Some "surprising" polling information about...

[j2k4]

whats a partial birth abortion? it sounds like you're aborting a baby just as its being born, but i'd bet its something much more innocuous and that its terminology inculcated by pro-lifers. i'm also betting that if you'd asked those people who took part in the poll i bet most of them wouldn't have known either

would i have made money on my bets?

You don't know?

The baby's head begins to emerge from the birth canal (this is called crowning), then is pierced by a cannula which is used to vacuum out it's brain.

Perhaps you can imagine the scenario which plays out when the attending physician dawdles...

Abortionists believe this is humane - absolutely painless - and you're willing to bet it is "innocuous".

Well done.

BTW-

The pro-abortionists sue at the drop of a hat in order to keep prospective mothers from seeing/hearing anything about the procedure beforehand.

Lynx-

I'll try to find a more complete accounting of the polling results when I have time.

[Busyman™]

Do you feel "so what" if you read something like this?

CNN Caught Falsifying Results of Abortion Poll

By Gudrun Schultz

UNITED STATES, May 15, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - CNN covered up poll results showing a majority of respondents were pro-life, blogger Joel Johannesen accused in a posting on ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

CNN conducted the massive poll, released on May 9th, which covered wide-ranging issues with an anti-conservative bent. Question 43 addressed abortion, asking respondents, “With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?”

The largest percentage--50 percent--of respondents indicated they considered themselves to be pro-life, compared to 45 percent who said they considered themselves to be pro-choice.

That question was not discussed in CNN’s coverage of the poll. Despite citing response percentages for questions dealing with issues such as the Iraq war, national health insurance and economics, CNN glossed over the abortion response by stating that “Americans are divided over abortion rights” and “abortion-rights opponents have intensity on their side.”

“People who describe themselves as pro-life are twice as likely to say the issue will be extremely important to them than people who call themselves pro-choice,” CNN stated.

The news source also failed to report that 66 percent of those questioned said the government should make partial birth abortion illegal, compared to just 28 percent who said the procedure should be legal.

Those results confirmed the findings from an April poll conducted by NBC/News Wall Street Journal, which found 53 percent of respondents were in favour of the Supreme Court decision to uphold a ban on partial birth abortion. Thirty-four percent of respondents were opposed to the ban.

A NewsBusters report on pro-abortion bias in the media pointed to NBC’s Brian Williams statement that “most Americans believe a woman has a right to an abortion,” as a clear example of misleading media coverage. A Washington Post poll conducted in February found only 16 percent of Americans support legal abortion in all circumstances.

The CNN poll questioned 1,028 adults in telephone interviews conducted May 4-6. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

You stated I've "misinterpreted" what I've read.

Seems like you've taken an oppositional stance by rote...if you feel comfortable stating I've mis-stated or mis-interpreted anything, whence comes your smug security in making what amounts to pure supposition about my postage?

I've always been curious about your penchant for such devices (not really).

That fucking sucks that CNN would do that!

I am curious how this blogger knows CNN did this though.

Where's his source?

edit: As an aside, Partial birth abortions or IDX procedures sound fucking disgusting.

I would like to see one to know how it is done first-hand. There is so much spin on things, who knows what to believe.

I'm sure pro-choice folks believe that banning it is a ploy by pro-lifers to ban all abortions and that's why there is no compromise. I say at some point, "Sorry you gotta have the baby" is in order.

At the same time, the pro-lifers should STFU with the hypocritical nature of what circumstances a woman gets an abortion. If you are pro-life there is no circumstance besides the mother being in mortal danger.

Rape, incest, down syndrome, etc. are all off the table. STFU and don't say what you call murder is now acceptable under those circumstances. "Sometimes decisions have to be made."

SHUT....THE.....FUCK....UP!

[Snee]

whats a partial birth abortion? it sounds like you're aborting a baby just as its being born, but i'd bet its something much more innocuous and that its terminology inculcated by pro-lifers. i'm also betting that if you'd asked those people who took part in the poll i bet most of them wouldn't have known either

would i have made money on my bets?

You don't know?

The baby's head begins to emerge from the birth canal (this is called crowning), then is pierced by a cannula which is used to vacuum out it's brain.

It begins to emerge because the physician is pulling on the fetus's legs, right?

If understand things correctly, is not a matter of a natural birth going on, so maybe "birth" is not the right word for it, although I can see why whoever coined it did. It makes for nasty imagery, that.

Seems like a bad way of doing it, though, especially since it's done so late

I looked into it, just now, and abortion is usually not an option after 18 weeks here, surgical abortions are considered too harmful for the woman after like 12 weeks, and abortions are pretty much never performed after 22 weeks as the child is "alive" then, like.

Doing it that way after 24 weeks really seems wrong.

[Busyman™]

You don't know?

The baby's head begins to emerge from the birth canal (this is called crowning), then is pierced by a cannula which is used to vacuum out it's brain.

It begins to emerge because the physician is pulling on the fetus's legs, right?

If understand things correctly, is not a matter of a natural birth going on, so maybe "birth" is not the right word for it, although I can see why whoever coined it did. It makes for nasty imagery, that.

Seems like a bad way of doing it, though, especially since it's done so late

I looked into it, just now, and abortion is usually not an option after 18 weeks here, surgical abortions are considered too harmful for the woman after like 12 weeks, and abortions are pretty much never performed after 22 weeks as the child is "alive" then, like.

Doing it that way after 24 weeks really seems wrong.

Those are my thoughts also. That's why I said at some point it has to be, "Sorry, you gotta have it".

Another thing is that the 2sides claim "namings rights".

Pro-lifers coined partial-birth and medical doctors that do the abortions claimed IDX.

[lynx]

J2's description of partial birth abortion is inaccurate. Crowning is the stage in natural childbirth where the head is presented first, this does not take place in PBA. The whole point of the description of PBA is that the rest of the body has been "born" before the technique is used to make the head small enough to pass through the vagina.

A proper description, with pictures, is available at this pro-life site.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA...hers_Place.htm

I mostly agree with the comments about there being a need to set a limit on the latest date for performing abortions. I say mostly because, except in the case of medical necessity, I'd set the limit much earlier, say about 16 weeks.

Interestingly, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is not related to the timing of the abortion, simply to the method. It also "does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

[Busyman™]

J2's description of partial birth abortion is inaccurate. Crowning is the stage in natural childbirth where the head is presented first, this does not take place in PBA. The whole point of the description of PBA is that the rest of the body has been "born" before the technique is used to make the head small enough to pass through the vagina.

A proper description, with pictures, is available at this pro-life site.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA...hers_Place.htm

I mostly agree with the comments about there being a need to set a limit on the latest date for performing abortions. I say mostly because, except in the case of medical necessity, I'd set the limit much earlier, say about 16 weeks.

Interestingly, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is not related to the timing of the abortion, simply to the method. It also "does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

Yeah I've heard descriptions where basically the brain is sucked out to allow the skull to collapse.

It still sounds disgusting.

We all sound like we are in agreement. Besides the mother being in danger, there needs to be a limit set on when an abortion can be performed.

If the mom can't make up her fucking mind, she's just short.

Put the baby up for adoption then.

At the point that there is a limit set, pro-lifers need to fuck-off.

[ilw]

ok totally crapped out on the guess... but anyway, found this bit of footage poking fun at the campaigners.

If abortion were illegal, what would be the punishment?

[vidcc]

ok totally crapped out on the guess... but anyway, found this bit of footage poking fun at the campaigners.

If abortion were illegal, what would be the punishment?

Quite interesting responses. I'm certain they would have no trouble answering what they think should happen to the person that performed the abortion though.

[fibonachi]

wow.some serious discussion in here.