Gut Rumbles

October 22, 2003


I don't see anything in here that justifies partial birth abortion.

I simply do not.


Nothing justifies partial birth abortion.

Posted by: Kate on October 22, 2003 08:21 AM

In some cases as described in the article I would agree with inducing labor. In no way could I go for the extracation process. By the second trimester that fetus has become a baby. I have a friend which found out in her 4 month that the baby was developing some of her inner organs on the outside of her body. That baby would not have made it to full term and if did would not have lived once born. She went with the induced labor. Had the grieving process held the little girl in her arms and named her. That is the only way that should be available. So I agree the other way is barbaric and more to the back street abortions we had in the past.

Posted by: Lady on October 22, 2003 08:48 AM

Acidman....I enjoy your blog ramblings
However....when you grow your own uterus then you can make abortion decisions...ok?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions... just remember...opinions are like assholes, everyone has one...and most of them stink!
smooches, KIT

Posted by: KIT on October 22, 2003 09:28 AM

Kit, I disagree with your comments. I am a woman, pro-choice, and I do not agree with partial birth abortions and I support the bill prohibiting late term abortions. It has nothing to do with women's rights and having a uterus. In fact, many people WITHOUT a uterus made a decision to pass the bill and our president who also lacks a uterus is about to sign it into law and I support that as well.

Posted by: trish on October 22, 2003 09:46 AM

Oh, dear! There you go again. Do you have an opintion on Everything??? What business is it of yours what a woman chooses to do about a pregnancy gone wrong? As you claim else where you are opposed to the government telling us what to do, think, and believe. I would never have or advocate abortion, but neither would I ever presume to tell a woman what to do. I assume you will cheerfully and willingly pay tax to provide custodial care for the brainless babies born because you refused the mother the option of terminating the pregnancy. YEAH! When pigs fly maybe. You bellyache now about paying child support for Quinton!!! You need to think more before you write. And stop listening to these low-brow, low-life ne're-do-wells that post comments. Okay, now you get to tell me to how retarded I am and how I should go bark up a tree, stupid cunt that I am whose never been laid is why I'm so smart.

Posted by: Beth on October 22, 2003 10:32 AM

Don't feed trolls.

Posted by: Acidman on October 22, 2003 11:01 AM

Good for you,Beth!!! I couldnt have said it better. Pro-choice or pro-life, saint or whore, murder or painful lesser of 2 evils still is the decision of the woman(with a uterus) and NO ONE elses'
Dont feed Trolls!!! What is that supposed to mean?
Look in the mirror!!!

Posted by: KIT on October 22, 2003 11:57 AM

uterus, uterus, uterus, I guess the husband with the penis has no say in this.

Posted by: James on October 22, 2003 12:30 PM

James, unfortunately a husband only has so much say on the issue of abortion. While I do know that partial birth abortion is a very disturbing procedure, banning it will not solve anything. It should be regulated and only performed in extreme life-threatening situations, when and only when the motherís life is at risk. I am close with someone who had to have this procedure a number of years ago and it is absolutely the most heart wrenching decision. The fetus had died during premature labor and her life was at risk. Her physicians were sure that she would not survive natural childbirth. She had 2 other young children at home to think about. She did not have much of a choice. This was not a selfish deed but rather one of survival.

Posted by: Anna on October 22, 2003 01:18 PM

When I was pregnant with my second son, some tests came back with 'abnormal' results. They had apparently detected that the fetus was at strong risk for Trisomy 19. I was sent for an ultrasound and possible amniocentisis. I had the ultrasound and they were still sitting on the fence as to whether or not the fetus was in danger. They very strongly recommended a partial birth abortion after my second ultrasound a few weeks later. I refused the amnio since it carries it's own risks and, for the first (and last time) in my life, let whatever higher power in the universe that might exist take the reins and decide the fate of my baby. My doctors were very convinced that I was out of my mind.

Five months later, I had a very healthy baby boy. He wouldn't be here right now if I had done what medical professionals had wanted me to do. I dunno about the rest of you but I trust my government a hell of a lot less than I trust my doctor.

Posted by: Chablis on October 22, 2003 03:51 PM

KIT, BETH, you girls lost? If you two don't enjoy other people's opinions, what the hell are you doing here?

Jeez, I have a uterus. Does that entitle me to lobotomize my children? That argument is weak, not to mention an embaressment.

No argument holds. You want the kid out of you-fine. But why not give the doctors an opportunity to try to save the child on its way out (rather than commit murder).
There may be a couple out there ready to adoopt that's not that picky.

Posted by: christine on October 22, 2003 04:12 PM

And does anyone actually have any stats on what percentage of these slaughtered babies are actually afflicted with the debilitating abnormalities that are being used as the excuse to continue the brutal slayings?
I'm under the impression that it's a low number. If it's staggeringly HUGE, I can see that as an argument. (still don't like it, but can see it...)

Posted by: christine on October 22, 2003 04:42 PM

Christine you stupid crone. Who died and made you boss of this blog? Why slur the reasonable people who comment intelligently about this issue if you don't even know the basics about late term abortions? At least get the facts, slut, before you pop off your mouth.

Posted by: Beth on October 22, 2003 06:39 PM

Someone asked for this.

Partial birth abortions in the USA are very rarely performed in the late second trimester at a time in the pregnancy before the fetus is viable.

90% of abortions are done in the first trimester.

They are performed only when there are serious health problems for the mother, and/or when the fetus has been found to be dead, badly malformed, or suffering from a very serious genetic defect. This is often only detectable late in the second trimester

They are also sometimes performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:
The fetus is dead.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.

The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

No reliable or accurate statistics existto say how many PBAs are performed annually. Right-to-Life opponents of PBA claim 3,000 to 5,000 PBAs are performed annually.†

Even if those numbers are accurate, they must be understood in context: In the USA 1.4-million abortions are performed annually. [25% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, i.e. miscarriage.]

Posted by: Teresa on October 22, 2003 07:04 PM

Beth, I found Christine's arguement quite logical. You are the typical liberal. If you can;t win the arguement, insult your opponent.

Posted by: Andy on October 22, 2003 09:16 PM

Beth the dried up old twat sent me the following email:

Your mama teach you how to talk like this? Or did you
learn it in church?

At least I deal with ideas, sweetheart. And, I've got
a degree. No welfare here. But I understand, if that's
all you've known you can't imagine anything better.

Lose some weight, get a job. You'll find you feel
better about yourself and won't be emailing trolls

Have a nice day. :-)

Who the hell gave this cunt a computer? But Beth my dear, you are the reason why abortion should remain legal. The idea of having pathetic sloths like you on this earth is frightening. Thank god you cannot reproduce.

Posted by: ANNA on October 22, 2003 09:47 PM

First, if we are going to discuss this, understand that it is not a moral issue. It is an issue of ethics.

It is never moral to destroy a potential life.

However, sometimes it is ethical, although not as frequently as either side of this issue would have us believe.

Second, I did take Acidman's advice, and went and did some reading.

I am now convinced this is strictly a political ploy designed to make it a Republican White House again in 2004.

Think about it -- they have banned one type of abortion. The specific language required to make the bill pass Judicial muster is noticeably absent. Language suggested by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor the last time she wrote an opinion on the subject.

It will be struck down the first time it is challenged as unconstitutional.

That is unimportant, and not the intent of the Bill.

The intent is to throw a bone to the extreme right, and convince them that the Republican Party has their sticky little fingers on their pulse.

It also will severely damage every Democratic candidate, who will now have to make a definite statement concerning abortion