quote:Beyond that, you did not answer my question. My question wasn't should the hypothetical woman get an abortion, it was should this hypothetical woman be allowed the choice of an abortion. These are very different questions.
Speaking as a pro-life mom with cancer right now, if I were pregnant I would not undergo chemo. I would wait until the child was born and start the chemo then.
However, I would not want to prohibit abortion in these cases. I would think it would be an extremely difficult situation but if doctors agreed that the woman's life was defnitely in danger if she carried the pregnancy to term without chemo then in this case I would call the abortion something that falls under the necessity to save the mother's life exemption. I mean, no pro-life person I know thinks a woman shouldn't be allowed to have an ectopic pregnancy removed. If the mother's life is truly threatened, then I can understand the need for an abortion. I would certainly not want to be faced with the situation, and thankfully it's a very rare one, I would think.
By the way, I do know someone who was faced with it. She did exactly as I would - refused chemo treatment of her cancer and carried her baby to term. He was born healthy, is now 11 years old and she is cancer-free.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Chemotherapy agents are typically designed to target fast growing cells. Since a fetus grows faster than nearly all forms of cancer, chemotherapy is virtually certain to kill the fetus. Since no studies have or should be performed on the influence of chemotherapy on a human fetus, the risks to the mother from such are choice are totally unknown and are likely to be very high. For example, chemotherapy often reduces the clotting ability of the blood making the potential of hemoraging high. Having chemotherapy while pregnant would pose a severe risk to the mother and the effects on the fetus would be identical to having an abortion. I would consider it a breach of medical ethics for any physician to give chemotherapy to a pregnant woman.
Then please explain the several links that directly contradict what you said - including ones from NIH and the american cancer society. You are wrong about chemotherapy during pregnancy, at least to the extent that you are extending it to ALL chemotherapy.
quote:Beyond that, you did not answer my question. My question wasn't should the hypothetical woman get an abortion, it was should this hypothetical woman be allowed the choice of an abortion. These are very different questions.
If the babies existance is a threat to the life of the mother, then abortion should be allowed.
If the risk is instead that the treatment will harm the baby, then abortion shouldn't be allowed.
The information I have uncovered is that, in at least quite a few circumstances, chemo is not impossible during pregnancy.
I'm not going to allow your inaccurate assertions to force me into answering a hypothetical that lacks proper foundation.
posted
I would be interested in knowing, statistically, what the survival rates are vs. people who start chemo immediately and those that wait six months to start. I wonder if there is an appreciable difference between the two? Certainly it depends on the type of cancer, etc, but seems to me in many cases there might not be that much difference. In which case, a person could carry a baby to the point that it was viable, then induce labor and begin chemo a few months later than originally planned.
Like with me - I didn't need to start chemo as fast as I did, I was given the option to wait until I had healed a bit more from the surgery. I chose not to, wanting to get the ordeal over with.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it depends on if the chemo is the primary treatment or adjuvant treatment. I get this from the lead times allowed in clinical trials when I worked in the field - adjuvant trials allowed a longer gap. I have no idea if that trend is actually accurate or just my limited perception of it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally have a very difficult time seeing the few cells that make up a fetus in the first trimester as a child.
Got to see an ultrasound today. 10 weeks from the date of conception, and it was moving its arms and legs like a breakdancer. Hard not to see it as a child, for me.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see how that experience would affect your viewpoint. I don't personally see movement as necessarily indicative of sentience, but that's me.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course movement is not indicitive of sentience, but that's a pretty tricky word.
And anyway, it still brings the problem back to arbitrary cut-off dates. If sentience is what you're concerned with, then you've got to admit that at some point before birth, there is sentience (at least I haven't ever heard anyone seriously suggest there isn't), and you can't pin it down.
Which necessarily means that we're destroying a lot of sentient children.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I haven't forgotten about you, Irregardless -- just a really busy day. And it's started to snow! So I'll catch up on the weekend.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do absolutely admit that there is sentience well before birth. I haven't stated my current position outright in this thread, but I do not agree with abortion past the first trimester for that very reason. Arbitrary cut-off dates are troubling, but as I disagree with banning it wholesale, I find myself defaulting to wanting there to be a cutoff date somewhere in the first trimester. I'm fuzzy on this, though, which is why I continue to read and respond to these threads.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Personally, I think we'd see fewer abortions if every pregnant woman had to have an ultrasound and actually see the baby on the screen. Maybe I'm wrong. But I know that seeing my ultrasound at 10 weeks was a life-changing experience. Like Frisco said, she was waving her arms and kicking her feet and there was zero doubt in my mind that was a baby, my baby. Any pro-choice leanings I had at the time vanished in that instant.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting... was reading a couple of fetal development sites, and several have stated that the correct definition is "embryo" until 8 weeks and "fetus" therafter. CT, Theca, is this correct?
posted
This , which I read yesterday in order to get a feel for size during the first trimester, says 11 weeks is the date for the term fetus. Still, I'd take CT's and Theca's word first.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shigosei, I thought you raised some interesting points which I would like to respond to.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: The argument over when life begins won't ever be resolved, I think. We don't even have a good definition of what this "life" is that we want to protect.
That's precisely the problem. Without a working definition of what human life is and when it begins, I find it hard to imagine any sort of resolution to the debate.
quote:It's not quite the potential to become a fully-grown human, since sperm and eggs have some of that potential (to a lesser degree). So, what is it that we want to protect?
This is one argument I hear frequently from pro-choice proponents. I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, but I just don't buy into it one bit. A sperm or an egg on its own has zero potential to become human. Zero. I could be healthy, and nurture it all I want but I will never have a baby human from my sperm. This is a fundamental difference from a fetus. With no additional action on the part of the mother the fetus will develop into a baby. That's why this and other analogies (small group of cells) don't really hold up. It's like a chemical reaction. You could have a room full of chlorine gas or one with sodium in it, but neither room contains or will ever contain salt (or even have the same characteristics/properties of salt) unless the two are put together.
quote: The baby doesn't comprehend its own mortality. It can't fear its impending death. Whether or not there's even an "I" in there is iffy.
Are we even sure at what point this takes place after birth? It takes a newborn some time before they recognize themselves in the mirror, or even before they become familiar with all their attached limbs and appendages. So would infancide become ok? A newborn's level of sentinence isn't on par with the mother's. Or for that matter, what 17 year old teenage male comprehends his own mortality
I guess my contention which many others have previously stated (*beating dead horse) is that I view human life as a continium and thus any line that is drawn at some point from fetal beginnings to geriatric conclusions is completely arbitrary.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not quite the potential to become a fully-grown human, since sperm and eggs have some of that potential (to a lesser degree). So, what is it that we want to protect?
This is one argument I hear frequently from pro-choice proponents. I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, but I just don't buy into it one bit. A sperm or an egg on its own has zero potential to become human. Zero. I could be healthy, and nurture it all I want but I will never have a baby human from my sperm. This is a fundamental difference from a fetus. With no additional action on the part of the mother the fetus will develop into a baby. That's why this and other analogies (small group of cells) don't really hold up. It's like a chemical reaction. You could have a room full of chlorine gas or one with sodium in it, but neither room contains or will ever contain salt (or even have the same characteristics/properties of salt) unless the two are put together.
A fertilized egg on its own also has zero potential. The sperm and egg need each other (well...unless human cloning becomes common) and the fertilzed egg needs the mother. You're absolutely right that there is a great deal of difference between sperm and eggs and a zygote, but I would still argue that the zygote is still just potential. Way more potential than sperm and eggs, but far less than a newborn. I don't believe in just throwing away embryos (during IVF, for example), but I also don't have a problem with the morning-after pill preventing implantation. I guess that's a bit inconsistent, but there you have it.
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote: The baby doesn't comprehend its own mortality. It can't fear its impending death. Whether or not there's even an "I" in there is iffy.
Are we even sure at what point this takes place after birth? It takes a newborn some time before they recognize themselves in the mirror, or even before they become familiar with all their attached limbs and appendages. So would infancide become ok? A newborn's level of sentinence isn't on par with the mother's. Or for that matter, what 17 year old teenage male comprehends his own mortality
My point about the fetus having little or no self-awareness was only to point out the contrast with the mother. It is a reason why I personally value the mother's life more, and why I think that the right of the mother to abort if her life is in danger should be as zealously protected as the unborn child's right not to be aborted for reasons of birth control. The lack of sentience is not an excuse to treat an embryo or fetus as if it is not valuable at all.
Oh, and Jeniwren, you make some good points. I guess I'm just a big fan of "why can't we all get along?" in many situations, and it seems so very applicable in the abortion debate because the things both camps want most need not be mutually exclusive. I'm not saying people shouldn't protest abortion, just that I really wish both sides would work more toward a society where the both the rights of women and the lives of unborn children are protected. Pro-choice people don't want to kill babies, and pro-life people don't want to subjugate women.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, My apologies. There are some forms of Chemotherapy which are acceptable during pregnancy. There are, however, many which are not. My example was based on two real life examples from women I've known. One suffered from a very rare cancer associated with the placenta. There was no way to treat this cancer as long as she was pregnant. She chose not to abort the child. By the time she gave birth the cancer had spread into her spinal column and she died not long after.
The second woman had bowel cancer which was discovered during her first trimester. They were unable to operate to remove the tumors while she was pregnant nor to use chemotherapy without killing the baby. She also chose to have the baby, and died of the cancer about 6 months after the babies birth.
I don't know whether or not either of these women made the right choice. I do know that they deserved the right to make that choice and not to have it made for them by the rest of us.
My point in bringing up the example in the first place is that unless you say no abortions ever for any reason, there is not a clear place to draw the line. Even among strong opponents to abortion there is a disagreement on when an abortion is justified. Note that Belle and Dag. disagreed on whether a woman with cancer should be allowed to have an abortion and both of them are strongly opposed to abortion. When there is debate over whether or not an abortion is justified -- who should get to make the choice? That is after all the root of the abortion debate. Who should be given the right to choose?
[ January 20, 2006, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I discussed on mackillian's forum about a month ago, I had a patient, aged 32, with early colon cancer. Unfortunately she got accidentally pregnant about 3-4 weeks prior to the diagnosis. The surgeon said that the pregnancy was nonviable if they took the cancer out, which he strongly recommended. He sent her to me to arrange her "medical abortion". Great. I am prolife, in general. After asking the couple nonjudgementally about what their thoughts were, and about other options, I called the gynecologist neonatal specialist I was referred to by the other gyns. He also flatly stated the baby had no chance to survive major colon surgery and she needed that abortion, quickly, and he recommended only one doctor in the state who did them correctly, at a major hospital 2 hours away. The couple called me back and said they wanted to pursue other options after all so I got them in to see the specialist gynecologist. He talked them into getting the medical abortion after all, then she had surgery, so far as I know she is doing ok.
I still don't see why she couldn't just have the surgery and see what happened to the baby. The gynecologist wouldn't answer that question when I asked him. Not that I am that distressed about her choice. I AM glad that I wasn't the one who actively referred her to the abortion clinic, however.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still don't see why she couldn't just have the surgery and see what happened to the baby.
I suspect it was an issue of complications and risks to the mother. If the chances of the baby surviving surgery are nill, then the doctor should perform the procedure that is the least risky for the mother.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, sure, but, I mean, babies spontaneously abort pretty easily at 4-6 weeks, don't they? I'd like to have heard what the complications and risks would have been for her.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theaca, I'm not sure why you think it would have been better to perform the surgery without the abortion knowing that the surgery would kill the baby than to perform the abortion and then the surgery.
To me, there is no difference between the two at all. Either way both the mother and the surgeon know that the medical procedure will result in the death of the baby. They choose to undergo the procedure anyway in order to improve the mother's chances of surviving cancer. But clearly to you there is a difference, can you try to help me see what that difference is?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm not saying she made the wrong decision. I hope she continues to do well and have no future problems with this decision. I'm just relieved I was out of the loop as far as directly calling and arranging her abortion. I probably would have done it had she asked me to. But I'm grateful I didn't have to. I think if the surgeon wanted her to have an abortion, he could and should have made the phone calls himself, rather than tossing it off on me. My time is almost as valuable as his, is it not? I chose a field in which I don't have to perform abortions nor do I feel obligated to counsel abortions. I don't have the training to know when to recommend medical abortion is what I mean. He put me in that position and I didn't like it.
And yes, there is a huge difference. The surgery is to (hopefully) cure cancer. The abortion is to directly kill a human life. There is always a chance the baby could survive, or a miracle could take place. That can't happen if the baby gets destroyed deliberately prior to surgery. Now I don't know what reasons the gyn used to convince her to have the medical abortion, I don't know the risks to her life or to the baby's life so I can't say how necesary it was. And I'm only speaking of the case I know, not your friends' cases.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I take it you're against the death penalty and are a complete pacifist?
I don't know about that... the people who are put under the death penalty at least get a chance at life. Though I don't think the death penalty is as serious an issue as the debate on abortion.
What really bothers me is that the embryos dodn't even get a chance to live at all. Imagine being brought into existence just to be slaughtered in your mom's womb. That would suck.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Personally, I think we'd see fewer abortions if every pregnant woman had to have an ultrasound and actually see the baby on the screen.
Yes! yes! this is sooo true!
Posts: 17 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And anyway, it still brings the problem back to arbitrary cut-off dates. If sentience is what you're concerned with, then you've got to admit that at some point before birth, there is sentience (at least I haven't ever heard anyone seriously suggest there isn't), and you can't pin it down.
My earliest memory comes from when I was around two years old, so this is when I consider myself to have "awoken" into sentience, and therefore about the age I consider human beings to be sentient. It could have possibly been earlier, and I forgot, but probably not much more. 18 months old would probably be pushing it. That said, yes, infantcide is still murder, even though I'm in favor of euthanasia and am pro-choice. Yes, arbitrary cut-off dates are sticky, but I think the ones we use now are reasonable.
Edit - this was poorly written and I apologize, but I'm too tired to fix it. Night hatrack.
quote: Personally, I think we'd see fewer abortions if every pregnant woman had to have an ultrasound and actually see the baby on the screen.
This sounds like malicious guilt tripping. An abortion is a traumatic enough experience.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Better they know the facts and see things like literature or ulstrasounds before they go through with it, then four years later when they get pregant again and start seeing ultrasounds and have to deal with emotions they weren't expecting to surface. That's a terrible time to discover what she really did to her first baby.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Theca, because I know women who had that exact thing happen to them. When they got pregnant again, they felt lied to - like the abortion clinic made them feel "oh it's just a bunch of cells" but then later they saw what that "bunch of cells" really looked like at that stage and it was devastating to them. Better they have that info up front. You think an abortion is traumatic at the time? I've ministered to and worked with women who've dealt with the aftermath five, even 10 years later and the trauma they go through later after they realize in full what they've done, I guarantee every one of them wished they'd been shown an ultrasound and knew more fully what their decision really entailed before they did it. So many wouldn't have. I've heard it time and time again. "I didn't know. I had no idea what I was really doing, even I'd known what a 10 week old fetus was really like I wouldn't have done it." Maybe we can fix it by adding the study of the pre-born in sex education classes - let's show the pictures and videos of ultrasounds early to young kids, so they have a better idea of what happens after conception.
That story, Theca has me amazed. I can't believe that there wasn't an option of having the surgery and then waiting to see how the baby did. I mean, maybe it depends on where the cancer was located? At any rate, I'm with you - I'm glad the mom is doing well. And very thankful that my childbearing days were over before I got diagnosed.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While it still feels guilt-trippy to me, I do see your point...and I think it would be MUCH more effective than the protestors' signs covered with aborted fetuses. How would you regulate this legally, though? Force a woman to carry her pregnancy through to ten weeks, and then force her to have an ultrasound?
The ten week ultrasound is compelling, despite the fact that the fetus is only 1-3 inches. I'm still skeptical about, say, weeks 5-6, when it's 1/17-1/8 of an inch long and has a tail.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Megan: How would you regulate this legally, though? Force a woman to carry her pregnancy through to ten weeks, and then force her to have an ultrasound?
I didn't think Belle meant that the ultrasound had to happen at/after 10 weeks. I took her statement as meaning that an ultrasound should be required before an abortion whenever the woman decides she wants one, even if it's earlier than 10 weeks. (Belle, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.) Personally, I think this sounds like a good idea because I agree that women should know all the facts before going through with it. I don't agree at all with making a major decision with blinders on.
Posts: 952 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok...so, forcing a woman considering abortion to have an ultrasound. I guess I'm marginally ok with that, assuming that a) she's not forced to pay for it as well, b) it occurs in a timely fashion so as not to delay her until it's past the point where she could go through with the abortion legally, and c) if she decides afterward to go through with it, she's not delayed any further (assuming that all other legal requirements for that state are met).
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I don't mean it has to be done at 10 weeks.
Thing is, in Alabama I believe it's common to do an ultrasound anyway to confirm the pregnancy's dating, they just don't show the results to the patient. I think they should.
My husband testitified in a case against an abortion doctor who killed a woman and injured several others. The case was up before the medical board and my husband was involved because he was the paramedic that took one of the women to the hospital. During the trial they showed the ultrasound pictures of this woman's 26 week old twins, and my husband nearly got sick because we had just recently had our twins. At any rate, point being the clinic had to do an ultrasound to date the pregnancy but it was never shown to the mother.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Megan: Ok...so, forcing a woman considering abortion to have an ultrasound. I guess I'm marginally ok with that, assuming that a) she's not forced to pay for it as well, b) it occurs in a timely fashion so as not to delay her until it's past the point where she could go through with the abortion legally, and c) if she decides afterward to go through with it, she's not delayed any further (assuming that all other legal requirements for that state are met).
a) Not an issue for me, as I think that ultrasounds are already required for dating purposes and if the abortion clinic charges extra, then that's just part of it. It's an elective procedure and if you want it done, you have to pay for it. I think the ultrasound for dating is already included in the fees, though, so it's probably a non-issue.
b) From my experience working in the pro-life ministry, the ultrasound is done the same day, just before the procedure so timeliness is not an issue.
c) See I think there should be delay. I think there should be a mandatory waiting period (and Alabama may have one, I'll have to check) because a decision of this import should be carefully thought out. I think they also should receive information on adoption and other options before they leave the clinic. That way, the woman makes an informed choice.
quote:I'm not okay with that. It seems to me like an attempt to rub the woman's nose in it. - pH
So you'd rather she make a decision without all the pertinent information? I would think that someone who identifies themselves as pro-choice would be for informed choice. It's not rubbing her nose in it - she's pregnant, and should see the actual result of that pregnancy before she decides whether or not to terminate it. Why would you have a problem with her being fully informed? If she sees it on the screen and says "Wow! That looks like a baby, I never knew. I can't possibly have an abortion. Can you give me info on adoption?" Isn't that a positive outcome, for everyone? Why would you be against that?
And like I've said, I've seen the results of women who didn't know what they were carrying, who thought it was just an unrecognizable blob of cells learn later what it really was like and be so devastated, one of them attempted suicide, more than five years after her abortion. Thank God she did not succeed and received help and counselling, but that would have been avoided if she'd seen an ultrasound of her pregnancy before she had the abortion.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:c) See I think there should be delay. I think there should be a mandatory waiting period (and Alabama may have one, I'll have to check) because a decision of this import should be carefully thought out. I think they also should receive information on adoption and other options before they leave the clinic. That way, the woman makes an informed choice.
Yes, it's important that they make an informed decision, but it's also important that they not be delayed through manipulation past the point where they could go through with a decision on a legal procedure. For example, let's say state X doesn't allow abortions past, say, week 12 (arbitrary, because I have absolutely no clue about time limits). A woman comes in at week 11, sees her required ultrasound, and then has to sit through a waiting period of two weeks before being allowed to make that decision. That, to me, is an example of a delay that is manipulative and deceitful, especially if the procedure would have been legal at the first place.
If there is a waiting period, it needs to be short enough not to produce manipulations like I describe above.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alabama does have a 24 hour waiting period and they do require ultrasounds which a woman has a right to look at but is not required to.
Heres' the detail:
quote:A woman may not obtain an abortion until after the attending physician, referring physician, or physician's agent, who is a psychologist, licensed social worker, licensed professional counselor, registered nurse, or physician, tells her: (1) the nature of the proposed procedure, including risks and alternatives; (2) the probable gestational age of the "unborn child" at the time the abortion is to be performed; (3) the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the "unborn child" at the time the abortion is to be performed; (4) if the "unborn child" is viable or has reached the gestational age of more than 19 weeks, that the "unborn child" may be able to survive outside the womb, the woman has the right to request the physician to use the abortion method most likely to preserve the life of the "unborn child," and that if the "unborn child is born alive," the attending physician is legally obligated to take all reasonable steps necessary to maintain the life and health of the child; (5) the attending or referring physician must perform an ultrasound prior to the abortion and that the woman has the right to view the ultrasound prior to the abortion; (6) she has a right to view a state-prepared video; (7) she is free to withdraw or withhold consent without loss of any state or federally-funded benefits; and (8) the name of the physician who will perform the abortion, in writing or a business card.
In addition, at least 24 hours prior to an abortion, the woman must be informed about and be given state-prepared materials by the attending physician, referring physician, or physician's agent, who is a psychologist, licensed social worker, licensed professional counselor, registered nurse, or physician, in person or by return-receipt certified mail. If the materials are provided by mail, the woman must receive them again in person prior to the abortion.
The state-prepared materials must: (1) provide a geographically-indexed comprehensive list, including names and telephone numbers, of public and private agencies and services available to provide medical and financial assistance to a woman through pregnancy, prenatal care, upon childbirth, and while her child is dependent; (2) include a geographically-indexed list of adoption agencies and state that the law permits adoptive parents to pay the costs of prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care; (3) include "realistic, clear, objective, non-judgmental" materials to describe the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the "unborn child" at two-week gestational increments, including large color photographs, dimensions, and information on the possibility of survival; (4) describe abortion methods and the medical risks associated with each method and with carrying a pregnancy to term; (5) list the support obligations of the "father" of a child born alive; (6) state that a physician who performs an abortion upon a woman without her "informed" consent may be liable to her for civil damages; and (7) include the following statement: "There are many public and private agencies willing and able to help you to carry your child to term, and to assist you and your child after your child is born, whether you choose to keep your child or place him or her for adoption. The State of Alabama strongly urges you to contact those agencies before making a final decision about abortion. The law requires that your physician or his or her agent give you the opportunity to call agencies like these before you undergo an abortion."
In addition, prior to an abortion, the woman must be offered the opportunity to review a state-prepared videotape that must include much of the information provided in the state-prepared materials.
Ala. Code §§ 26-23A-1 to -13 (Enacted 2002).
A court held this law constitutional. Summit Med. Ctr. of Ala., Inc. v. Riley, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (M.D. Ala. July 25, 2003) (memorandum opinion and order).
posted
I think that's alright, though the continued use of "unborn child" sets my propaganda senses tingling.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it's reasonable to require someone to wait to purchase a firearm for a background check and all sorts of things-and I think it is-I think it's quite reasonable to make a woman wait a few hours for a non-invasive, safe, painless and harmless procedure such as an ultrasound.
If she is secure in her conviction that the fetus or whatever stage it's in isn't a true human life, then she will not be swayed. If, however, she is the sort of person whose opinion would change if faced with that sort of evidence...shouldn't she see that evidence, that picture, pH?
Or is only imagery and evidence which condones abortion the kind we should allow? I think it would be easy to conduct the procedure without "rubbing the woman's face in it"-unless any point of view which might change her mind is in itself rubbing her face in it.
-----------
Megan,
That's possible. A word must be picked and it depends on context. An expectant mother who is murdered has died along with her unborn child. A woman who gets an abortion has destroyed a little clump of cells.
Obviously the law is designed to help ensure a woman takes another look at the choice, with the hope that maybe she will decide to do something else. Would the law be any different at all if it used "cluster of cells" or the exactly correct medical term (which changes)?
If the use of "unborn child" is propaganda, so too is "cluster of cells". Our propaganda senses tingle much less when it's propaganda we agree with.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes! Which is precisely why I prefer medical terms in this sort of debate; it's much more neutral. Say zygote/embryo/fetus; propaganda problem solved.
And, like I said, I have no problem with a brief waiting period. My troubles with it come when it's used as deceitful manipulation designed to prevent a woman from obtaining a legal procedure (see the situation I described above).
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
More clarification: I don't have a problem with a brief waiting period because it is a huge decision. However, it's also a personal decision, one that I don't feel the government should be making for the woman in question. I don't feel the government should be pushing one way or the other; I don't feel the government should be propagandizing.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The government requires individuals to sign consent forms, have second thoughts, and wait, for all sorts of things, Megan.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absolutely! But when you go to buy a gun, they don't say, "Now, here's some video about why you REALLY DON'T WANT A GUN. Watch these videos, and read these brochures, and then think REALLY REALLY REALLY HARD about whether you really want a gun, because it KILLS PEOPLE. Maybe you didn't know that they KILL PEOPLE. Are you really sure you want to KILL PEOPLE? Here are some government agencies that can help you with not killing people. How about you take a few days and think about whether you're really a killer or not?"
There's a huge difference between that and, "There is a mandatory waiting period before you can purchase a gun."
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand the idea that more information could be harming the woman. Making an informed decision is always better than making an uninformed one. In any other medical procedure, the doctors try to be as specific and informative as possible, letting you know exactly what they'll do and what the risks will be. The only reason I can see to withhold information from the mother is if we want to encourage abortions, instead of simply preserve the right to choose to have one. If they're going to fairly choose, they have to really know what they're choosing.
And a lack of information could easily be manipulative, also: letting the mother think that she's having the equivalent of a mole removed, so it's no big deal, there's no reason to really think about it. If we are really concerned about the well-being of the mother, we should be in favor of giving her as much information as possible, warning her of possible risks (including emotional ones), and protecting her from later psychological repercussions as much as possible (by making sure she fully understands the choice she's making).
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenna, I don't know if you're addressing me or not, but I have said (several times now) that I have no problem with providing as much information as possible. What concerns me is the amount of bias in that information--that, along with facts, there will be provided propaganda along the lines of what I described above in the hypothetical gun waiting period brochure. I'm concerned that people in a position to do so will, rather than informing women, will manipulate them to the point where they cannot get a legal procedure, simply for the sake of preventing that legal procedure.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. I'm agreeing with you on that point, although I'd rather it not be a legal procedure. As long as it's legal, they have no business trying to manipulate people out of it or make it so difficult to get that people can't do it.
I was just late to the party, rather surprised at pH's objection.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well since we haven't seen the information that is provided we have no idea if it's propaganda or not, now do we?
Do you object to this statement?
quote:"There are many public and private agencies willing and able to help you to carry your child to term, and to assist you and your child after your child is born, whether you choose to keep your child or place him or her for adoption. The State of Alabama strongly urges you to contact those agencies before making a final decision about abortion. The law requires that your physician or his or her agent give you the opportunity to call agencies like these before you undergo an abortion."
I don't see how it's propaganda, I see it as letting a woman know about options that she may not have considered. For the record, the ministry I worked with is one of those agencies that provides financial support to women who are pregnant and after their child is born. Shouldn't a young woman who is terrified that she can't afford to keep a baby know about us and know we were there to help her? Because if she knew that we would hold a shower and make certain she had every possible baby item she needed, if she knew that we would set her up with a diaper delivery to make sure she had diapers for the baby, if she knew that we would help her fill out all the paperwork for WIC and other programs that can provide food for her and her baby maybe she would choose to raise her child. And if she make that choice, and it's an informed one, shouldn't everyone be happy with that?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's just what it sounds like to me. Information is one thing. Information is great. But it seems like a sidelong way to influence the woman's decision.
Although it wouldn't affect me at all. I'm the kind of person who has to have a worst-case scenario plan for every conceivable situation, so I've already made my decision.
posted
Informed decisions are excellent, and should be promoted in every case. I don't have a problem with the paragraph you quoted, Belle. No, we don't know whether or not the information provided is pro-life propaganda. However, based on the continual use of loaded terms throughout the law (see the aforementioned "unborn child" usage), I think it's safe to assume that the information will definitely be biased to at least some extent. If the facts are so compelling, why not just present the facts? Why bother with leaning the information one way or another? It strikes me as strongly manipulative, and loading up guilt on a person who's already in an extraordinarily rough spot (and might well be there alone). For some people (I'm thinking of myself here, though I know I'm not the only one who feels this way), any attempt to manipulate is going to lead to an immediate push in the opposite direction.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a huge difference between that and, "There is a mandatory waiting period before you can purchase a gun."
Are you talking about something other than simply the ultrasounds? The piece of Alabama law in its entirety perhaps? I understand your reasoning in that case, but if you're just talking about ultrasounds, I don't understand where you're coming from at all. It's just an ultrasound, the women can draw their own conclusions from it.
pH, do we not expect doctors to inform their patients about alternatives to, say, surgery? Are patients not encouraged to get a second opinion at any time? Isn't it the job of a good doctor, not just to tell the patient, "This is what I'm going to do," but make sure the patient has a solid understanding of precisely what will be done? Maybe you treat doctor's visits differently from me, I don't know. I treat visits to the doctor rather like buying a car.
It's not that I distrust a doctor as much as I distrust a car dealer, it's that in such an important decision, I make it my business to be very well informed.
And if having extra information really is a "sidelong attempt to influence the woman's decision", then perhaps the other decision-to abort-is not as justifiable, sustainable, defensible, correct, insert the appropriate word here, as you thought?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, in the line you quoted, I was referring to my hypothetical gun waiting-period propaganda (the paragraph above that line), suggesting that the "information" provided to women considering an abortion is quite heavy on bias. What I was saying in that line had nothing whatsoever to do with ultrasounds.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not that I distrust a doctor as much as I distrust a car dealer
You should. Doctors, like car dealers, have to make money - and many of them make more money by recommending more expensive courses of treatment.
(This is not to suggest that all, or even a majority of doctors are money driven to the point of deception, but if you know there's even one bad apple in a barrel of 1,000, it's probably a good idea to check every apple before you eat it.)
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
So I'll catch up on the weekend.)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
