Need help combatting/debunking (PBA)

[reflection]

I've never posted in the womens' rights forum to date, so I don't know who the regulars are here. But I need a little help.

I am working in an industry (and at a place) which is largely dominated by right-leaning white males. So they tend to see things through their own myopic lens.

Not very many people here are voting Obama (or at least fessing up to it) and as a result, I tend to get all the comments/questions about Obama. You know, the "how-do-you-justify-Obama-doing-this" or "Obama-is-a-socialist/marxist/ist du jour" stuff.

To date, I have been able to not only hold my own, but actually verbally beat down those who would just fight for sake of fighting. I have also made at least one verified convert to Obama and probably one or two more who won't admit it. Not bad for a guy who just sits at his desk and works quietly while the RWers float from office to office parroting the latest Rush or Hannity talking points.

Today, however, there is actually one guy running around with a diagram(!) showing partial birth abortions, how they are performed, and advocating violence against anyone who would support such a procedure. (Yes, I know he should be working instead.)

I have a cursory knowledge of PBAs. (disclaimer: I'm personally not real wild about them, but I'm also not a woman, and I'm not a one issue voter, so it's not a deal breaker for me by any means)

Has anyone else had to engage in discussion with ardent anti-PBA types, and if so, how did you handle it? I could use all the help I could get. I Googled McCain's record over the years on voting for/against various abortion bills, and although he has flip-flopped to some degree, he does appear to have voted consistently for a ban on the PBA procedure. So I can't just say "McCain does it too" and dismiss this guy.

Short of telling this guy to shut up and get back to work (which I would love to do, but I'm the new guy), does anyone have rebuttals, defusers, anything to throw at this guy? I would love to make him look like a fool. But I think I need the help of female DUers to do it. :)

Please save your flames if you have any and accept this question in the spirit it is posed. My intentions are good and I look forward to continue my 100% batting average knocking down the anti-Obama sentiments that get thrown around here. Much love to all.

[DangerDave921]

1. Why fight at all?

If you're going up against a guy who's going so far as to brandish medical illustrations, what possible good will come from trying to argue with him? Do you think you might actually get him to change his mind? Just write the dude off as a freak.

I'm against PBA myself. So I won't be defending that practice.

[reflection]

3. It's not him. He's a lost cause.

It's the people around us. One of the fellows that works across the hall has really come around on Obama. He's very excited about him, and told me it was some of my verbal sparring with the McCain types around here that woke him up politically.

[musette_sf]

11. um, do you know there is no such thing

as a "partial birth abortion"? seeing as you have been here awhile and all, one would think so.

late term abortions are performed in extreme cases for the woman's health.

surely you, long-time DUer, don't think the woman's health is a Magoo Air Quote moment, do you?

[DangerDave921]

13. terminology

No such thing? Do you prefer "dilation and extraction"?

I'm not sure what Magoo Air Quote means. Sorry.

I have no problem with the procedure for women's health reasons.

[musette_sf]

15. it's late term abortion

there is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion".

it is a hot-button term concocted out of thin air by the forced-birth brigade.

Magoo Air Quote refers to Magoo at the last debate doing air quotes when he said "women's health", basically calling all women liars who needed such a procedure for their health.

on DU we should not have to put up with the fundie memes. if you want to call it "partial birth abortion" then there are ample sites in which to flog that meme. but this is not one of them.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drmeow]

2. Try this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4256204

[reflection]

4. Thank you. I actually remember this post now.

And it is definitely relevant. It's hard to encapsulate in a soundbite, but I can still use it.

Thank you so much so digging that up.

[Scout]

5. try this

1. There is no such thing as partial birth abortion.
2. Intact Dilation and Extraction is not performed on viable fetuses.
3. Tell him to find even ONE instance of IDX on a viable fetus. When he can't, tell him to shut up and then go fuck himself.

[reflection]

6. Ok, this is good.

I can't really use #1, because it's just semantics. Whatever the procedure is called, it exists, and that's the arena in which we have to do battle.

#2 and #3, though, seem very good when used in conjunction with each other. Only people who believe life begins at conception could potentially have a problem with that, and I think most people are not 'life-begins-at-conception' types.

#3 is especially helpful because if he truly can't find an instance of it, then what's the point of the argument? That's the kind of defuser I was looking for. Thanks a million. :)

(edited for grammar)

[musette_sf]

12. it's not semantics

there is no such procedure. except in the brains of the woman-hating knuckle draggers.

[reflection]

14. Can you elaborate?

I can understand the argument that partial-birth-abortion is a label which carries false meaning, but what do you mean "there is no such procedure?"

[musette_sf]

16. see my reply above

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=10648&mesg_id=10663

[reflection]

17. I see it. Point well taken.

This is why I like DU. We can all learn from each other. I did not realize that the term 'partial-birth-abortion' is not a medically recognized term by the AMA or the ACOG until I searched some more following your post. I will use 'IDX' or 'late-term abortion' from here forward.

[musette_sf]

19. thank you

for seeing the point that such a procedure DOES NOT EXIST, and checking the proof that such a procedure DOES NOT EXIST.

using the forced-birther memes only gives them more power.

[iverglas]

22. and here is where the problem lies

I will use 'IDX' or 'late-term abortion' from here forward.

You can certainly use those two terms -- but they refer to two different things.

This is the shell game played by the anti-choice brigade. And both Obama and Biden fell for it and haven't yet got their heads out of the anti-choice brigade's ass.

"Late-term abortion" would ordinarily refer to a termination at a time when a fetus is hypothetically viable. Hypothetically. NO ONE knows which fetus will survive to delivery, and survive delivery. Remember stillbirths? Full-term fetuses, apparently viable, and yet dead when delivered. Or fetuses that are delivered and then, once born, fail to breathe and perform the other functions that sustain life. Any interference with / prohibition on "late-term abortion" is in fact a violation of a woman's rights based on a gamble, and othing more.

"IDX" refers to a procedure -- NOT to the time at which the procedure is used.

In point of fact, it is commonly used in the second trimester of pregnancy -- roughly the time before a fetus is hypothetically viable.

The essence of the US Supreme Court's decisions on abortion has been that the state may legislate to restrict access to abortion, or prohibit abortion, ONLY at the point at which the fetus is (hypothetically) viable.

During the second trimester, the state may legislate regarding abortion ONLY in the interests of the woman. (We say "woman", btw, not "mother", since her parental status is not in issue, and if she does not yet have children, she is not a mother.)

Here is the summary of what was said in Roe v. Wade (my emphases):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

Very plainly, legislation that interferes in access to abortion, by any procedure, prior to (hypothetical) viability, for reasons unrealted to the woman's health, is flatly contrary to the this doctrine.

A ban on an abortion procedure that is used prior to (hypothetical) viability cannot possibly be consistent with the Court's previous decisions. Or with women's fundamental and constitutional rights.


If your co-workers are playing this shell game, they need to be called on it. Everyone who plays it needs to be called on it. Including Democrats. If they fell for it, they need educating. If they are pandering, they need to stop.

IDX is commonly performed on fetuses that have NO cognitive function -- no sensation of pain, no self-awareness, etc. etc.

If it is performed in a later stage of pregnancy, i.e. post hypothetical viability, it will overwhelmingly, if not in all cases, be performed on a fetus that has a condition that is inconsistent with life -- that will not survive birth, or will survive ony briefly and, at that point, likely be in very real pain. In fact it is possible that a late-term fetus may experience pain in utero in some form, and the kind of conditions we are talking about may, for example, cause seizures, which may cause pain.

The procedure would be performed at that stage to avoid the woman being cut open in order to terminate the pregnancy by Caesarian section, or having to endure labour to expel a fetus that could, for instance, have an enlarged head caused by a condition like hydrocephaly.


Please. Do not fall for the shell game. And do not let anyone within earshot get away with it.

And when the election is over, maybe you could all try to educate your new president and vice-president and any of your elected representatives who seem in need of educating.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Here's another woman's real-life story. And an article from JAMA

http://www.texaskaos.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3116

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/724

[reflection]

9. Wow.

The first link made me tear up. I had a scare with one of my daughters and those memories came flooding back.

I couldn't access the second link, as I don't have a subscription. But thank you nonetheless. The texaskos story is powerful indeed.

[dhpgetsit]

8. If I'm not mistaken

Obama can live with the PBA ban as long as the mother's health is allowed as an exception.

[lukasahero]

10. Don't you mean the mother's "health"?

The OP should use McCain's own words (and motions) to disuade people on this. I'm quite certain it would be easy to find that clip on YouTube.

As mentioned upthread, "late term abortions" are only used in extreme cases to protect the life and health of the woman and McCain considers the woman's "health" of little importance.

[dhpgetsit]

20. That is the exact word I chose.

His position is EXTREMELY moderate.

From http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/07/roundup-obama-late-term-abortion

Strang: Based on emails we received, another issue of deep importance to our readers is a candidate’s stance on abortion. We largely know your platform, but there seems to be some real confusion about your position on third-trimester and partial-birth abortions. Can you clarify your stance for us?

Obama: I absolutely can, so please don’t believe the emails. I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

[lukasahero]

21. Sorry - should have used the sarcasm emoticon

I was referring to putting the word health in "air-quotes" as McCain did.

Now, I'll quote Roseanne Roseannadanna and just say "Never mind".