JUST STOP IT!! -- When I Hear The Phrase "Partial-Birth-Abortion"

I can't help but put it in the same column with other RIGHT WING terms and phrases. It's inaccurate, it's inflammatory, it's, it's, WORKING... no, IT WORKED. --- Are YOU partially to blame? Were you a willing participant? Were you fooled?

If you buy into their terminology and approach the argument and debate on THEIR TERMS then you'll lose most of the time. If you allow the other side to frame the debate and define the parameters and to set the rules... then... you know what? THEY WILL WIN!

How much longer before some of you cave in and start using the phrase "baby killer" for OB/GYN. Shall those of us who agree also change our self-describe political label from "pro-choice" to "pro-baby-murdering"??

WHY NOT? That's the logical next step! If you insist on caving in and using the RIGHTWING "partial-birth-abortion" term, then you might as well use them all!

Even if you remember to put the term "partial-birth-abortion" in quotation marks... you're still using the phrase. It just rolls off your digital-tongue as easily as the CORRECT term does.

The more people SEE, HEAR, READ the wrong phrase (even in quotes) the more people become accustomed to it, and more accustomed to using it. They don't question it. --- They'll even start to use it themselves. It will become the de-facto phrase.

Uh... Correction... it DID BECOME THE de-facto PHRASE!

Flame me if you want. Snipe, hit-and-run, nit-pick, drive-by... whatever... I don't care. I'm not going to argue with you on this if you do. You know how I feel about this and a series of contradictions won't change a thing.

I'm not going to discourage the flamers, go ahead... "bring-it-on". Personally, I'd like to know who you are, so stand up and BE COUNTED among those who voluntarily cave in who allow themselves to be the mouthpiece for the extreme zealot myopic and fundamentalist rightwingers.

You know what you're doing... you know what you've done. And for those of you who didn't realize until now--well--now you know. The correct term is "Late Term Abortion".

You really need to think before you speak and just stop it. Please.

Thanks!
-- Allen


(Edited for formatting and clarity.)

I say they are outlawing abortion. If anyone tries to correct me by pointing out that they are only stopping one kind of procedure, I say, "They are outlawing abortion, and if you think they only want to ban one type of abortion, then you haven't been paying attention"

You're right. We should NEVER let them dictate the terms or the language of our debates.

why do *you* get to dictate terms?

As far as the term partial birth abortion goes, the new statute does speak in terms of a fetus being part way out of a vagina before it is aborted. "Partial birth abortion" would seem to describe this procedure well given our common understandings of the common words "partial," "birth" and "abortion."

Perhaps the best way to solve this problem of language is not to call it a "debate." We will call it an "ARWalden-decides-what-our-opinions-should-be-and-then-lets-us-know-so-we-can-obey." This is a more cumbersome word, but it should defuse any pesky misunderstandings about whether give-and-take, compromise and/or changed minds are going to occur in the discussion.

but I have as much right to try and do so as anyone else. Rgearding you second argument, I just don't care if you think the term is appropriate.

... I'm the ONE all-knowing source who gets to choose the correct terms to describe medical procedures.

Oh brother! We now return to the actual point of this thread....

-- Allen

Bill Frist is the surgeon. I guess we'll let him choose.

My lingual muscles will heretofore speak only in medical jargon when viable fetal tissue is the issue.

When discussing military matters it is also probably a good idea to adopt the army's jargon and preferred terminologies? They are the experts!

The procedure which delivers the fetus legs first isn't usually done. The real procedure, a D&E or D&X partially dilates the cervic (the operative word being PARTIALLY), and collapses the fetal skull so that it can fit through the smaller opening. This is far less traumatic to the WOMAN involved, who is usually having the procedure for incredibly tragic reasons, some of which may include not being physically capable to go through full labor and delivery!!!

The D&E can also be performed in a physician's office, while inducing childbirth to expel the fetus HAS to be done in a hospital, at about ten times the cost. There are lots of complications to induced labor, not the least of which is uterine rupture and DEATH. This is NOT a benign procedure under any circumstances, but when you throw in a woman who is already injured or very ill, and you've possibly consigned her to an incredibly painful death.

So what have the screechers (who would seem to include misinformed people like youself) done? They've increased the cost to the system (which is already in crisis), increased the PAIN and TRAUMA to the woman, and increased the RISK OF DEATH.

Happy, now?

the WOMAN involved, who is usually having the procedure for incredibly tragic reasons"

can you define 'usually' and list the "unusual" reasons for this procedure?

Conditions in the mother that might require terminating a pregnancy to save her life:

toxemia
heart disease
uncontrolled diabetes

Conditions in the fetus that might cause parents to choose to terminate the pregnancy:

fetal death in utero (extracting an already dead fetus counts as an abortion)
anencephaly
tay-sachs
trisomy-18

If you don't know what those are, you can google for 'em as easily as I can.

poorly.

you used the word 'ususally' which is different from 'always' which means there are some cases where the procedure is used for some reason other than the tragic circumstances you listed.

i'm asking what those other circumstances are and how often, like in a percentage, these un-usual situatiions occur.

NOBODY is keeping a log showing WHY every abortion is performed. This is not data being collected by the CDC or AMA or Guttmacher or anybody. There is no authoritative source of data to tell us if, say, 40 percent of fifth-month abortions are elective or not elective.

Guttmacher has the best survey data (this is acknowledged by the AMA and CDC). You can go here for a page of links to current data:

http://www.agi-usa.org/sections/abortion.html

Do you have any specific concern?

being monogomous, and cbc, sortof, and thinking this matter was settled, this attention is causing me to take a new look at the issue.

this AM, i heard a reference to 2200 of these procedures being done last year. that seemed like an awful lot.

for someone like me who has relied on the position of "legal, safe and rare" hearing that there were so many of these procedures which
seem to be pretty drastic, was upsetting.

i didn't know there were no data/numbers collected for elective versus medical needs abortion. do you know why that is? we seem to keep statistics on so many things and i have heard repeated references using terms like usual and mostly in regards to this procedure. if no numbers are kept, it would seem to be a tough position to defend?

i don't know...this is just very upsetting on two fronts. the idea that a healthy woman could use this procedure on a healthy infant with no restraints versus the idea that the state can now impact the freedom of choice. and yes i know the two concerns are mutually exclusive.

it's a conundrum for me...i guess i want to have my cake and eat it too?

The number 2,200 out of approximately 1.3 million abortions (year 2000) doesn't seem all that high to me. That's, what? 0.0016 percent?

You seem to ASSUME that all or most of these abortions are elective. WE DO NOT KNOW THAT. We don't know if all of them were; we don't know if none of them were.

The number 2,200 is not high at all compared to the number of pregnancies that are terminated for medical reasons, either because the woman's health is compromised or the fetus is compromised. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me to assume that MOST of the 2,200 D&X procedures were medically necessary and not elective.

Please note there are other means to terminate a second or third trimester pregnancy beside D&X, so banning this one procedure will not stop "late term" abortions.

As grisly as the procedure sounds, under some circumstances when a pregnancy must be terminated quickly to save a woman's life, D&X may be the safest way to do that. So here's a statistic for you -- if ONE woman loses her life because the D&X procedure is banned, I say that's one too many.

I would be content if elective abortions were banned after some point in the late second trimester, as long as physicians may exercise discretion as to what later procedures are medically indicated. There's no reason we can't have such a law right now, because it wouldn't violate Roe v. Wade.

The reason we don't have such a law is that the anti-choice people don't want them. They're in an all-or-nothing fight, and their tactics are geared toward making all abortions illegal. If late term elective abortions were banned, the anti-choice people would lose their best weapons.

So, the answer is, don't allow yourself to be distracted by "partial birth abortion" nonsense.

Are you saying that the new proposed statute outlaws any procedure where the fetus is completely inside the vagina at the time of abortion?

btw, I did say whether I was for or against the proposed statute. I am not really worried about it because I think it will be struck down by the courts as soon as it is enacted for failure to carry a life and health of the mother exception per Roe v. Wade.

I am corresponding on this thread to try to discuss good and bad rhetorical, which, reviewing the original post, is supposed to be the point here.

"intact dilatation and extraction" (D&X for short)

One of the reasons several state laws have been bounced by SCOTUS is that the phrase "partial birth abortion" is not recognized in medical literature; therefore, it is unclear from a medical standpoint exactly what it is.

Yet the nutjobs insist on using "P&B" instead of "D&X." Why is that?

Does anyone here know someone who was partially born?

just said "birth" is a binary thing -- it's either yes or no ...

They seem to be a quantum resonance between a normal homo sapiens and some kind of demonic hellspawn.

we want to know exactly what we are talking about. For most of us non-doctors D&X and D&E has no meaning.

The set of procedures we are talking about, in correct terms non-doctors can easily understand is:

(1) allowing and/or forcing the fetus part way out of the vagina while its heart is still beating;

then

(2) poking, cutting and/or squeezing the part way out fetus so that its heart stops beating and so that the fetus is squished into a shape that passes easily out of the vagina;

and finally

(3) removing the squished fetus the rest of the way out of the vagina.

This language is accurate and should mean a lot more to laypeople than does medical jargon.

1) a prohibition on language higher than a third-grader can understand

2) emotionally laden words that are inaccurate. Examples:

allowing and/or forcing the fetus part way out of the vagina while its heart is still beating;

The heart may or may not be beating. In fact, the fetus might be dead.

"squished"

The fetus is NOT "squished"

Your language is NOT accurate, and even a layperson such as myself can see that

FIRST POINT
My understanding of the new statute is that if the fetus heart has stopped beating for a significant time (eg, couple minutes) before the fetus part way leaves the vagina, then the proposed statute doesn't apply and does not forbid the procedure.

SECOND POINT
Webster's Dictionary says that "squish" means squelch, squash or suck. My use of squish is perfectly accurate (see post # 17). Furthermore, my accurate word choice forms a much more vivid picture than D&X.

1) Even your explanation/clarification shows that the fetus' heart might not be beating.

2) "squelch, squash or suck" does not describe what is being done to the fetus. Sometimes it is cut up, which is none of those three.

a much more vivid picture than D&X.

And that's the REAL point, isn't it? I prefer accuracy over "vividness"

1. In order for the procedure to be legal under the proposed statute the heart has to stopped long enough so that the fetus is considered terminated before the fetus is part way out of the vagina. The terms "stopped beating" is used correctly in context -- meaning "fetal heart stops beating long enough so that we know it will never start beating again even if we suddenly decide not to do the medical procedure."

2. I mentioned the possibility of cutting. I also believe that some suction (aka sucking, aka squishing) is always employed whether there is cutting or not.

3. You act like vividness and accuracy are mutually exclusive categories. I strive for both vividness and accuracy and I recommend that all other people who attempt to debate for a lay audience likewise strive for both of these qualities.

1) Again, you said the fetus was partially extracted while the heart was still beating. Despite all those words, nothing in that explanation says "the heart must be beating" because it's not true. You were wrong to say that the heart is still beating when the fetus is partially extracted.

2) You said the fetus was "squished". Though a machine is used to "suck up" the fetal remains, the fetus itself does not "suck". It is "sucked" by a machine that "sucks"

3) No, they're not mutually exclusive. It's just your words are both inaccurate and emotionally exploitative. You may strive for accuracy but you have certainly failed.

1) The proposed statute only applies if extarction is part way complete while the fetus remains unterminated. If the fetus is unterminated then its heart will be beating. This makes my description of step 1 absolutely correct. It is difficult to see what kind of loopdhole you are trying to conjure up, but whatever it is, it doesn't exist in the real world of medical procedures.

2) As you admit, suction is used on a cut up fetus. When this suction is applied to suck the fetal parts through the vagina, the walls of the vagina squeeze the parts so they are physically deformed. For example, the walls of the vagina squeeze the fetal brain and deform it so much that by the time it emeges from the vagina often appears outside the vagina as an irregular whitish-gray blob of tissue (kind of like an egg yolk falling from a broken egg) and not at all as the familiar brain-shape that it had in the uterus. This change of shape is the result of squeezing of the vaginal walls and results in a body part that can accurately be described as "squished." The cutting sometimes also contributes to the deformations that take place, but the squeezing of the vaginal walls invariably contributes to this deformation also. Therefore, my "squished" terminology is accurate.

1) We weren't describing the PBA and what it prohibits. We were talking about ID&E, etc, (please see your post #35) and they don't require a heartbeat.

That's one of the problems with using ordinary language. It's not as exact and as a result, you have confused yourself into thinking you were talking about the non-existent PBA's, when what we were really talking about were the specific medical procedures.

Read your "Politics and the English Language". Fuzzy words lead to fuzzy thoughts, and vice versa.

2) You said the fetus is "squished", which implies that the fetus itself sucks. The truth is, the fetus is sucked.

Also, you described the fetus as being "squished" to kill it, while now you say the suction is applied AFTER the fetus is dead.

1) I am talking about the proposed new law and what it requires and doesn't require. To apply, the new law requires that the fetus not be terminated until after it is part way out of the vagina. This means that the fetal heart stops beating while the fetus is part in and part out. This standard may apply to certain surgeries and not others. This standard may apply to a given type of surgery only sometimes depending on the circumstances. Regardless, the proposed legal statndard is relatively clear and I have accurately characterized it with reference to the fetal heartbeat.

2) "Squished." Let's take a common example: "The bug is squished." This doesn't mean that the bug sucks. Let's take another common example: "The Play Doh is squished through the hole in the Play Doh pumping station and the squished Play Doh comes out through the hole." One final example: "When a large fetus is extracted by suction during an abortion procedure the fetal tissue is always squished by the relatively-undilated vaginal walls." My use of the word squished is perfectly accurate in my previous message.

I never said or implied that squishing is always the cause of fetal termination in my previous post. I merely said that squishing makes it possible for the fetus to pass. Also, I clearly stated right off the bat that the termination of heartbeat may occur because of squeezing, poking and/or cutting.

I suppose that there is a subtle, latent inaccuracy in that the fetal heart could alternatively be stopped by chemical burning, toxins or extreme temperatures. However, I have a heard time seeing how any of these alternative possibilities would be relevant to anybody's opinions on the ultimate issues involved.

If you go back and read post #35, which YOU wrote, you'll see that you started out trying to give a layperson's description of specific medical procedures, and NOT a description of what's been banned.

Now you're trying to switch and say you've been talking about the bill all along. That's not how you started out.

2) You didn't just say "the fetus is squished" - you said the squishing is to kill the fetus. That's not always true. Sometimes the fetus is cut up (which is not "squished") and it's not "squished" (by having the fetal remains sucked from the mothers womb by a machine) until sometime AFTER the fetus has been dead. This is different than your claiming that it's the "squishing" that kills the fetus.


I never said or implied that squishing is always the cause of fetal termination in my previous post. I merely said that squishing makes it possible for the fetus to pass.

And you're still wrong. Squishing is not the only way to make it possible for the fetus to pass. Sometimes, the fetus is dismembered while still in the womb, and then, the fetal remains (which are not the same thing as "the fetus") are sucked up by a machine, which you consider "squishing". At his point, the squishing does NOT make it possible for the fetus to pass - The dismemberment did that. The "squishing" (really sucking) is meant to insure that no fetal remains are left inside the mother.

First, you said the squishing kills the fetus. You were wrong
Now, you say the squishing is to make it possible for the fetus to pass. You were wrong again

1) I said "set of procedures," which should have made it clear that I wasn't limiting myself to any one surgical technique. Because Congress acted just yesterday, it should be clear that the "set of procedures" I was referring to was the set of procedures banned by the proposed law. Congress could have written the law to ban only certain surgical procedures, but they chose an approach that looked to where the fetus was located relative to the vagina when it is terminated, regardless of the particular surgical procedure or surgical instrumentation used. Reading my three-step description, it is clearly Congress's law that I was trying to capture in readily-understandable language. If you want me to try to capture what a D&E is in understandable language, I will -- just ask.

2) step #2 in post 35 said: "poking, cutting and/or squeezing the part way out fetus so that its heart stops beating and so that the fetus is squished into a shape that passes easily out of the vagina;"

This is accurate and none of your objections apply.

As far as whether separate piece-parts can be squished -- please consider the following common use of squished: "We were squished like sardines." Some fetuses are squished like Play-Doh, others are squished like so many sardines, but they are all squished.

1) I said "set of procedures," which should have made it clear that I wasn't limiting myself to any one surgical technique

No, you limited yourself to two specific procedures. From post#35

we want to know exactly what we are talking about. For most of us non-doctors D&X and D&E has no meaning.

The set of procedures we are talking about, in correct terms non-doctors can easily understand is:...

It's clear - You were describing D&X and D&E's.

2) step #2 in post 35 said: "poking, cutting and/or squeezing the part way out fetus so that its heart stops beating and so that the fetus is squished into a shape that passes easily out of the vagina;"

This is accurate and none of your objections apply.

Unfortunately for your argument, the fetus is not killed by "squeezing it...so that it's heart stops beating"

And unfortunately, this contradicts your most recent claims that the squeezing is meant to allow the fetus to pass. In post #35, you clearly state that the purpose of squeezing it is "so that it's heart stops beating"

As far as whether separate piece-parts can be squished -- please consider the following common use of squished: "We were squished like sardines." Some fetuses are squished like Play-Doh, others are squished like so many sardines, but they are all squished

If you are using the definition that refers to being tightly enveloped, then the fetus is "squished" in the womb. Furthermore, you are clearly wrong to have said that the fetus is squeezed in order to stop it's heart, and instead of owning up to your mistake, you tried to cover it up by saying that the squishing was meant to allow the fetus to pass.

don't you understand?

The rest of your points are too ridiculous to even address.

The whole point of D&X is to bring the fetus out INTACT so that little bits and parts aren't left inside the uterus that have to be scraped out. In order to do that, the skull is collapsed. The remainder of the fetus is not squeezed, cut, or poked in any manner.

First, I am not referring specifically to D&X, I am referring generically to the entire set of procedures banned by Congress. there was some confusion about that above. Like I said above, if you want my laypersons description of what a D&X is just ask -- it will read somewhat differently than the different thing I was describing in post #35.

Second, a collapsed skull is a "squeezed" skull. Therefore, a fetus with a collapsed skull has indeed been "poked, squeezed and/or cut." (the key is the connector "and/or") A fetus with a collapsed skull is also "squished" because a collapsed skull can also be fairly described as a squished skull.

Words have meanings, and "collapsed" does not mean "squeezed". If it did, you wouldn't put so much effort into using "squeezed" when the equally suitable "collapsed" is available.

collapse: "fall into a jumbled or flattened mass through the force of external pressure <a blood vessel that collapsed>"

squeezed: " to exert pressure"

by putting together these definitions it is easy to see that a collapsed skull is the same as a squeezed skull.

I could have used "collapsed," but I chose "squeezed" and "squished." My choices were good and I stand by them.

even if words that are identical in meaning but lacking the same emotional charge are available.

People do things for a reason. There's a reason why you insist on "squeezed" and "squished" when "collapsed" will do. Since the difference is the emotional connotations, it would seem that it's the emotional difference (and not the accuracy) that concerns you.

"Collapsed" is indeed a slightly inferior word choice for the meaning I intended to convey.

True, collapsed applied extremely well to certain late term abortions, but not to others. As we discussed above, things can be "squished" to collapse under external pressure or piece-parts can be "squished" together. Therefore, "squished" is a more general term than "collapsed" and accurately covers a broader category of abortions. Specifically, the word "squished" is better at conveying the broadness of the category that Congress has chosen to ban. Often the more specific word is the better one. In this case, however, the broad term is better to convey the full scope of the legislation under discussion.

Likewise, "poked, cut and/or squeezed" is more general than "collapsed." Again, I am trying to convey the full scope of a set of a procedures defined in a bill. If you want me to focus on a single surgical technique, then just let me know which one.

One final note: Unlike some terms thrown around in the abortion debate (eg, murder), I do not think that squished or squeezed presupposed anything about the human-life versus not-quite-human-life status of the fetus. We used the words squished and squeezed in all kinds of non-emotional contexts. Your criticism that these words are over emotional is off the mark.

I know I know... unsolicited advice is never welcomed and seldom heeded... but I couldn't help myself.

I do the same thing when watching horror movies. I yell at the screen and shout for the woman NOT go go in the attic. But she never listens.

My advice to you is kind of like that.

-- Allen

you are more interesting in blurring the issue and using inflammatory language than in actually discussing the issues. OK.

My understanding is that in a D&X procedure the skull is pierce with a sharp instrument, which causes the skull to collapse. This is not "squeezing" or "squishing."

The accurate word, then, is "collapse."

If you are discussing the D&E procedure instead of D&X, then we're not talking about "squishing" skulls. We are talking about dismembering the fetus in utero and removing it in pieces. This procedure involves quite a bit of "cutting." I'm not sure that the current bill would ban that, as no part of a living fetus is "delivered."

obs has claimed that s/he is interested in accuracy and intelligibility, but when offered wording that is both accurate and more easily understood, s/he rejects it.

His/her intentions are clear.

nothing more and nothing less.

If what is banned doesn't jibe with your neat preconception of what a D&X looks like, then I advise you to drop the preoccupation with the arcane term D&X and focus on what Congress has actually done.

For our purposes, the legal text of the law is more germane than medical terminology that failed to make it into the language of the law.

You're just insisting on using a pair of words (ie "squeeze" and "squished") when an equally accurate (at least) is available.

Furthermore, since the bill doesn't ban or restrict "squeezing", "squishing", or "collapsing", why insist on focusing on it?

My prerogative as a writer and I won't be bullied out of it.

then why don't you use the same language? From the bill:

"A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion—an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child’s body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child’s skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child’s brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited."

Originally, you claimed the need to discuss this in non-technical terms. Why do you need to use language not in the bill, when the language in the bill is non-technical?

Why do you object to maha's description, which matches the bill's description, when that description is not a technical one?

accompanying the bill and not the proposed statute itself.

Assuming that is the case, these words do not have the force of law and do not address the full scope of what is banned. They are comments discussing a particular example, while I am trying to describe the full scope of the law.

Both strands of the discussion are important, although the full scope of the law is the most important thing.

Btw, this distinction between the statute and its comments will be very important when courts consider whether the statute is unConstitutional for failure to provide a health and life of the pregnant woman exception, as this issue is dealt with in the comments but not in the statute.

It comes right from the bill, and it's what is now banned. If it passes constitutional muster, it will have the full force of law.

The bill would forbid abortions when "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the mother's body" or "in the case of head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother," before a doctor performs "the overt act ... that kills the partially delivered living fetus."

This is the statutory language I was trying to describe in post #35. The comments accompanying the bill that you cite are not the operative language and are basically fluff of the type that accompanies every new law.

... or if schools still do this at all anymore, but they did when I was in elementary & Jr. High school in the late 60's/early 70's.

Do you recall those "Ohio State Highway Patrol" 16mm films about drunk driving and speeding? The ones where the film crew shows young student drivers how GROSS automobile accidents are. --- Remember the anti-drug emergency room films?

Fast forward to the gross-out posters that protesters display while harassing women who are entering a clinic that performs abortions.

Compare that to the unnecessarily gruesome, gratuitous, and over-the-top descriptions that some on the other side prefer to use. Their language contributes NOTHING to the debate, it only serves one purpose. (And both you and I--and they--know what that purpose it.)

-- Allen

we used to look forward to it.

And I think the use of language like "squishing" exploits the same sort of prurient interests those films did.

while we are at it, let's describe the squishiness and cutting up and consistency of other life saving procedures - say those performed on men

that are the subject of pending Congressional legislation and/or executive action (eg, Hiroshima). Otherwise, the grossness is gratuitous.

If you were really opposed to the "squishiness", you'd object to all of those squishy procedures.

I am not generally for squished things. I am not generally against squished things.

It all depends on what is being squished and why. When Congress makes laws applying to squished things (eg, junked cars, club capacity, fetal tissue) then I like to use the word "squished" because the legislative aspect makes the squishing relevant to political discussion and I live in a democracy.

Since when has the issue of "squishing" had any political ramifications? Health issues are not decided based on their "squishiness". It has nothing to do with the issue, and it's only use is to exploit emotions. That's why you continue to insist that it's appropriate, when other more accurate words would do.

And nowhere on this thread have I said whether I am for or against the proposed new law. Just because I use an accurate and vivid word like squished doesn't mean that I support the proposed law.

As a matter of fact, I am not even going to formulate a firm position on the law in my own mind until I see whether the Courts overturn it within a month after its upcoming passage. I think the law will be held unConstitutional even though it somewhat restricts the practice of squishing fetal tissue.

Particularly when it's been shown that your use of the word is inaccurate because the fetus is not "squeezed" to stop it's heart?

And the bill doesn't restrict the practice of squishing fetal tissue. It restricts certain surgical procedures. Squishing fetal tissue is still allowed. It happens all the time.

don't you understand?

If you think "collapsed" means the same as "squeezed", then why not agree to use "collapsed"

Saying that it's accurate does not explain why you insist on using that one word, and only that one word, when an equally accurate, but less emotionally laden word is available.

Part of the problem here is that you've taken four or five different procedures and stirred them together into one big soup. Some research is required.

of what the bill prohibits, and his version of D&X's and D&E's. Read his/her post#35 and see how s/he starts out describing surgical procedures and then later spins it as a description of the bill.

It is their prerogative to do this as long as the end result is a reasonably "non-vague" set of standards ("non-vague being used in its Con Law sense here, not its everyday sense).

If Congress wants to legislate on abortion they do not have to legalize and/or outlaw on a surgical-technique by surgical-technique basis. Congress is free to ban based on where the fetus is relative to the preganant woman's body when termination occurs. This is what Congress did, even if the banned set of procedures cuts accross the categories defined in the medical textbooks.

The new law is not void for vagueness (again, this is Con Law speak). The new law probably is void for failure to include a life and health of the pregnant woman exception.

He first claimed that he was describing the medical procedures. Then, he claimed that he was describing the bill, which he now describes as banning abortions "based on where the fetus is relative to the preganant woman's body when termination occurs", which raises a question:

If the bill's focus is on "where the fetus is relative to the woman's body", then why does s/he dwell on how the fetus is extracted.

Answer: So s/he can paint a picture meant to draw a specific emotional response.

it is important to know where the fetus is when fetal termination occurs.

If the fetus is completely inside the woman when termination occurs, then the proposed law doesn't apply.

If the fetus (or whatever you want to call her at this point) is completely outside the woman when termination occurs, then the proposed law doesn't apply (But other laws might in this case).

The proposed law only applies to terminations occurring at a very specific time -- part in, part out. The question is why would some (most?) people possibly object to terminating at this point? The answer is because of the cutting, poking and/or squeezing that is involved in forcing the termination before the fetus gets completely out.

Regardless of each person's ultimate conclusions, the violence of the procedure is at least *relevant* to most people's considerations. You can't change this with your new let's-hide-the-violence-in-some-jargon rule.

"A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion—an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child’s body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child’s skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child’s brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited."

This description matches maha's, yet you object to it, in favor of a less accurate one that claims the fetus is sometimes killed by "squeezing the body to stop it's heart". Why?

The proposed law only applies to terminations occurring at a very specific time -- part in, part out. The question is why would some (most?) people possibly object to terminating at this point? The answer is because of the cutting, poking and/or squeezing that is involved in forcing the termination before the fetus gets completely out.

And here you reveal your dishonesty. You do know, and have already admitted, that the "squishiness" of the procedure has no legal basis for banning, and yet here you are saying that it is the very basis for the ban.

THat's why you need to use the words you have chosen, and why you won't use a more accurate description. The bill itself describes it as "punctures the back of the child’s skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child’s brains out before completing delivery" but you insist that the fetus is "squeezed" in order to stop it's heart.

is to CLARIFY the issues, not further blur and obfuscate. Perhaps this wasn't explained to you.

You are going to have to drop some of your preconceived categories to achieve clarity on this issue because Congress has chosen not to resort to your pre-conceived categories.

For this clarity you crave on what Congress has actually done in real life, check out post #35. It defines a new category that fits the law and arms you with the knowledge you need to discuss the new law relatively accurately.

It bans "partial birth abortions", and I provided the definition of what the bill uses. (Hint: the language you use is much different, inspite of your desire for "accuracy" and "understandability")

the disingenuiness of that bill seeped through the language

appalling that a Dem - even a frightened timid little one like Daschle - would stand for voting for something so constructed

I'm glad you're here CalmBlueOcean... this is a good object-lesson on how inflammatory rhetoric works. (Nice work there... Someone ought to go to you for Freddy Krueger plots.)

-- Allen

"Hiroshima" by John Hershey. His graphic depictions of the A-bomb really got me think about the arms race as a Ninth Grader when we had to read the book for English class. The author is a master of clear, accurate, evocative prose that even a Ninth Grader can understand.

As far as whether the gross procedures I described above should be banned, Roe v. Wade says that they can be banned if there is an axception for life and health of the pregnant woman. I think this new proposed ban will quickly be found unConstitutional because the proposed statute has no health-and-life exception. Finally, I think that this is exactly how the Republican Party and its big business backers want things to play out.

This is the 2nd time you argue that language a 9th grader understands is better than language that is accurate and unbiased.

I argue that accurate language a Ninth Grader can understand is preferrable to accurate language that only a doctor can understand.

If you want to point out some specific inaccuracy in my Ninth Grader language, then have at it.

On the other hand, if I am simply being too clear and evocative for a general audience, then I see myself as articulate and helpful.

and I understand that your language is NOT accurate. Furthermore, few people have any problems understanding the medical terms once they are explained to them.

I've listed several inaccuracies in other posts.

... they collapse the skull.

I've given birth twice, and can assure you from experience it's the skull that holds things up.

Check your dictionary, you will see!

You do NOT know what you are dealing with. I'll give you a chance to step out gracefully before I blast you.

and reject the last, which actually is the only accurate one?

dictionary wins, you lose.

Thanks for playing.

Saying that one is accurate (though it's not) does not explain why you prefer two, and reject another that is at least as accurate and, as a matter of fact, happens to be the same word used in the bill. Isn't it curious that the one word you won't use is the one used in the bill itself?

he actually knows what he is talking about.

Why are *you* debating Allen if you already agree with him?

Debating is for people who *disagree*.

Setting the "language of our debates" is the difficult process of setting up muttually-acceptable language so that the disagreeing parties can discuss substantial issues.

I think you are thinking of "language to express our agreement." This involves a different type of language. Examples of this type of language include:

:)

rah rah rah

megadittoes

way to go

I agree with Allen 98% of the time.

As far as debate language, I maintain that fair language needs to be hammered out by opposing sides -- not decided by one side and then foisted on the opposing side. I think this is a general rule that does beyound the late term abortion debate.

All these medically ignorant, utterly coldharded bastards want is some precedent saying the Government has a right to interfere with ANY part of an abortion decision, and they've got the right to BAN IT outright!

They're doing this by picking a procedure with a maximum "ick" factor, never acknowledging that this procedure is performed only in truly DESPERATE circumstances! My gawd! The willful IGNORANCE of the religious zealots is astounding!

The really stupid part of their whole stupid agenda is that they won't stop a single abortion. They will only make it more risky to the WOMAN. I guess any woman who might have enjoyed sex with somebody else should DIE.

Yes, I'm OUTRAGED. I'm going to stay that way. ANYBODY BUT BUSH!!!!
Dump the GOP Congress! Take our country BACK!

I guess any woman who might have enjoyed sex with somebody else should DIE.

doesn't do justice to the seriousness of this debate.

I am now going to refer to Capital Punishment as State Sanctioned Murder. Let us all refer to it as State Sanctioned Murder!

I refer to reproductive choice as reproductive choice, whether it be early term or late term, if it is something in my body, you don't have the right to tell me what to do with it. Period.

But when you murder someone who is sentenced to die by the state you are using my tax dollars to do this. I protest! I do not want the blood of innocent or guilty people on my hands!

I am aware and will start using late term abortion. Is that right?

... thanks for your message that reminded me.

-- Allen

LTA is used to refer to a make-believe PROCEDURE that can be used anytime, not any abortion performed after a certain time.

Actually, I believe the procedure MOST LIKE the so called lta - the D&X? - is usually used 2nd semester, which I don't think makes it a late term procedure, but I don't remember.


Anyway, the short answer is that there is no "alternative" phrase/language because what they are describing DOES NOT EXIST.

"Late term" abortion implies an abortion performed near the end of the pregnancy, especially in the third trimester.

D&X, however, is actually a SECOND-trimster procedure, which makes it "mid-term" in my book.

The Journal of the American Medical Association USED to have a document online about second-trimster and third-trimster abortion that was very informative. Unfortunately, they recently yanked it off line, so my link no longer works. But according to that document, "The number of abortions performed after 26 weeks nationwide is estimated between 320 and 600 (per year)."

Other stats I've seen suggest that the number of abortions performed in the third trimester (about 24 weeks on) is around 1,000 per year.

THOSE are late-term abortions. It's not clear if ANY of those abortions are performed by D&X, however.

D&X abortions are performed in the mid to late SECOND trimester.

We who actually look this stuff up know it's a seldom used procedure and only in unusual circumstances. It's one of the buzz words of the theocratic right wing. I have actually heard Bob Novak, when interviewing a left wing author (name forgotten), suddenly mention it when the topic wasn't anywhere near it. I think it's one of their many Pavlovian terms used to condition and brainwash the brain weak.

victory for the right wing right to lifer freaks, so let them HAVE it.

It's how the right wing freak politicians will pander for votes from their goper supporters.

If it makes them feel better to think that somehow they've prevented some horrible mother from willfully murderering her child (probably conceived out of wedlock and in sin right?) in utero, then LET THEM.

Luckily, for as long as the gopers are racist freaks, they'll never actually outlaw abortion, since that would have an undesirable effect (in their eyes) on abortion rates among non-whites...

With a law in hand, there are lifers out there who will try to put doctors in jail.

The law is vague to cover practically ANY procedure, and that's no accident.

Besides, even if it's just symbolic - or maybe especially if it is - it still matters that the idea of women as second class citizens is the basis of law.

I'll agree that it's not worth it to get worked up, though, but only because the SC will strike it down again. If I thought the law would stand then I'd be pissed.

There are many doctors RIGHT NOW who are getting out of obstetrics, and the ones who are left probably do not want a tribe of glazed-eyed bible thumpers marching outside the office doors..

They will just quit offering desperate women an alternative..


Personally, I think it's obscene to crack open the chest of old white rich robber barons to give them additional time on earth.. Let Cheney & his pals roll the dice with the reaper..
Medical intervention actually CAN be a bad thing :evilgrin:

It's very simple. There is no such thing as partial birth abortion.

It's amazing to me that so many people, and so many on the left, have fallen for this big lie.

It's even more amazing to me that so many insist on believing it after the truth has been explained. I guess the fundies aren't the only ones willing and able to ignore the inconvenient parts of reality.

the only people who believe in this phrase are sensationalists anti-born people on the right-wing, and nothing else:)

Unless you're saying that the people I've argued with on DU are right-wing.

To be honest I do put anti-choicers in that category, but I suspect that attitude wouldn't go over well with many here.

So many Dems fall for the right-wing's language game. We end up helping to defeat ourselves by doing so.

The language issue goes far beyond the abortion debate.

--Peter

I have often mentioned the right wings use of perjorative adjectives that are used to accompany the word liberal. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter do it all the time. Soon the word liberal becomes associated in gullible minds with anything that comes from the ninth circle of Hell.

Someone else already commented on it in my thread, and I just don't think that's a big issue.

Frankly, I think 'partial birth' is a fairly accurate description of the procedure. I don't think winning the argument depends on winning the terminology war.

30 years ago, the two sides were labelled, respectively, anti-abortion and pro-abortion. The anti-'s found that being 'anti-' anything was negative, and began to demand being called 'pro-life'. The pro-abortion side then discovered that being 'pro-' abortion made them sound like they enjoyed abortions, so they demanded to be called 'pro-choice'.

Whatever you call them, and whatever they call themselves, the fact remains that they are best described by their original descriptions of anti-abortion and pro-abortion.

What is the medical definition of pba anyway, dilitation and extraction? What percentage of the population would have any clue what you are talking about if you start talking like that. The 1/2 of the population that is persuadable will suddenly get a blank stare on their face if you start talking about dilitation and extraction. If you talk about pba, you'll get a glimmer of recognition and can at least present an argument based on health of the mother and viability of the fetus.

But the 'terminology war' is definitely important because of those VERY SAME PEOPLE who just stare blankly. Sadly, it's those well-meaning but ill-informed people who end up electing the senators who cave in.

The war-of-words and war-of-terminology may have little effect when it comes to winning a traditional intellectual informed debate... it's in the trenches and on the way to the voting booth where we will lose if we continue not challenge them and to permit them to define and frame the issues.

Most folks ain't that smart. This is the same way that we lost the stem-cell war. The gamete cluster is referred to as a "fetus" (and as we all know a "fetus" is actually a "baby")... but that's a discussion for another thread.

-- Allen

I do have to take issue with someone assuming that I'm "pro-abortion" as though it's some team sport. (Gooooo Abortion! Have-an-abortion! Have-an-abortion! Gooooo Abortion!) No. --- I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice and anti-government intrusion and pro-privacy.

You see... there's where words come in to play. Silly example, I know... but there are some folks, some VOTING folks who literally understand in their heart that someone who is "pro-abortion" actually goes around ENCOURAGING abortions. Ostensibly we do this simply because it's available and because we 'hate-life' and 'hate-babies'.

You see how this works.

Let's take a hypothetical Senator from South Dakota, we'll call him Senator Milquetoast, a Democrat running for reelection.

He votes against a bill called 'Partial Birth Abortion Ban'. He returns to campaign and is faced with campaign ads stating he favors Partial Birth Abortions. Senator Milquetoast says, "No, I'm that's not true. I voted against a bill that would have made late term dilitation and extraction illegal."

Now, your average Farmer Bob is going to look at that and think, "What in the tarnation is them big words? I remember Milquetoast voting against the Partial Birth Ban. Sounds to me like he's trying to weasel out of his vote by using big words."

Now, if Senator Milquetoast simply accepted the wording and said "Sure I voted against the PBA ban. I want to protect the life of the mother.", now that's something Farmer Bob can get a grip on.

but there's a much better response. Don't say "I voted against a bill that would have made late term dilitation and extraction illegal."

Say, "I voted against a bill that would have banned abortions". If someone says, "This bill didn't ban all abortions, just some", you can respond "They want to ban ALL abortions and if you don't know that, you haven't been paying attention. It's a part of the RNC's platform"

... only because PBA is now the de-facto and common term that we've allowed to happen. (Farmer Bob has already been taught that PBA is the "real issue" and he's imagining that the baby peeks his head out and looks around curiously only to get WHACKED on the head like a baby seal peeping out of an ice-hole.)

As far as this phrase is concerned, the right-wingers have won... and as you explained in your example, we now have to participate and battle at a disadvantage using the rules and parameters that they have defined.

I'm guessing though that this can be a good object-lesson for future battles. And I'm hoping that we can make a conscious effort to try an re-shape and re-frame and re-educate (deprogram?) those who have fallen for their word game.

-- Allen

(Senator Milquetoast... funny!)

Sen. Milquetoast (D-SD) should propose the Partial Reimbursement Of Living Investments for Fetal Extraction, or PROLIFE, bill to defray the costs of transportation and overnight accomodations for people living in areas of the country where no abortion providers are available.

I love that rightwing mantra, "I don't care if somebody else has an abortion, but I don't want them using my tax money for it." They've been singing that song for years despite the fact that there are no tax payer provided abortions. I say it is time we make this paranoid fantasy a reality and force Republicans to vote against the PROLIFE bill.

Give the bully your lunch money, and maybe he'll leave you alone.*

*Lesson One, The Tom Daschle School of Leadership

Because you seem to be the most sensible one on this thread. Sorry, AR & Clete -- its denverbill (aka "the Mediator") all the way.

Allen, I understand your point completely. However, speaking
as "one of the quoters", I have to say that the reason I
used that particular language is that that is the actual
name of the law that was just passed: "The Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act of 2003".

Yes, the use of Republican double-speak is repulsive. But in
this case, it's also factually accurate, at least so far as
describing the name of the law just passed.

When Bush was elected, I said that a lot of people were going
to get some hard lessons in just what all those "Libruhls"
were shouting about all those years. This, unfortunately, is
the beginning of one particular graduate-level course in that
continuing education; this course is aimed at the women.
Another one, aimed at the men, will be the 2005 re-instatement
of the draft.

The "Election" (whoops, there go those quotation-marks again)
of 2000 really mattered, even though very few cared about it
at the time.

Atlant

The name of this bill ranks right up there with the (so-called) "Defense of Marriage Act"... yep... yesiree, that's what it's called, but that's NOT what it is.

It's a MADHOUSE! A MADHOUSE!!!

-- Allen

I'm sure there are hundreds of examples.

are two more that come to mind.

Here... once again... we see examples of how imprecise language is used to effectively HIDE the reality of what's actually happening (or not happening as the case may be).


-- Allen

This stupid law will almost certainly be struck down by the Supreme Court. The right has won the battle, but they will lose the war.

.

I've done no less than point the out to at least seven different people yesterday, and just wrote an oppositon paper to the late term abortion ban which I mailed out to serveral friends of mine, some pro-choice, some pro-life.

don't let the rw preempt our words!

Spin.

I thank you.

And please keep saying this.