think you could find a lot of myths on the internet......and it is unlike you to look at a myth instead of a fact! 

Name: M | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 3:00 PM
http://www.cancer.gov/canc
erinfo
/ere-workshop-report

****
This
link contains a controlled study on the connection of abortion and breast cancer. 

Name: homemommichele | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 3:00 PM
Oh and honey, if abortion is legal in UK up to 24 weeks, I can tell you BASED ON FACT...a 20 weeker FEELS PAIN!! I have cared for them (yes, there are doctors that have tried to save them that early), which I was against because of the pain from the medical procedures!! Pallitive care would have been more humane in that case, rather than trying to save them and torturing them with IV's and treatments for their short little lives. However you can tell from Objective, physical signs (NOT myths, not scare tactics].....) that they feel pain and discomfort. So you go right on believing what you want, if it makes you feel good, but please don't mislead others until you go to school, do some real fact based research, observe or work with premature infants, etc. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 3:02 PM
http://www.fwhc.org/aborti
on/abcancer.htm

Studies
say there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. 

Name: homemommichele | Date: Apr 20th, 2007 3:02 PM
I was responding to future miscarriages and problems with premature births, not cancer. However the cancer thing (because of hormones) makes sense too. Where is your fact based cut and paste link about the miscarrages, stillbirths and premies????? 

Copyright 2024© babycrowd.com. All rights reserved.
Contact Us | About Us | Browse Journals | Forums | Advertise With Us