Mexico City lawmakers vote to legalize abortion:

[Praxius]

Mexico City lawmakers vote to legalize abortion

Bill passes to allow abortions in Mexico City

Elected politicians in Mexico City voted Tuesday to allow women in the first three months of pregnancy to have abortions in the city. The proposed legislation, approved by a vote of 46-19 with one abstention, would only apply within the capital, but it would mean women can travel to Mexico City to get legal abortions. It is expected to take effect with the signing by the federal district's leftist mayor. Abortion opponents, however, have already vowed to appeal the law to the Supreme Court. The law would require city hospitals to provide the procedure, but would also open the way for private abortion clinics. Legislators who framed the bill said that girls under 18 would have to get the consent of their parents. Abortion after 12 weeks would be punished by three to six months in jail. Supporters say hundreds of thousands of women get illegal abortions in the country every year. Federal Mexican law allows abortion only in cases of rape, if the fetus has been deemed to have severe birth defects or if the pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk. Polls show a majority of city residents support the legalizing of abortion but there is significant opposition to the measure. Catholic bishops in Mexico have been speaking out against the move and anti-abortion protesters have held demonstrations, including candlelight vigils. With 90 per cent of Mexicans Roman Catholic, Mexico has the second-largest Roman Catholic population in the world after Brazil's. The church has a lot of clout, said Maria Luisa Sanchez Fuentes, organizer of a group in favour of reproductive choice. "They are extremely powerful and that has been one of the reasons why politicians had not considered [it] the right time to talk about abortion," she told CBC News. Dr. Joel Lopez, part of an anti-abortion protest organized by the church, said he feels as though the battle against legalizing abortion is being lost. "There's a plan, not just here in Mexico City, but worldwide," he said in Spanish. "It's being pushed by the World Health Organization and the UN, so abortion will be accepted all around the world. We are facing a very difficult situation." In Latin America and the Caribbean, abortion is legal in Cuba and Guyana. Most countries in the region allow it in cases of rape or if the woman's life is at risk. Abortion is completely banned in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Chile.

It seems to go back and forth accross the globe..... It's a good step for the right reasons IMO.

[The Decider]

Good news. Now, if the Supreme Court ever overturns Roe v. Wade, American women will have the option of seeking medical care in Canada and Mexico.

[Rinoa]

Personally I'm against abortion. I could never kill a baby inside of me. Especially since I'm the one that made the mistake with the contraception. But I believe that it's an individual choice up until the second trimester, after which there is way too much specialisation of the cells for it to not be considered human. I'm glad that the government in Mexico gave their people that freedom.

[Osborn F Enready]

Potential humans don't have rights, only individual humans.

I am glad to see more choice in Mexico, but it is probably only to help merge us economically in the upcoming "trade scam" and Intranational Trade corridor program.

[Rinoa]

and in the third trimester? When the baby is developed enough that it could live a normal life after a few days in intensive care? How is that not an individual human?

And at that point, if the mother doesn't want it then there is adoption. She doesn't have to kill a child.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Rinoa and in the third trimester? When the baby is developed enough that it could live a normal life after a few days in intensive care? How is that not an individual human? And at that point, if the mother doesn't want it then there is adoption. She doesn't have to kill a child.

It isn't an individual as long as it is parasitizing its mother. When it is no longer parasitizing its mother, it is a human being -- age has little to do with it, other than as an indicator of the chances it could live outside of its mother.

If the mother is not willing or not able to carry the child to term, she shouldn't have to. Simple as that, in essence, though there are other considerations especially in the third trimester. But the basic idea is just that: it is the mother's body, not the fetus's. The child only has what rights to her body, and thus to survival, the mother gives to the child.

[Osborn F Enready]

If a woman is succeptible to natural abortion from injury or natural cause, she is able to perform an abortion of choice in my opinion.

Cofee said the same thing above, but in a different way.

[Rinoa]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint It isn't an individual as long as it is parasitizing its mother. When it is no longer parasitizing its mother, it is a human being -- age has little to do with it, other than as an indicator of the chances it could live outside of its mother. If the mother is not willing or not able to carry the child to term, she shouldn't have to. Simple as that, in essence, though there are other considerations especially in the third trimester. But the basic idea is just that: it is the mother's body, not the fetus's. The child only has what rights to her body, and thus to survival, the mother gives to the child.

If she is in the third term and no longer wants the baby inside her then they can induce birth and the baby can be given to someone who wants it through an adoption agency. There is no reason to abort, the fetus is perfectly capable of no longer being parasitic.

With partial birth abortion they induce labor and the child is forced out of the womb to the point that the back of the neck is exposed. A hole would then be cut into the back of the neck so that the brain could be sucked out with a vaccum. If the baby were in normal birth* position this would mean that the head, which is fully formed at this stage would be outside of the mother. At that point the child could breath on its own, and if given food it could eat at this point. It has the ability to live outside the mother. Thus it is no longer parasitic. It would only be after the baby can function on its own that the baby would be 'aborted'.

Now, considering that the child is breathing on its own, and could support itself on food from outside the mother, how is that not killing a baby? Also, the mother has to finish pushing the child out of her body afterwards, regardless of whether or not it remains alive. How does leaving the child alive to try and survive on its own even inconvenience the mother?


*Note, for partial birth abortion they do not rotate the 'fetus' simply because it makes it a 'baby' by the standards you have laid out. There is also an issue with the mother hearing the baby cry, how many of these would be done if they were required to birth the child headfirst?

[Praxius]

Yeah I take priority of rights to those already alive, over those who have yet to be born.

[Rinoa]

Praxius, was that in response to my post? If so, what right of the mother is denied by not allowing a partial birth abortion?

[rmnunez]

I oppose this legislation, it allows for the performance of a government-subsidized abortion, on demand, upon a minor, without parental notification, premised solely on an unsubstantiated allegation of economic hardship resulting.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Rinoa If she is in the third term and no longer wants the baby inside her then they can induce birth and the baby can be given to someone who wants it through an adoption agency. There is no reason to abort, the fetus is perfectly capable of no longer being parasitic.

At that point, the only question is whether inducing birth and so on is more dangerous to the mother than would be the abortion. If giving birth and adopting is less harmful, then it only makes sense to have the mother do so -- and I do not believe that women have abortions in the third trimester solely because they feel like it. There is a consideration that makes the abortion necessary for that woman, which is probably a medical one. At any rate, the goal of having the woman do the reasonable thing should be accomplished through education, not legislation.

Quote by: Rinoa With partial birth abortion they induce labor and the child is forced out of the womb to the point that the back of the neck is exposed. A hole would then be cut into the back of the neck so that the brain could be sucked out with a vaccum. If the baby were in normal birth* position this would mean that the head, which is fully formed at this stage would be outside of the mother. At that point the child could breath on its own, and if given food it could eat at this point. It has the ability to live outside the mother. Thus it is no longer parasitic. It would only be after the baby can function on its own that the baby would be 'aborted'.

Yeah, that's gross and stuff. Let me know when you're finished.

Quote by: Rinoa Now, considering that the child is breathing on its own, and could support itself on food from outside the mother, how is that not killing a baby? Also, the mother has to finish pushing the child out of her body afterwards, regardless of whether or not it remains alive. How does leaving the child alive to try and survive on its own even inconvenience the mother?

I never said abortion didn't kill the baby. Abortion clearly kills the baby. The question is, does the baby have an inherent right to live? The answer is, and remains: Not until it is no longer parasitizing the mother. Saying "But it will all be over soon" doesn't change that -- it is akin to telling a woman who is being raped to just lie still, because it will all be over soon. Until the child is actually breathing on its own, it is not an individual: it is a parasite, and it does not have inherent rights.

Quote by: Rinoa *Note, for partial birth abortion they do not rotate the 'fetus' simply because it makes it a 'baby' by the standards you have laid out. There is also an issue with the mother hearing the baby cry, how many of these would be done if they were required to birth the child headfirst?

Until it is born, headfirst or feet first, and takes a breath to make that cry the mother might hear, it is not a person with a person's inherent right to live.

[Rinoa]

At that point, the only question is whether inducing birth and so on is more dangerous to the mother than would be the abortion. If giving birth and adopting is less harmful, then it only makes sense to have the mother do so

I wasn't debating against a normal abortion. I was making a case against partial birth abortion, in which case they already have to induce labor. The abortion has the same amount of strain on the mother as simply giving birth, and in some cases more because the baby sits in the birth canal while the doctor 'takes care of it'

-- and I do not believe that women have abortions in the third trimester solely because they feel like it.

Maybe not all women do it simply because they do not feel like having a baby, but I guarantee that some of the women that get these abortions just had a hard time making up their mind in the first two trimesters. Also, would you say that they should be allowed a partial birth abortion without a medical reason?

There is a consideration that makes the abortion necessary for that woman, which is probably a medical one. At any rate, the goal of having the woman do the reasonable thing should be accomplished through education, not legislation.

I've never actually heard of a single medical condition in which partial birth was necessary and that the mother was likely to be harmed because of it.
And when it's human lives on the line, legislation is necessary. You do not have the right to deny something life simply because you want it out of your body. Take it out, and let it have the chance to live.

Yeah, that's gross and stuff. Let me know when you're finished.

Many people that are 'for' this process don't understand exactly what it is that occurs during a partial birth. Describing it in specific terms is the best way to promote that understanding. I wasn't trying to be gross.

I never said abortion didn't kill the baby. Abortion clearly kills the baby. The question is, does the baby have an inherent right to live? The answer is, and remains: Not until it is no longer parasitizing the mother. Saying "But it will all be over soon" doesn't change that -- it is akin to telling a woman who is being raped to just lie still, because it will all be over soon. Until the child is actually breathing on its own, it is not an individual: it is a parasite, and it does not have inherent rights.

The symantecs of fetus vs. baby were being questioned. To word the question better, How is it not a baby that is being killed? If it has the ability to live on its own(which I've proven it does) why do we need to stop it from doing so? What advantage does it give the mother?

As for the whole leaving the baby alive while finishing the birthing process...Completely different from finishing rape. If she needs the baby out, she can have it removed(and the 'parasite' stopped) without killing it. That's like killing the rapist to get him out. If there was any other way to stop him, shouldn't that be tried first?
During partial birth labor has already been induced, she has to push the baby out regardless of whether or not it is still alive. It remaining alive does not stress her body any more than pushing it out dead. In fact, the baby remains in the canal longer if it is aborted in this manner because the doctor has to hold it there in order to kill it. The only thing that is actually affected by partial birth is the life of the child. The baby is out of her in the same time either way.

Also, if the issue is that the baby is taking from her body, and she needs the nutrients, why not just cut the unbilical cord? That comes out before the neck does, and stops the baby from relying on her. Effectively ridding her of the parasite quicker.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Rinoa I wasn't debating against a normal abortion. I was making a case against partial birth abortion, in which case they already have to induce labor. The abortion has the same amount of strain on the mother as simply giving birth, and in some cases more because the baby sits in the birth canal while the doctor 'takes care of it' Maybe not all women do it simply because they do not feel like having a baby, but I guarantee that some of the women that get these abortions just had a hard time making up their mind in the first two trimesters. Also, would you say that they should be allowed a partial birth abortion without a medical reason? I've never actually heard of a single medical condition in which partial birth was necessary and that the mother was likely to be harmed because of it.

A midwifery web site quotes Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that "approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb." About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn's brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. "It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain...close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid." In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It "poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies." 2 Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill both her and the fetus.

D&X procedure (a.k.a.Partial Birth Abortion) - All sides

It is rare, of course -- as is the procedure. As for women who "can't make up their minds," I don't believe that is the case, because I don't believe that any reputable obstetrician would agree to perform the procedure just because. If there were such a doctor, he should lose his license.

The procedure has a medical purpose, and like any surgery should only be performed when that medical purpose would be served by the surgery. I'd be against unnecessary heart bypass surgery, too -- but I'd also want that to come from education and doctor oversight, not from simple legislation that might constraina doctor at exactly the wrong moment from performing a procedure that would benefit the patient.

Quote by: Rinoa And when it's human lives on the line, legislation is necessary. You do not have the right to deny something life simply because you want it out of your body. Take it out, and let it have the chance to live.

First: I really don't mean to be a jerk, but it is not a human life until after it is born -- before that, legally it is a parasite, a part of the mother. After it is born, it has the right to live. Second, if there is no medical reason for the child to be killed, no, the procedure shouldn't be done -- but I don't believe it is.

Quote by: Rinoa Many people that are 'for' this process don't understand exactly what it is that occurs during a partial birth. Describing it in specific terms is the best way to promote that understanding. I wasn't trying to be gross.

You could have educated me with a link. You were trying to make me feel sorry for the baby. I don't.

Quote by: Rinoa The symantecs of fetus vs. baby were being questioned. To word the question better, How is it not a baby that is being killed? If it has the ability to live on its own(which I've proven it does) why do we need to stop it from doing so? What advantage does it give the mother?

I don't know what advantage it gives the mother; I am not the doctor. I simply believe this decision should be left up to the people involved. It is an extraordinary decision, made under extraordinary circumstances -- there is no way to make a fair an dequitable law that covers extraordinary circumstances, so I'm against the law. I am not supporting or promoting partial birth abortion, simply pointing out that the law should reflect reality: a ban on PBA is simply a political move, not a necessary or useful one. No babies or fetuses are killed unnecessarily in the third trimester; if they are, the doctor in question should be censured accordingly. There is no need to prevent the potential genuine uses of the procedure in order to stop people who misuse it -- simply stop the people who misuse it.

Quote by: Rinoa As for the whole leaving the baby alive while finishing the birthing process...Completely different from finishing rape. If she needs the baby out, she can have it removed(and the 'parasite' stopped) without killing it. That's like killing the rapist to get him out. If there was any other way to stop him, shouldn't that be tried first? During partial birth labor has already been induced, she has to push the baby out regardless of whether or not it is still alive. It remaining alive does not stress her body any more than pushing it out dead. In fact, the baby remains in the canal longer if it is aborted in this manner because the doctor has to hold it there in order to kill it. The only thing that is actually affected by partial birth is the life of the child. The baby is out of her in the same time either way. Also, if the issue is that the baby is taking from her body, and she needs the nutrients, why not just cut the unbilical cord? That comes out before the neck does, and stops the baby from relying on her. Effectively ridding her of the parasite quicker.

Same answer as above: I don't believe the procedure is done when it is not medically necessary. That being the case, the law against the procedure is useless, and potentially harmful.

[Rinoa]

Would you support a law banning PBAs in cases that do not medically require them?

I was also unable to find a link that described birth to that point that simply. Most either stopped using laymans terms or didn't go into enough detail. Also, a good deal of my information on the birthing process and when the baby is no longer 'parasitic' came from a discussion with my uncle(a doctor) I did however neglect to ask him for a condition which would make it necessary to the mother, thank you for the example. The link you provided did however mention that some mothers do elect to do it simply because they took too long in deciding. Your own evidence contradicts the belief that it is never used unless necessary, though it was usually only in late second trimester.

Just to clarify, my stance on abortion after the first term has always been only when necessary for the mothers health, or in the case of rape or incest.

[Osborn F Enready]

Rinoa said: Would you support a law banning PBAs in cases that do not medically require them?

No.

Rinoa said: Just to clarify, my stance on abortion after the first term has always been only when necessary for the mothers health, or in the case of rape or incest.

Where would the rights of the mother play into your opinion, if I may ask, just for clarification, and at what point does the moral, subjective opinion of "a majority" trump the individual rights of the mother?

[Rinoa]

The right of the mother is in the first and early second trimester before the child has the ability to survive on its own, and at any time in which it is a medical danger to her. Her rights are in place during the time in which she could be harmed. After specialization when the baby can in fact be called a baby because it would survive on its own she can still get the baby out, sans brain suck.

As I stated in my other post leaving the child of alive during the birthing has no effect on the mothers life unless there is a medical reason complicating getting the baby out. I am not requiring that she raise the child, carry it a moment longer than she wants or even that she fund it's attempt at life. Only that she not kill a thing that is physically capable of being an individual on it's way down the birth canal.

Without a medical complication where does the mother benefit from having the child aborted instead of simply removed?

[Osborn F Enready]

Rinoa said: Without a medical complication where does the mother benefit from having the child aborted instead of simply removed?

Multiple ways.

Just one way would be the fact that the child carries gene samples of the mother and father, which in todays and future technology may be used against them in some manner, or without their conscent, which may directly affect them at some time.

Another way is the fact that due to the "lack of strength" shown by the government of this nation to enforce individual rights, there is sufficient reason to believe that a couple, or mother, could be held liable at some future time for harm which may come to the child, regardless of what form of "adoption" takes place.

There is much more at stake here than a potential human regarding rights of the mother.

[Rinoa]

Just one way would be the fact that the child carries gene samples of the mother and father, which in todays and future technology may be used against them in some manner, or without their conscent, which may directly affect them at some time. Just one way would be the fact that the child carries gene samples of the mother and father, which in todays and future technology may be used against them in some manner, or without their conscent, which may directly affect them at some time.

Other than proving that they parented the child? Highly doubtful, and a possible inconvenience not substantial enough to justify killing another person. Plus, with an adoption process which screens the identity of the person you would have to know beforehand whose child it was, and there would be no way to find out.

Another way is the fact that due to the "lack of strength" shown by the government of this nation to enforce individual rights, there is sufficient reason to believe that a couple, or mother, could be held liable at some future time for harm which may come to the child, regardless of what form of "adoption" takes place.

By relinquishing parental rights they legally relinquish parental responsibility. So no, they can't be held legally liable later on down the road, the new parents take that on.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Rinoa Would you support a law banning PBAs in cases that do not medically require them?

If the doctor is the one who decides medical necessity, then sure. If it is a judge, then no. If there is no room for anyone to decide but an ironclad set of circumstances, then no.

Quote by: Rinoa I was also unable to find a link that described birth to that point that simply. Most either stopped using laymans terms or didn't go into enough detail. Also, a good deal of my information on the birthing process and when the baby is no longer 'parasitic' came from a discussion with my uncle(a doctor) I did however neglect to ask him for a condition which would make it necessary to the mother, thank you for the example. The link you provided did however mention that some mothers do elect to do it simply because they took too long in deciding. Your own evidence contradicts the belief that it is never used unless necessary, though it was usually only in late second trimester.

You're right, my link did say this:

In addition, some physicians violate their state medical association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.

I'm not arguing that doctors who violate accepted medical guidelines should be allowed to continue behaving irresponsibly. I'm simply arguing that the procedure should be allowed when medical professionals deem it necessary -- not politicians.

My definition of parasite is not a scientific one, but it is fitting: the fetus depends entirely on the mother for its survival moment, and it survives by taking resources (oxygen and nutrients) from the mother, resources that are limited and thus if used by the fetus are not available to the mother, potentially to her detriment. And that continues until the very moment the child is born and takes its first breath; ten minutes before that, it is still a parasite, because if the mother did not provide it with oxygen, it would die without medical intervention. I don't think that a D&X ten minutes before birth is appropriate, but the fetus is still not a person at that point -- only a parasite.

Quote by: Rinoa Just to clarify, my stance on abortion after the first term has always been only when necessary for the mothers health, or in the case of rape or incest.

Extend that into the second trimester, and you and I have nothing to argue about.