I still can't believe that the Pro-choice Democrats of South Dakota let this issue get this far. And whats worse is that considering the state our Supreme court is in if it was passed it might not be overturned. Once again, the Republican party is going to restrict womens rights. So make sure to thank Bush.
EDIT: sorry for sounding angry.
[ February 25, 2006, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: Advent 115 ]
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
You're being a touch overdramatic about this issue.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Watch who you're trying to damn, pally. You're being way overdramatic.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I'm not convinced that this new law, if it becomes law, will be upheld, regardless of recent changes in the Supreme Court. I'm also not convinced that for the short time it is in effect, it will have that much of an impact, besides making people who wish to have an abortion drive to a neighboring state. Furthermore, I fail to see how the actions of the South Dakota legislature can be blamed on George W. Bush. I don't seem to recall him being the start of the anti-abortion movement in this country.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Hmm, let me think about that.
Well lets see, they are only about to strip the rights of the American people yet again. Bush's administration has already begun damaging all of the progress that the Clinton administration made on the "gag rule". A law that makes it illegal for docters to even mention abortion as an option. So no, I don't think I'm being to touchy on this subject.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
And no Apostle. Bush didn't start it. But he does help the process of destroying all that the Pro-choice movement has been working towards.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, first of all, some people don't regard abortion as a "right".
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I don't deny that Bush probably takes pleasure in their actions, I just think that it is unfair to blame the actions on him. I don't really believe that the person in the White House has anything to do with the decisions of South Dakota lawmakers. Perhaps the recent Supreme Court shuffle causes them to choose this time, but I doubt it. If they believe that the Supreme Court will uphold their law, despite the fact that it flies in the face of SC precedent, and ignore the principles of stare decisus, then I think they are just wrong. I don't think I would start worrying just yet about the overturning of Roe.
--ApostleRadio
EDIT for grammar
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
They're a long way from getting it overturned. It's more likely the SC will hammer them back down.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Is there anyone on Hatrack other than me who see's this as wrong?! I mean come on! The government is about to take away womens right to control their own bodies!?
Where the hell are the other Pro-choice members of Hatrack when I need them!!!!!
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
this argument has happened once or twice before. I think "agree to disagree" is the nice way to put it.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Advent, I look at it as a symbolic gesture. For the small portion of the population that lives in South Dakota, their ability to get an abortion will be limited by their ability to leave the state for the short time that this law is in effect before being overturned.
It is hard to drum up support for a slippery slope type argument when the effects are so limited geographically and chonologically. People only pay attention to national level politics, and tend to ignore state level stories like this unless they are in the state in question. ::shrug::
The Planned Parenthood people over the border in Iowa are already preparing for an influx of Dakotan's if the law goes into effect, if that makes you feel any better.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Some of us don't see it as stripping a right. Many of us are willing to debate this issue. Fewer of us are willing to debate it with someone who implies by his posts that the pro-life opinion is ridiculous and horrible. It would be like debating religion with King of Men. You're alienating even those who probably agree with you by your tone.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm not sure this is a bad thing. I think the folks in South Dakota may have just bought themselves a new confirmation of Row v. Wade. They've come up with such a draconic law that the Supreme Court may very well slap it down. And that'll give pause to the next fanatics who step up to the plate.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Advent, I look at it as a symbolic gesture. For the small portion of the population that lives in South Dakota, their ability to get an abortion will be limited by their ability to leave the state for the short time that this law is in effect before being overturned.
Acutally, the article I read said that while the law is being challenged, a court will probably put it on hold so it will never go into effect unless the Supreme Court upholds it.
I don't think any court would uphold the law the way it is written, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the mother's health written in.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
And then there are those of us who are thrilled....
That article on Villagevoice was just a bit over the top, I thought. For one, it's not an outright ban as they assert. And that NARAL spokesperson's quotes are just opinion, with no real meat to back her opinion up. I thought over all, it was a pretty weak piece. Especially running with the idea that if it were put to a vote, the people of SD would shoot it down. I suspect not, given the fact that the votes in both House and Senate weren't even close. At least here, when gays were given protected legal status earlier this year, the vote was close, which I think is reflective of the population. And I can't guess which way it would have gone if it'd been a general election issue.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
quote:Originally posted by prolixshore: Advent, I look at it as a symbolic gesture. For the small portion of the population that lives in South Dakota, their ability to get an abortion will be limited by their ability to leave the state for the short time that this law is in effect before being overturned.
The Planned Parenthood people over the border in Iowa are already preparing for an influx of Dakotan's if the law goes into effect, if that makes you feel any better.
--ApostleRadio
Yes it does. And as for the small number, that still means that over 800 women a year would not have that choice in their home state. And I just think that is wrong.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Uh, can't we just stop arguing about this? I mean, no one will change their opinions on abortion, everyone will just argue to no end. Can't we just delete this post?
All for it?
Aye!
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
I think some of the resistence you're getting in this thread is becasue we've ALL discussed it before, nearly endlessly. Maybe you should go look up some old abortion threads.
Ni!
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Anyone for deleting this thread?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Abortion is a banned topic on many forums for good reason. Been there, done that. As for the law, I don't think the legislature in South Dakota thinks it will pass the Supreme Court; I think they just want to be seen to be trying to Do Something on the issue. [/mind-reading]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Reticulum, could be I'm wrong, but since you were able to click the link to get to this thread, I'm fairly sure you also have the ability to resist doing so. Since you now know what it is about, might I respectfully suggest that you exercise that ability instead of asking for the thread's deletion? I personally HATE when people delete threads.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
unles you're hiding something....
[/Conspiracy Theory]
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Yes, going away might be a good way, but all this thread will cause is Hatred towards others, and hard feelings. I cannot think of a single good thing this thread will bring. Annnnnnnd, what's worng with deleting threads?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It prevents people from increasing their post-count, thereby gaining respect and prestige.
[/post-slutting]
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Actually, when you delete a post, it still goes for your post count.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I didn't creat this thread for my post count, I posted it because I felt that it was an issue that should come to the attention of all voting age Hatrackers.
I am sorry if anyone thought I was creating to bring up the issue of pro-choice vs pro-life. I just thought the issue of the law in South Dakota would be of interest to informed Hatrackers.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I almost posted this thread earlier today (but with a more neutral link) but decided not to get into it. Don't worry, I understand why you posted it. I agree it's something that should be discussed, if we can manage to do it in a respectful and appropriate manner.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am sorry if anyone thought I was creating to bring up the issue of pro-choice vs pro-life.
Abortion is a perfectly acceptable subject for discussion.
But you haven't said anything about the issue except to damn a bunch of us.
You haven't presented arguments to support your view.
You haven't presented reasons why the arguments in favor of the SD law are invalid.
You haven't even acknowledged that there are arguments in favor of the SD law.
You've posted the rhetorical equivalent of "the South Dakota legislature's bad, mmmmkay."
You've also made it clear that you don't intend to engage in reasoned discussion with any of the people who have posted opposing viewpoints.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Yes. This is what I had meant to do, but.... well I let my emotions on the issue overwhelm me while I made it.
Sorry.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I let my emotions get the best of me okay?
I didn't mean to start madly ranting, but it just turned out that way. I am calm again and willing to discuss this issue properly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK. Do you wish to discuss the political aspects, the legalistic aspects, or the general issue of criminalizing abortion?
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Hmm, I think starting on the legalistic aspect would be most suiting.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Ohhh, this is a low blow. If this goes into effect, pro-choicers can't win anywhere. Either it's just plain accepted, or it's challenged and appealed all the way up to where they can try, with a more conservative supreme court, to overturn RvW.
They didn't even put in the usual exceptions to the rule- rape, incest... I don't think they *want* this to go unchallenged. They want it to pass in the state, and then someone gets mad and sets the dominoes a-fallin'.
Oh dear. This makes me afraid.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
It did the same thing to me.
Posted by Another Chirping Cricket (Member # 8905) on :
my mum had a baby at age 15, back in the early 60s.
she was raped by her father.
and told that she could not come home if she did not give the baby up for adoption, and was sent away to a private catholic school for the duration.
which meant she didn't get a choice, at all, nor did she ever get to see this child she carried to term, nor was the abuse done to her remedied, nor was her heartbreak dealt with, nor has she ever been able to let go of any of the trauma.
and has spent a lifetime fighting the ghosts of this awful thing that happened to her.
and i wonder what it would have been like if she had first been kept safe, second, if safety wasn't possible, at least an option to give that child back to god from whence it came - its not like she ever asked for this baby.
and just the fact that they had private girls homes for this very happening ought to tell everyone something very important.
premarital youthful sex, whether consensual or forced, was not so uncommon as people would like to make it out to believe.
the 60's-70s merely brought it out in the limelight for all to see.
do we really want to keep girls and women in positions of subservience, dominated by men? laws? laws made by men to protect their "old boys" club and so-called rights to abusing power and privilege?
gahhh.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:second, if safety wasn't possible, at least an option to give that child back to god from whence it came
What a lovely euphemism.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Damn the Republican party. And damn every one of you who voted for him.
[edited] Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I said I was sorry. So get over it MPH.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I've read that book, too, prolix -- it is a good one. I'm going to a conference mid-March where she is a keynote speaker -- I'm looking forward to it.
There's something about the "giving the child back to the god whence it came from . . . . " didn't the old celtic or native-style religions phrase it that way?
Regardless of the "euphamism", Tom -- what happened to that young girl was awful. It'd sure be nice if society spent some time on looking at issues like this -- I just got a second notice in the mail today of yet another Level 3 sex offender moving into the neighborhood -- who likes girls between the ages of 12-16.
And since we know that this occurs most often in families and via close/trusting relationships, it makes me sick.
And get ready to start packing and move.
Edit to add: Where did prolix's post about Stephanie Coontz go? *puzzled*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They didn't even put in the usual exceptions to the rule- rape, incest...
That's not a particularly "usual" exception. The usual exception that they didn't include is threat of severe physical injury to the mother.
Edit: from a SCOTUS standpoint, I'd be very surprised if the lack of a rape exception is relevant to the outcome.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I said I was sorry. So get over it MPH.
Advent just got blocked from my AIM because he kept spamming me with stuff like "Damn you Republican! Damn you for voting for Bush!"
I guess he wasn't very sorry for having done it -- just for being called on it.
[ March 06, 2006, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
The only exeption included in this law they want to pass is if the pregnency is indangering the womans life. No other exeptions are included.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I was trying to make it a joke before you shut me off. I was just trying to get your attention first, and I thought me saying that would be a hint to who I was.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
So I'm sorry MPH, I was only joking. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Man, I don't even have mph's AIM name, and Advent is already blocked?
I feel like such a loser.
-Bok
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Telling me to go to hell is not a good way to get my attention.
Especially after I've already told you to knock it off.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I don't remember saying go to hell? But I am sorry.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't know what else "Damn you" could mean.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I said darn you, not damn you. And I said I'm sorry.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe he was damning you to heaven?
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I'm not sure this is a bad thing. I think the folks in South Dakota may have just bought themselves a new confirmation of Row v. Wade. They've come up with such a draconic law that the Supreme Court may very well slap it down. And that'll give pause to the next fanatics who step up to the plate.
Egad! I agree with starLisa.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Hey. (thinks about it) Yeah! Thats where I was darning you to.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Darning socks?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
First of all, you said damn at least three times before you said darn.
Second of all, thank you for your apology.
Third of all, you're unblocked, which means that Bok is even more of a loser. Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Who's Bok?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Man, I don't even have mph's AIM name, and Advent is already blocked?
I feel like such a loser.
-Bok
This is Bok.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Is there anyone on Hatrack other than me who see's this as wrong?! I mean come on! The government is about to take away womens right to control their own bodies!
Yes, because women do not have many many many many many many many options to completely avoid pregnancy that are inexpensive, effective, and widely available, right?
Wait, that's not right at all. If the government were restricting women's access to these things and outlawing (attempting to outlaw) abortion, well then your point would be accurate.
It's only accurate insofar as rape is not included as an option for a legal abortion in this law, but of course you went much further in your villifying.
I don't blame you, though. I loves oppressing me some wimin.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
A quick question....
If an atheist says "Damn You", what does he mean?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: Hmm, I think starting on the legalistic aspect would be most suiting.
Okay. Please tell me what part of Roe v. Wade provides for federally subsidized abortions.
We all know that the majority of abortions performed in this country are subsidized by tax dollars.
In my opinion, if we removed the tax dollars from the equation abortion would cease to be a public issue. The government(us) shouldn't be too involved in what a woman does with her own money and her own body, unless what she does results in the spending of tax dollars or insurance money.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Where does this information come from, skillery? I'm honestly floored by the assertions.
quote:Please tell me what part of Roe v. Wade provides for federally subsidized abortions.
Of course, it doesn't. Also of course, the U.S. Congress barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except in cases of endangermant of the woman's life and in cases of rape or incest. This is not a circumstance where a lot of people are "getting in through the back door" by claiming rape or incest or endangerment, by the way, at least not as I understand it. (see below)
quote:We all know that the majority of abortions performed in this country are subsidized by tax dollars.
No, we all don't. That is, I certainly don't.
My recall of the CDC tracking information is that in 2002, only 14% of abortions (or 14% of abortion costs in toto, can't remember which -- but the point is the same) are subsidized by government-controlled money. And most of that was state government money, not federal, by the way.
I'll look up references if you like. I'd like to see where your estimation [that "the majority of abortions performed in this country are subsidized by tax dollars"] came from too, though.
*puzzled
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I had the same discussion with my son. "Damn you" doesn't mean much when it comes from an atheist.
Neither does "Go to hell," although the meaning is harder to lose.
Of course, I don't know Advent's belief system.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:In my opinion, if we removed the tax dollars from the equation abortion would cease to be a public issue.
It would not stop being an important issue for large segments of the public.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
No it would not cease being an important issue. There are those of us who care very deeply about the issue and our tax dollars are the furthest things from our mind.
Most abortion, as I understand it, are paid in case. Not by insurance, not by the government, but cash by the patient.
I'm as puzzled as CT by skillery's post.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Why do rape and incest figure into it at all?
If you do not believe that a fetus is protected human life (or at least, not until a certain level of gestation is reached) then the cause of the pregnancy shouldn't matter. Abort away.
If you do believe that a fetus is a protected human life, then the cause of the pregnancy shouldn't matter. Deal with it.
What do you think? If you're against abortion, would you make exceptions for (admittedly rare) cases of pregnancy from rape or incest? If so, why?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I am against abortion, and I wouldn't make exceptions for raper nor incest.
edit:
It seems to me that the idea that there should be exceptions for rape and incest sometimes stems from a mentality that promiscuous women deserve the "punishment" of the pregnancy. In the case of rape and incest, it's not the girl's fault, so why "punish" her.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
m_p_h, I find that a tenable stance. Not that I share it, but I can make sense of it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let me point out that CT's stament was made before my edit.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I still find your writing on this matter to be eminently tenable. (I think you are right about the edited part, to be specific. Thanks, though, for the clarification -- just in case I hadn't.)
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: What do you think? If you're against abortion, would you make exceptions for (admittedly rare) cases of pregnancy from rape or incest? If so, why?
I'm against abortion, but I would make exception if it was needed to protect the mother's life. I feel that the only time killing is permissible is if you are protecting a life.
I don't think rape and incest should be exceptions, because in that case the baby did nothing wrong, why should the baby be killed for the crimes of his/her father? Rape is a terrible crime, and the punishment should be severe...but the criminal should be punished, not the innocent.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: A quick question....
If an atheist says "Damn You", what does he mean?
'ellifIknow!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you're against abortion, would you make exceptions for (admittedly rare) cases of pregnancy from rape or incest? If so, why?
I agree with MPH and Lupus. However, if the choice is between no restriction and allowing a rape exception, I would choose the latter.
I wouldn't promise not to change it later, though.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
MPH I was going to bring that issue up as well. People get confused between being Pro-Life/Pro-Choice, and those who are Pro-Sex/Anti-Sex. Pro-Choicers are characterized as being wild sex deviants who want an excape from the consequences of thier lewd acts at anybody else's expense. Pro-Lifers are characterized as rigid frigid non-sexuals sticking their over-busy noses into other people's business and demanding the wrath of God on all who fornicate. Both of these characterizations are wrong.
If you believe that the life of the unborn child is sacred, and that all fetuses should come to their complete and natural fruition, then whether that child was the result of rape or incest or uncontrollable hormones of a teen woman shouldn't matter.
Yet it does matter greatly to the mother. Imagine what the raped mother must go through. Not only is there one night of terror and shame, but then the continued 9 months of bodilly changes and inconviences that serve only to remind that mother what terror and what shame she endures. She not only continues knowing that the child she carries is the seed of her tormentor, but she has to pay for it as well.
Giving birth to a child is not cheap, especially if we want it done correctly and healthilly. Prenatal visits, time off work, maternity clothes, a thousand more expenses. Even if she does surrender the child to be adopted, who is to pay her for all these expenses, or is it just another cost of the crime she must endure.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Why do rape and incest figure into it at all?
If you do not believe that a fetus is protected human life (or at least, not until a certain level of gestation is reached) then the cause of the pregnancy shouldn't matter. Abort away.
If you do believe that a fetus is a protected human life, then the cause of the pregnancy shouldn't matter. Deal with it.
What do you think? If you're against abortion, would you make exceptions for (admittedly rare) cases of pregnancy from rape or incest? If so, why?
Really, that's the nature of compromise. Someone may believe that abortion is wrong in those cases, but will still accept them for the sake of getting any restriction at all. Even if your overall goal is to prevent all abortions, it would still be more preferable to prevent some of them than none at all.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
And honestly, that's a compromise I could live with.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Yet it does matter greatly to the mother. Imagine what the raped mother must go through. Not only is there one night of terror and shame, but then the continued 9 months of bodilly changes and inconviences that serve only to remind that mother what terror and what shame she endures. She not only continues knowing that the child she carries is the seed of her tormentor, but she has to pay for it as well.
Giving birth to a child is not cheap, especially if we want it done correctly and healthilly. Prenatal visits, time off work, maternity clothes, a thousand more expenses. Even if she does surrender the child to be adopted, who is to pay her for all these expenses, or is it just another cost of the crime she must endure.
One article I read also had a quote that pointed out that if she kept the child, she might be fearful that the rapist would have the same parental rights as her. (She could probably get them terminated, but that's more pain and expense, especially if she knows the rapist-- and a large percentage of rapes are committed by someone the victim knows.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If an atheist says "Damn You", what does he mean?
Very few people, believers or atheists, literally mean "May your soul damned suffer for eternity in Hell" when they say "damn you " or "go to Hell".
I know that's not what I've really meant whenever I've said it.
But still, even though that's not what I really meant, that's what I said.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Dan, all *very* good points. Which is why I strongly agree with what ricree said.
In other words, *I* might not choose to abort a child that a rapist forced on me--because I think it is morally wrong to do so--but to force another woman by law to accept the full burden just seems too hard-hearted to me.
It's not about punishing the permiscuous woman. It's about easing the burden of the victimized woman.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm personally against abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, but I agree with others that a ban on abortion with exceptions for rape and incest is certainly a compromise I could live with. A worrisome consequence could be an increase in women charging men with rape, however, to qualify for the exemption, so I would like to see strict penalties for false charges. And the exemption shoudn't be something that is a given or is easy to get simply on the girl's say-so, there should be a police report and a judges' order.
My personal belief is that any woman who reports a rape should be offered the morning after birth control pill option that would prevent conception, that way she need never know if she would have conceived, it will remove a worry from her, and that's something that any woman who has suffered such trauma deserves - a compassionate response that protects her from an unintended pregnancy and takes her feelings into account.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let me point out that I didn't say that the idea of exceptions for rape and incest always comes from the concept of punishing the promiscuous woman. I just said that it sometimes does.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
If limitations on abortion became part of our law in the future, I would like to see such a morning after pill made readily available the way condoms are now made so readily available.
I am one of those people who is unsure when I think life begins, but I grow more and more uncomfortable with abortion the later in pregnancy it comes. I am not bothered by a morning after pill that would prevent conception.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't think it should be as available as a condom. It requires a prescription now, and I think it should continue to require one. Birth control pills have some pretty serious (though thankfully rare) side effects possible, and I think there are specific risks of heavy bleeding associated with the morning after regimen.
I would prefer that be done under the guidance of a prescribing physician. But I get your point, bev. Personally, I am a little unsure on the beginning of life myself up until implantation. So, birth control methods that prevent implantation I have little problem with. Dislodging an implanted embryo or fetus - I do have a problem with.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
We're still struggling with whether or not Mirena (a low-progesterone IUD) is moral or not. :/ They don't *really* know how it stops pregnancy, only that it does. That means there is a slight possibility that some of the time it kills zygotes by not letting them implant in the thinner, more hostile lining. I am not really bothered by that, but Porter is.
Edit: Kill might be too strong a word. They will die if they don't implant. It might allow them to die. Medical science seems to believe that this happens naturally on a very common basis.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:My personal belief is that any woman who reports a rape should be offered the morning after birth control pill option that would prevent conception, that way she need never know if she would have conceived, it will remove a worry from her, and that's something that any woman who has suffered such trauma deserves - a compassionate response that protects her from an unintended pregnancy and takes her feelings into account.
But not all rapes are reported immediately; in fact, many are not reported at all. Women are scared to report, are not able to get to a hospital or the police, or are too ashamed to report a rape, especially by a boyfriend or friend. What about those women?
(Not that I don't agree it should be available to all rape victims, I'd just like to know how we get it to them.)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
My doctor offered the IUD to me but I couldn't do it. I don't think it should be illegal, though, but for me, I preferred to use methods that prevented ovulation.
You're right - medical science does seem to believe that a fairly large percentage of fertilized eggs never implant, for whatever reason. But for me, there is a difference between allowing a natural process to take place and interfering and creating an artificial environment (a more hostile womb, if you will) to encourage that process. It crossed the line for me.
I realize that for many people it doesn't cross the line and I'm fine with that. I don't have a problem with IUD's and would never tell anyone with one that they're a murderer - which is sadly something that a few anti-abortion advocates have done. I think that's wrong, because I do see a difference, as I stated, between preventing implantation and dislodging an implanted embryo. However, for my personal view, the IUD method still makes me somewhat uncomfortable.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:But not all rapes are reported immediately; in fact, many are not reported at all. Women are scared to report, are not able to get to a hospital or the police, or are too ashamed to report a rape, especially by a boyfriend or friend. What about those women?
(Not that I don't agree it should be available to all rape victims, I'd just like to know how we get it to them.)
We can't go out in the street asking people randomly if they've been raped and offering them the morning after pill, you're right. They are going to have to report it and come into the hospital and be examined, have evidence collected, and then get the prescription.
If abortion isn't available to anyone except in rare exceptions, perhaps it will encourage those women to come forward and report what has happened. If they don't report it, and wait until they know they've conceived, then it should become a much more difficult procedure - I would expect that a petition would have to be filed with a court and a judge would have to order that the abortion take place. I would assume, in this scenario I'm imagining now that all 3rd term abortions would be illegal unless necessary to save the mother's life, so there will be a limited time for the victim to bring forth her charge of rape anyway - she would have to do it so there is enough time for the court proceedings and to have the procedure before the 3rd trimester begins.
But a rape accusation involves more than just the victim. There is the issue of the accused. As I said, there needs to be protection in place, otherwise we would have women going forward, accusing some guy she went out with and even if he's eventually exonerated there is major damage to his reputation and his life. So, it needs to be taken very, very seriously.
Once that's known, I think people will see it's to their benefit to come forward and report it as soon as possible.
Edit: I'm not looking at this from a position of punishing the victim. My heart goes out to them, I have more than one family members who've been raped. I'm looking at this from the perspective of protecting the life of the child, who had no say in how he/she was created. The best solution is for the woman to never conceive, that's why I would want to see aggressive advertising encouraging women to report attacks and receive the morning after pill.
But I see huge problems for this with false reports. I can see people adopting an attitude of "well, if my boyfriend and I get pregnant I can always just go and claim somebody raped me." Then we would either have someone falsely accused, or if the woman falsely claims stranger rape then we have police resources wasted looking for someone that doesn't exist. That's one big problem I see with the rape exception.
Of course, all this is purely speculation, and may never come to pass.
[ February 26, 2006, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
I was wrong. When I read that most abortions are subsidized, I assumed that meant federal tax dollars. It turns out that seventeen states subsidize abortions for low-income women through state tax funds. The majority of abortions nationwide are performed on low-income women and are subsidized. In those states with no state-funded abortion clinics, those abortions are paid for by voluntary contributions to private organizations.
What we as a society are trying to prevent is the barbaric coat-hanger abortions to which some low-income women were resorting in the middle part of the last century. I think if a woman really wants an abortion she should be able to get a safe one. On the other hand, too many women are getting abortions because we are too willing to pay for them.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I do think that if the law were different, women would be far more motivated to report rape right away, and we would certainly want to put a lot into educating both men and women about the effects of such laws.
Cases where the rape was not immediately reported would automatically be "suspicious" and thus prevent innocent guys from being accused and possibly found guilty of rape just so the girl can have an excuse to get an abortion.
Obviously there are times when the women is frightened or unable to come forward right away, but the reasons should be demonstratable. Why would a woman in a healthy relationship with an innocent male be afraid to come forward?
And if she comes forward right after intercourse happens, what motivation would she have to do so unless she were telling the truth? Pregnancy can't be detected until 2 weeks after sex happens.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Why would a woman in a healthy relationship with an innocent male be afraid to come forward?
I'm not sure I understand the question. If it's why would she be afraid to report a rape, I hope she wouldn't be afraid to do so.
quote:And if she comes forward right after intercourse happens, what motivation would she have to do so unless she were telling the truth? Pregnancy can't be detected until 2 weeks after sex happens.
Again, that's the ideal situation - she gets raped and comes forward immediately and receives morning-after treatment which results in no pregnancy at all.
Maybe you aren't even asking me questions at all, I think I've gotten confused. I believe you and I pretty much agree on the principles - if abortion is illegal with an exception for rape the best case scenario is a woman reports it right away and is treated, and if she waits, obtaining the abortion will be more difficult and both the accuser and accused should have rights that are respected in any case.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It was more in response to KQ's concerns. I don't think they are insurmountable concerns, and I stated some possible solutions to them.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
"Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law (and where many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions) than in areas where abortion is legally permitted." -http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html
Birth control methods aren't as widely available as some would like to think, and where they are available, instruction in proper use may be lacking.
How about a) comprehensive health care to make certain that all women who may get pregnant can be certain of getting the best of prenatal care and all women who choose not to get pregnant have the best contraception possible available; b) reality-based sex education to help insure everyone who may choose to engage in sex knows how to use contraception properly, minimizing the necessity of abortion, and c) effective networks of child care, parental support, and education so women who choose to give birth aren't making immense sacrifices to do so, devoid of support of communities and caregivers?
The South Dakota law is a stupid bit of legal chicken. It is, and should be, worrisome.
And rape continues to have enough complications and stigma associated with it that we shouldn't make it any harder on the victims than it already is.
Posted by sydneybristow (Member # 9198) on :
Call me simple here, but the only thing about the debate that baffles me, after giving birth to 6 chiildren, is how in the world does an abortion in the 3rd trimester EVER going to SAVE a woman's life? Giving birth at that time and aborting at that time, would be equally tramatic- so why not give birth instead of killing the child?
I have heard instead that late term abortions are usually done to euthanize babies who have life altering abnormalities.
As for my own opinion, abortion should usually be illegal. There are plenty of options for 99 percent of the woman out there who are not rape or incest victims.
I don't feel we have a right to negate the consequences of our actions by taking another's life away. Not that I am using pregnancy as a "punishment" but just a consequence of sex.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Sterling, do you think that people who are pro-life and advocate an end to legal abortion don't agree with and support your a, b, and c? Because many of us do. Your a, b, and c and the pro-life stance are not mutually exclusive. We can do all those things and add one more thing - the recognition and protection of unborn life.
I know there is stigma attached to rape. I don't want the victims to suffer any more. How is providing them a way to prevent conception in the first place making it harder on them?
Does anyone think that women not reporting rape until after they find out they're pregnant is a good thing? Shouldn't we be encouraging them to report it as soon as it happens for more than one reason? First, so the police have a better chance of bringing her abuser to justice and secondly, so she can get physical and emotional counseling and healing as quickly as possible.
I never said that a woman who was raped should be forced to carry a child to term. I said ideally, she would never conceive in the first place and less than ideally, there should be protections in place to insure she isn't abusing the system by making false accusations.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
What Belle said. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
...how in the world does an abortion in the 3rd trimester EVER going to SAVE a woman's life?
When the mother is diagnosed with any life-threatening ailment or disease with treatment that would be impossible for a pregnant woman, such as chemo.
The point is not to offer an out for women looking for late-term abortions of convenience, but to avoid tying the hands of doctors presented with such problems, especially when an outright ban on late term abortions could result in the deaths of both the mother and child.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sydney, I can tell you that late term abortions FREAK ME OUT. There is such a thin line between "aborting" a baby that is capable of surviving outside the womb and taking a preemie off life support or smothering a newborn that--what the heck. I see no line.
But it is possible that if the mother's life is in danger that if you don't have to concern yourself with making sure the baby survives, you can take extra measures to make sure the woman survives. I don't know, I'm just guessing.
It must be a heart-wrenching decision in that specific case--but if you have a choice of only one surviving and maybe neither, you gotta choose. You know?
"Aborting" a late-term fetus because it's gonna die anyway is just wrong, IMO. Unless we argue that killing a newborn that's gonna die anyway is OK.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:"Aborting" a late-term fetus because it's gonna die anyway is just wrong, IMO. Unless we argue that killing a newborn that's gonna die anyway is OK.
Heck, everybody is going to die someday.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Sterling, do you think that people who are pro-life and advocate an end to legal abortion don't agree with and support your a, b, and c? Because many of us do.
I hope they do agree. I don't doubt many, possibly most, do.
However,
a) Given the above statement about the rates of abortion in countries where abortion is illegal, (take, or refute, that as you will) and the fact that those things I described presently do not exist, perhaps everyone would be using their energies far more effectively if they spent less time on the legal issues of abortion and more on making those conditions that render abortion unnecessary (or, if you prefer, not a question that warrants asking).
b) Given that a large portion of the anti-abortion movement- and yes, I recognize not all, not all here represented, and so on- also favor abstinence-only education, oppose measures that make contraception more available, and detest anything that smacks of their money being spent to support those they feel "have made poor decisions", perhaps you can understand the hesitancy of those in the pro-choice contingent to let that perceived agenda run.
And incidentally, in the case of, say, encephelopathy, it's entirely possible for the birth of a non-viable child to cause the death of both child and mother, while an abortion might well save the mother's life.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Went and checked with Teres for details before I posted it; her mom had a late-term abortion. She started hemorraging and the doctors couldn't stop it, they had to abort the pregnancy to get to the problem. It wasn't an easy decision but the alternative was to lose the baby anyway or to lose both of them. I'm glad they made the choice they did; Teres was born after this happened.
However, this was also 40 years ago, and medical science faced with the same problem today may very well be capable of either helping her or successfully taking the baby.
I'm just wary of non-medical people saying there's no reason for late-term abortions. What do doctors say?
(Note: I don't advocate them, either. I was born at 7 months because of complications, I get a bit tetchy when people talk about late-term abortions of convenience)
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Oh, if you can't stop the bleeding and the mom dies, then baby dies too. You can always to do what you must to save the mom. But in saving the mom, oftentimes now the pregnancy can be maintained. If not, the baby can be taken to NICU and worked with. Mrs M gave birth at what, 26 weeks?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:perhaps everyone would be using their energies far more effectively if they spent less time on the legal issues of abortion and more on making those conditions that render abortion unnecessary (or, if you prefer, not a question that warrants asking).
I am all for this. Especially since I like to be realistic. Since I don't see abortion ever becoming illegal again in this country, I would like to see the underlying "disease" treated. That is a better solution anyway, if it can be done. I'm just talkin' hypotheticals here.
quote:also favor abstinence-only education, oppose measures that make contraception more available, and detest anything that smacks of their money being spent to support those they feel "have made poor decisions"
Again, I am far to realistic to be one of these people. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I am all for this. Especially since I like to be realistic. Since I don't see abortion ever becoming illegal again in this country, I would like to see the underlying "disease" treated. That is a better solution anyway, if it can be done.
I totally, totally agree. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What do you think? If you're against abortion, would you make exceptions for (admittedly rare) cases of pregnancy from rape or incest? If so, why?
quote:It seems to me that the idea that there should be exceptions for rape and incest sometimes stems from a mentality that promiscuous women deserve the "punishment" of the pregnancy. In the case of rape and incest, it's not the girl's fault, so why "punish" her.
I do support exceptions in cases of rape and incest. Most stridently in cases of rape, a bit on the fence in cases of incest, and my reasoning has nothing to do with punishment or promiscuity.
I've talked about it before on our last big abortion thread. If you'd like me to go into it again I will, but it probably won't be until tomorrow.
------
As for 'damn you' and 'go to hell' not meaning much coming from an atheist...that's just nonsense. Of course it still means something coming from an atheist. It still means some variation of "I hate you" or "you really suck" or "you're such a bad person, awful things deserve to happen to you" or an expression of contempt or superiority.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: As for 'damn you' and 'go to hell' not meaning much coming from an atheist...that's just nonsense. Of course it still means something coming from an atheist. It still means some variation of "I hate you" or "you really suck" or "you're such a bad person, awful things deserve to happen to you" or an expression of contempt or superiority.
Of course it means something. But as my son pointed out, "Damn" is the original "curse word." It has a specific meaning that implies an unfathomable hatred. I'd always thought of it as pretty much a throwaway insult, so it really shocked me to realize that although I'd known what the word meant, I never thought of how intense it is, from a religious perspective.
In retrospect it occurred to me how many religious people will say something like "Gosh Darn you!" I had always thought it was kind of ridiculous to come up with a euphemism for an insult that is already pretty meaningless. Once it had been pointed out to me, it made a lot more sense.
Posted by sydneybristow (Member # 9198) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: ...how in the world does an abortion in the 3rd trimester EVER going to SAVE a woman's life?
When the mother is diagnosed with any life-threatening ailment or disease with treatment that would be impossible for a pregnant woman, such as chemo.
The point is not to offer an out for women looking for late-term abortions of convenience, but to avoid tying the hands of doctors presented with such problems, especially when an outright ban on late term abortions could result in the deaths of both the mother and child.
At that point, say she needed chemo, giving birth and aborting takes the same out of her. You can just as easily give birth at 32 weeks as you can push the head out, have the brain suctioned out and then have the body follow. The logic here is failing.
There is such a thing as giving birth EARLY. Like with toxemia. You don't see a rush to kill the child when a mom wants it. Instead, they give a shot to mature the lungs, put the mom on bed rest and induce when they need to. Duh.
Posted by sydneybristow (Member # 9198) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Went and checked with Teres for details before I posted it; her mom had a late-term abortion. She started hemorraging and the doctors couldn't stop it, they had to abort the pregnancy to get to the problem. It wasn't an easy decision but the alternative was to lose the baby anyway or to lose both of them. I'm glad they made the choice they did; Teres was born after this happened.
However, this was also 40 years ago, and medical science faced with the same problem today may very well be capable of either helping her or successfully taking the baby.
I'm just wary of non-medical people saying there's no reason for late-term abortions. What do doctors say?
(Note: I don't advocate them, either. I was born at 7 months because of complications, I get a bit tetchy when people talk about late-term abortions of convenience)
I understand that when you are trying to get the baby out and help the mom, sometimes the baby will die. That is regretable. But babies now can survive even earlier than ever. And unless I am wrong about the procedure that is followed for a late term abortion, the only thing different about an abortion at this stage versus birth, is that they suction the brain out when the head has cleared but before the body follows. Where is the medical necessity for that???
As for not trusting a non medical person, fine. But I have had 6 children. I am VERY knowledgable on the ins and outs of giving birth. It is tramatic. If a mom is early in the pregnancy and they find that giving birth would endanger her health, than I see no reason to force her to carry the baby and then die giving birth. But if you find at 32 weeks that you have cancer and you need treatment, there is no reason that you can't deliver ASAP and then receive treatment.
And I for one never said that they were done out of "convenience." I just get sick of that phrase "exemption for the mother's health" for this procedure when I have a hard time ever seeing that impacting it. If there is a OB out there, and I am wrong, please correct me!
Posted by genius00345 (Member # 8206) on :
Sorry to derail this thread off its intended topic, but did anyone else but me think that there was going to be an abortion musical because of the thread title?
Just a little humor in an intensely serious thread.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There ARE cases though where it can impact the life of the mother. My cousin can't have anymore children, her doctor told her that if she did she would probably die from the process, and that the baby might not survive it either. Now, I don't know what measures are being taken by my cousin to stop pregnancies, they are very religious and I KNOW their views on abortion, they believe it's tantamount to murder, which is drilled into my head every Thanksgiving and Christmas despite the fact that I usually agree with them on the subject.
Anyway, what if, god forbid, she were raped, or accidentally got pregnant, or something happened. Actually that's a messed up scenario on many fronts, because she'd never be able to opt for an abortion because of her and my family's personal beliefs, but were she to have the baby she would most likely die. Given the fact that the baby would probably die too, I can't imagine they would take the risk, but they wouldn't have much of a choice if it were illgal.
Regardless, my point is that there are situations where abortion can save the life of the mother, and where a pregnancy, any at all, regardless of modern science, can be a danger to the life of the mother.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by sydneybristow: At that point, say she needed chemo, giving birth and aborting takes the same out of her. You can just as easily give birth at 32 weeks as you can push the head out, have the brain suctioned out and then have the body follow. The logic here is failing.
You have it backwards. In an abortion using intact dilation and extraction (sometimes called "partial-birth abortion") the fetus is pulled out of the uterus feet first. The head remains inside the birth canal.
Posted by sydneybristow (Member # 9198) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There ARE cases though where it can impact the life of the mother. My cousin can't have anymore children, her doctor told her that if she did she would probably die from the process, and that the baby might not survive it either. Now, I don't know what measures are being taken by my cousin to stop pregnancies, they are very religious and I KNOW their views on abortion, they believe it's tantamount to murder, which is drilled into my head every Thanksgiving and Christmas despite the fact that I usually agree with them on the subject.
Anyway, what if, god forbid, she were raped, or accidentally got pregnant, or something happened. Actually that's a messed up scenario on many fronts, because she'd never be able to opt for an abortion because of her and my family's personal beliefs, but were she to have the baby she would most likely die. Given the fact that the baby would probably die too, I can't imagine they would take the risk, but they wouldn't have much of a choice if it were illgal.
Regardless, my point is that there are situations where abortion can save the life of the mother, and where a pregnancy, any at all, regardless of modern science, can be a danger to the life of the mother.
Did you read my posts fully?
Cause I never said that abortion could never save the life of a mother. Re read please.
Posted by sydneybristow (Member # 9198) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan:
quote:Originally posted by sydneybristow: At that point, say she needed chemo, giving birth and aborting takes the same out of her. You can just as easily give birth at 32 weeks as you can push the head out, have the brain suctioned out and then have the body follow. The logic here is failing.
You have it backwards. In an abortion using intact dilation and extraction (sometimes called "partial-birth abortion") the fetus is pulled out of the uterus feet first. The head remains inside the birth canal.
Ahh, thanks for the correction.
I don't think it changes the premise though, unless getting the brain out helps the head squeeze- and usually with a complete breech, the shoulders are the difficult part.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
And if the mother's life is at stake and she cant deliver vaginally, then a c-section in the third trimester is also a viable option.
Third trimester begins at 28 weeks, if I'm not mistaken. I think the earliest fetus to survive was around 20 weeks. I could be wrong on that point. I do know that at the hospital where I gave birth, they sent home a 22 week preemie that weighed 14 ounces when born and was discharged from the hospital a week before her original due date. They used to think there was a threshold at one pound - any baby weighing less than a pound couldn't survive. Not so anymore.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
As I said, Teres' mom's example was 4 decades ago, I'd be very surprised if the same case couldn't be handled successfully today. And, as I said, I was born at 7 months, so even then early births were survivable.
But my point is that there can be cases when a doctor must make that call, and any law that removes that option is a law I will fight against. Make it as tough as you want, but leave the option for abortions in the case of emergencies. If it's as rare as pro-life advocates argue, it shouldn't be a big deal yet it always seems to be a sticking point.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If it's as rare as pro-life advocates argue, it shouldn't be a big deal yet it always seems to be a sticking point.
The obvious concern is that if that became law, it would suddenly and inexplicably become much more common than it has been.
But all in all, I've got no problem with it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But such a call from the doctor is easily verified. There would be diagnoses, charts, tests, and other evidence to back up the doctor's call.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Along the same lines as SouthDakota legislators, Governor JebBush broke grounds for an all "RomanCatholic"city in Florida and the minister of minority welfare of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has bumped up the reward for murdering a cartoonist to $7million.
[ February 27, 2006, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Is there any reason to "respect" all human life other than "slippery slope" reasons? I mean, if we knew that keeping abortion legal throughout pregnancy would have no efect at all on people's willingness to kill other people, would abortion still be bad? (Of course, slippery slope reasons are fine, though not always convincing, in real life since we never know anything for certain.)
I'd be perfectly fine with all abortions being banned. But in the spirit of compromise, I'm willing to allow abortions until the baby starts to look like a baby (size being irrelevant). I don't have any hard data for this, but I think that we're biologically set up to feel sympathy for creatures that look like us but not so much for creatures that don't look like us, and that if you lose that sympathy toward one type of creature that looks like us you make it much more likely that you'll lose sympathy toward all other such creatures. It seems that extending our sympathy to everything that will someday look like us is something our instincts never evolved to do.
Also, allowing abortion until the baby looks like a baby would allow for stem cell research and any form of birth control, and it would keep people from having any worries about saving all the babies that are spontaneously aborted before the mother ever even knows she's pregnant.
(Also, it seems likely that an injunction will get put on the South Dakota law almost immediately after it's passed.)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:But such a call from the doctor is easily verified. There would be diagnoses, charts, tests, and other evidence to back up the doctor's call.
I would hope that there would be serious penalties for a doctor though that performed a late term abortion that didn't meet the criteria, and that a review board looked over every case to ensure it fit the criteria.
Like mph said, those of whose who are hesitant about medical exceptions believe that it could wind up not reducing the amount of abortions significantly if "medical need" were so loosely defined that doctors could essentially make up reasons and/or there were no follow up procedures that reviewed the cases.
That is not to say that I ever think a woman should have to carry a baby to term if it would kill her. I just want to be darn sure that if we're going to take the life of an unborn child, it really is a life and death decision for the mother. And I would be hard pressed to come up with a scenario that required a partial birth abortion - I can't see how anything that jeopardizes the mother's life couldn't be fixed just as well by delivering the baby alive instead.
Posted by sydneybristow (Member # 9198) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:But such a call from the doctor is easily verified. There would be diagnoses, charts, tests, and other evidence to back up the doctor's call.
I would hope that there would be serious penalties for a doctor though that performed a late term abortion that didn't meet the criteria, and that a review board looked over every case to ensure it fit the criteria.
Like mph said, those of whose who are hesitant about medical exceptions believe that it could wind up not reducing the amount of abortions significantly if "medical need" were so loosely defined that doctors could essentially make up reasons and/or there were no follow up procedures that reviewed the cases.
That is not to say that I ever think a woman should have to carry a baby to term if it would kill her. I just want to be darn sure that if we're going to take the life of an unborn child, it really is a life and death decision for the mother. And I would be hard pressed to come up with a scenario that required a partial birth abortion - I can't see how anything that jeopardizes the mother's life couldn't be fixed just as well by delivering the baby alive instead.
Thank you- just what I have been saying. And I have yet to see anyone give a senario which would require the child to be killed instead of just giving birth. (during the last trimester)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
What if she can't deliver vaginally and can't undergo a c-section?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Then she probably isn't pregnant. Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I am so glad to see this thread is being taken seriously.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Really, Theca?
And you know this because your field is obstetrics?
As (I think) you well know, kq meant that the mother cannot deliver either vaginally or by c-section without undue risk to her.
Posted by sydneybristow (Member # 9198) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Really, Theca?
And you know this because your field is obstetrics?
As (I think) you well know, kq meant that the mother cannot deliver either vaginally or by c-section without undue risk to her.
Then she will die. The only way out is through the birth canal, or through the stomach. Even when you abort, you have to remove the baby somehow.
And once the baby is larger, past 28 weeks or so, it will require some sort of trama to get the child out.
Hasn't your momma ever told you about babies? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
When an abortion is done, the baby can be removed, if necessary, not intact. (I'll be more graphic if you feel the need.) Thus sparing the woman the (physical) stress of labor. While I do not believe this is commonly necessary for her health, my understanding from doctors whose field this actually is, is that it is sometimes necessary.
Which I'll take over your suppositions any day.
And, not that it matters, but I have three children, one of whom may be older than you. At least she acts older. Posted by sydneybristow (Member # 9198) on :
No need to get graphic. I can picture it for myself. I had thought of that but you know (having children) that no matter how you do it, it IS tramatic.
And the question raised was "What if she can't deliver vaginally and can't undergo a c-section?"
Which would mean that there would be no way for the baby to get out, intact or otherwise.
"At least she acts older."
Sweet of you. I didn't realize I was acting immature. I guess I figured reasoned arguments meant something here. Smiley or no, THAT was rude.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The smiley I used was not in any way meant to detract from my rudeness.
Was yours?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And the question raised was "What if she can't deliver vaginally and can't undergo a c-section?"
Which would mean that there would be no way for the baby to get out, intact or otherwise.
No it wouldn't. They can take a dead baby out in little tiny pieces while they have to take a live baby out in one piece.
One piece means bigger hole means more trauma.
Little pieces mean smaller hole means less trauma.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by sydneybristow: Smiley or no, THAT was rude.
quote:Originally posted by sydneybristow: Hasn't your momma ever told you about babies?
What's that saying? Something along the lines of "Don't dish it out if you can't take it"?
Posted by sydneybristow (Member # 9198) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:And the question raised was "What if she can't deliver vaginally and can't undergo a c-section?"
Which would mean that there would be no way for the baby to get out, intact or otherwise.
No it wouldn't. They can take a dead baby out in little tiny pieces while they have to take a live baby out in one piece.
One piece means bigger hole means more trauma.
Little pieces mean smaller hole means less trauma.
Ok, LESS, but you would still need to dialate, use loads of pain meds, and get in there with a sharp object (which is VERY dangerous) and then attempt to extract those tiny peices, leaving none behind or you would have problems.
All of which would be just as dangerous as doing a c-section. Are you all so eager to kill a baby???
"The smiley I used was not in any way meant to detract from my rudeness.
Was yours?"
Now I am rude- I thought I was childish. Which is it?
For the record, I was being silly. Not rude. If it was taken as such then I apologize. As for "dishing it", I didn't realize I had. And I didn't feel I was acting childish in any way.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:All of which would be just as dangerous as doing a c-section.
Not necessarily. Are you an OB/GYN? If you are, I'll take your word for it. If not, I'm not convinced.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I still can't think of a case in which taking a late third trimester child out in little bitty bloody bits would be so necessary, and yet so much safer, than taking it out by Csection. Marginally safer, maybe I could buy, IF you can give me some examples. If nobody can give me any examples then I don't see that you know any more than I do.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:One piece means bigger hole means more trauma.
Little pieces mean smaller hole means less trauma.
For one thing, I'm not convinced this is true. If the emergent reason for taking the baby out is bleeding, then most likely going in there and clamping the bleeding is going to be much more effective than creating more bleeding and more confusion during the abortion. If the person has ecclampsia, getting all the products of conception out NOW instead of slowly in little pieces seems far safer to me. So I'm really having trouble figuring out scenarios in which this can be considered safer.
And why is everyone so rude all of a sudden?
[ February 28, 2006, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Theaca ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I just think that it should be an option for the doctor, to use their best judgement. I believe that most doctors want to follow the law and preserve life whenever possible, so shouldn't we just grant the exception in the law and let them decide? I mean, most states have laws right now in place banning abortions past a certain point, except for those exceptions. How many third-trimester abortions actually happen? Does anyone have any numbers? I was under the impression that they're quite rare. I can concieve of scenarios when it would matter. Not to mention psycholgical reasons-- there's a story behind that one.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Rivka, I'm curious to know what situations there are when a woman can't deliver by C-section or naturally.
The only thing that I could think of is if she's can't recuperate blood normally.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I agree there needs to be rules in place to protect doctors (and immediate family) who, in trying to save the mother, let the baby die as a consequence. Or, in trying to save the baby, let the mother die if that's the preference of the biological parents. Either way.
But intellectually I still can't imagine a late abortion procedure being necessary at such a moment. I'd love to see some examples.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Ok, LESS, but you would still need to dialate, use loads of pain meds, and get in there with a sharp object (which is VERY dangerous) and then attempt to extract those tiny peices, leaving none behind or you would have problems.
All of which would be just as dangerous as doing a c-section
Like you said, there could be less trauma required for an abortion than what would be required for a vagianal or cesarian birth. While there certainly is some danger involved in such an abortion, I am not qualified to say that one is definitely as dangerous as the other. Are you qualified to make such a judgment?
Because of that, I'm not willing to rule out the idea that there could be some situation where the mother's best chance at survival would be to abort the baby.
quote:. Are you all so eager to kill a baby???
Wow. That's quite a jump to conclusions from somebody who appears to not know much about me.
I was saying nothing about what should happen, or whether such an abortion would be justified. I was disagreeing with what I percieved to be your stance -- that there can be no scenario where a third-term abortion is medically justified.
I don't know of any specific situations where it would be, but it seems reasonable to me that it could be.
Posted by sydneybristow (Member # 9198) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: I agree there needs to be rules in place to protect doctors (and immediate family) who, in trying to save the mother, let the baby die as a consequence. Or, in trying to save the baby, let the mother die if that's the preference of the biological parents. Either way.
But intellectually I still can't imagine a late abortion procedure being necessary at such a moment. I'd love to see some examples.
The interesting thing here is that I have looked. I have looked at NARAL's website, Planned Parenthood, and have even read up on choice on Democratic underground. The only examples I found were ones related to an abnormality in the baby. Mostly they say that it is rare. I have yet to find an example that relates to the mother NEEDING to abort in the 3rd trimester to save her life.
As for being an OB, I am not. But I never said to take my word on it. I am willing to be proved wrong here. It would be hard for me to prove myself- the problem with proving a negative and all. If it happens for her health, then we should be able to point to an example. Not just the theoretical chop the baby up senario.
." Are you all so eager to kill a baby??? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. That's quite a jump to conclusions from somebody who appears to not know much about me.
I was saying nothing about what should happen, or whether such an abortion would be justified. I was disagreeing with what I percieved to be your stance -- that there can be no scenario where a third-term abortion is medically justified.
I don't know of any specific situations where it would be, but it seems reasonable to me that it could be."
Sorry it was late and I got frustrated with all the hypothetical "chop the baby up" ideas. Not meant at anyone in particular.
I agree that the doc should make the decision with the mother. I CAN see occasions when in saving the mother's life, the baby dies. But in that case the intended outcome is not for the baby to die and in my mind it would not be considered abortion. I am talking about when a mother goes in to abort in the last trimester, and they have to remove the body, suck out the brain before they deliver. And my question was when that would be MEDICALLY needed to save her life.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And I don't think anyone here is arguing that a late-term abortion performed because the mother has asked for it is a good thing or should be in any way protected. All we are saying is that in the incredibly rare cases where the doctor must make the call to abort the child or lose both of them, he should have that option.
It would delight me no end if this never happened. And I'm pro-choice.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:All we are saying is that in the incredibly rare cases where the doctor must make the call to abort the child or lose both of them, he should have that option.
Incredibly rare or non-existent. That still hasn't been demonstrated here.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But in that case the intended outcome is not for the baby to die and in my mind it would not be considered abortion.
I don't see what else it should be called except by the technical term abortion. Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
mph, no, the death of a fetus that occurs as medical intervention is saving the mothers life isn't usually called abortion. That would be a miscarriage or a stillbirth. Medically, we call miscarriages spontaneous abortions, but spontaneous abortions are not what we are discussing here. We are talking about deliberately killing the fetus in the third trimester.
And some of us are still at a loss to come up with a case in which THIS is required to save a mother's life.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Huh. OK. Thanks.
I reckon that I'm allowed to be completely wrong once per day. At least it's over with. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Oh man. I shouldn't have looked at those pictures. I shouldn't, I shouldn't, I shouldn't....
:sick:
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
It's woth noting that "partial birth abortion" is not a medically defined term. Often what is meant by this is a form of dilation and curretage, which may be done relatively early or late in a pregnancy.
The pictures of the most emotional impact are likely to be of late-term D&C procedures, but that does not necessarily reflect all D&C procedures. I realize much of the discussion has been (implicitly or not) about third trimester abortions, but I think the clarification is useful to keep in mind.
Since "partial birth abortion" does not have a clearly agreed upon technical medical definition, I worry that sometimes the referents can get a little blurred. I think this concern was behind much of the criticism of bans on "partial birth abortions;" [i.e., would the ban include D&C at 8 weeks gestation? 10 weeks?]
And again, I realize that these are not necessarily the cases we are discussing, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that according to the most recent CDC report (for 2002),
quote:Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 60% were performed at [less than] 8 weeks' gestation and 88% at [less than] 13 weeks. From 1992 (when detailed data regarding early abortions were first collected) through 2002, steady increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at [less than]6 weeks' gestation. A limited number of abortions was obtained at [greater than] 15 weeks' gestation, including 4.1% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at [greater than] 21 weeks.
[note: replaced symbols with text for "less than" and "greater than" because of html conflict]
Note that 88% of reported abortions were performed in the first trimester. However, also of note is that 1.4% were performed at greater than 21 weeks gestation, or during a potential period of viability.
I don't expect the numbers to sway anyone's viewpoint one way or the other. I do think they are useful touchstones for discussing what is actually going on across the country.
I personally know of no actual case reported in the literature in which a D&C performed on a woman in her third trimester was medically necessary to save the woman's life, as opposed to vaginal or C-section delivery. I can certainly think up (implausible, but possible) hypotheticals, but I'm not sure that would be useful to anyone.
I've also long held that the "right to have an abortion" (whatever that means) does not necessarily translate into "the right to the death of the embryo/fetus/infant" (whatever word one may choose to use).
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
CT, do you have a link to where you got those numbers? Because I would like to know exactly what we're talking about - how many abortions were performed in 2002, so we can tell just how many that 1.4 percent represents and what percentage of abortions had gestational age reported. That's a key line in there: "Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported"
If only a small percentage of abortions do report the gestational age, then we may not have a significant sample size. I'm not a doctor, so I don't know how the actual reporting is done, maybe it's common to report gestational age but maybe it's only done in those states that have limitations on abortion based on gestational age.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Theaca, those diagrams make me want to cry.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It's also worth pointing out that D&C, dilation and curettage is not a procedure limited to use in abortion cases. I've had D&C's before for excessive uterine bleeding when I was suffering with adenomyosis.
I don't think anyone is advocating the outlawing of the procdure, just the use of the procedure for the purpose of ending a pregnancy. The ban on what is known as "partial birth abortions" would most likely be based on gestational age, or have wording similar to Alabama's current law on post-viability abortion, which you can read here. It's Section 26.22.1-5
The law bans post-viability abortions and defines viability as
quote:The stage of fetal development when, in the judgment of the physician based upon the particular facts of the case before him or her and in light of the most advanced medical technology and information available to him or her, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the unborn child outside the body of his or her mother, with or without artificial support.
There is no language in the law that bans a specific type of procedure.
There is an exception for the life of the mother which depends on the doctor's judgment:
quote:(1) It shall not be a violation of subsection (a) if an abortion is performed by a physician and that physician reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent either the death of the pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the woman.
There must be a concurring opinion by a separate physician who certifies in writing that after examination, he/she agrees the abortion is necessary to save the mother's life. The abortion has to be performed in a manner that gives the fetus the best opportunity for survival and a separate physican whose charge is the baby must be present at the procedure to take over the baby's care after it is delivered.
This is an example of a law on the books that makes no mention of the term "partial birth abortion" and doesn't seek to oulaw any specific procedure.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Belle, the most useful resource I know of for national data is the CDC's yearly Abortion Surveillance reports (the latest, released in November of last year, is for analysis of data gathered in 2002).
I know the question you want is answerable, but I don't think it is clarified in the summary text. It looks like it might be able to be pieced together from the tabulated data. Alternatively, I would bet that there is an email address for answering questions about the data.
I don't mean to minimize that number, by the way. 1.4% is a surprising number to me, if correct. I would be more surprised and disturbed if you found it to be yet larger.
(I'm just careful in my own mind to keep the best information we have at the forefront, as it helps me better understand what the situation is. Doubtlessly there are abortions which are not reported to the CDC, although this might be reflective of (or de facto make them) illegal procedures. I really don't know.)
----
Edited to add: And just for clarification, I realize that there are laws restricting abortion only by gestational age and that do not use the term "partial birth abortion." (And I'm glad you gave the examples! ) I'm wanting to keep those distinctions at hand in the discussion, though, as it can get murky if we are not precise (at least, it gets murky fast for me).
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
CT, I find it interesting that you say there is no medically defined partial birth abortion. I've read about the people that do it and and there seems to be a pretty consistent definition of it.
I looked it up just now to see what the states and laws say about partial birth abortion and just in my first searches I found a site that explains abortion laws in America. It defines partial birth abortion this way:
quote:So-called "Partial-birth" abortion is performed in the second and third trimesters and entails (1) inducing a breech delivery with forceps, (2) delivering the legs, arms and torso only, (3) puncturing the back of the skull with scissors or a trochar, (4) inserting a suction curette into the skull, (4) suctioning the contents of the skull so as to collapse it, (5) completing the delivery.
So... I guess I don't know what it takes for it to be considered a medical term. If the doctors who perform it call it that, and the laws call it that, then what more needs to be done for it to fit your definition? I know you have a lot of training in ethics, so I'm genuinely confused.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The total number of reported legal induced abortions in the US for 2002 was 1,267,415. I think (from a rough read) that 44 "states or areas of occurence" (which includes the District of Columbia and New York City -- analyzed separately to make a total of 52 areas) reported gestation adequately at time of induced abortion.
There may well be something about the 8 non-reporters that would skew the late-term number higher or lower. I do know, however, that California and NYC are reporters for this information.
The best estimate (assuming the same trends for the 8 non-reporters) would seem to be 1.4% of that total number above.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Theaca: CT, I find it interesting that you say there is no medically defined partial birth abortion. I've read about the people that do it and and there seems to be a pretty consistent definition of it.
I looked it up and just in my first couple of searches I found a site that explains abortion laws in America. It defines partial birth abortion this way:
quote:So-called "Partial-birth" abortion is performed in the second and third trimesters and entails (1) inducing a breech delivery with forceps, (2) delivering the legs, arms and torso only, (3) puncturing the back of the skull with scissors or a trochar, (4) inserting a suction curette into the skull, (4) suctioning the contents of the skull so as to collapse it, (5) completing the delivery.
Can you find it defined consistently in the medical literature, though? That's an AOL site, I believe.
I couldn't find medical literature consensus on the terms "partial birth abortion" or "addiction." Although the latter is used informally, it is not defined in the DSM-IV, for example.
[None of the OB/Gyns I know use the term, but I may well be mistaken. I wonder if the clarity of that term has been addressed by the College?]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
To update: PubMed seems to pull up legal articles on the term, not medical ones. There are a few medical texts cross-referenced, but none that I've found which use the term itself.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: To update: PubMed seems to pull up legal articles on the term, not medical ones. There are a few medical texts cross-referenced, but none that I've found which use the term itself.
partial birth abortion is not really a medical term. It is more of a description of the procedure. The medical term is "Intact dilation and extraction"
Its not that uncommon for medical procedures to get non medical names when talked about in the media, since many medical terms mean nothing to the average person.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Intrauterine Cranial Decompression is another word for the procedure, does that show up anywhere? Or intact D & E.
I can see that partial birth abortion can have many other more medical names, but it still sounds like the same procedure to me.
Here's something from ACOG that is against legislation against these type of abortions, and yet: "The policy statement notes that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman"
I know I am taking this out of context, and yet, if THEY can't even think of a reason, then the necessity of the procedure must be very, very rare indeed.
[ February 28, 2006, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Theaca ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[Deleted because I have convinced myself that I am being markedly unhelpful to the conversation. My apologies! ]
[ February 28, 2006, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I tried to catch a pro-abortion OB on AIM for a couple questions, but she seems to have wandered off. Ah well.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
You can ask me, I am fairly well informed.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here is an article from Reason (libertarian web-mag) that I thought was very relevant, since we've been talking about both the SD case and the Federal case. I'm not much of a libertarian myself, but I think the article is dead on.
<edit> Oh yeah, and I'm pretty sure Roe v. Wade can't be "overtuned" by any state. Every time I see the thread title I want to say that. </edit>
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)