posted on March 14, 2001 12:56:26 PM
Geez, Dubya, you really do think women are stupid don't you. Of course they know they are ending a life within. Otherwise it wouldn't be agonizing now would it.
I very rarily disagree with your posts. However, saying that abortion is for convenience is unfair to the women who have found out that their unborn child will not survive once outside the womb. I am talking about unborn children who are severely malformed, be it lacking a brain, or a renal system, etc. Should these women carry to term knowing their child will not survive more than a hour or two? Or, should they be allowed to end the pregnancy and begin the grieving process without having to endure the usual maternity questions strangers and acquaintances like to ask for the duration?
There are other methods to ending a pregnancy than the 2 mentioned here.
posted on March 14, 2001 01:05:31 PM
Scroll up a tad on the link I posted & you will find this:
"One often quoted figure was that over 1000 D&Xs had been performed annually in New Jersey. From this number, many inflated national totals were estimated. But the New Jersey figure appears to be an anomaly. A single physician in a single NJ hospital was ignoring the regulations of their medical association and performing D&Xs in cases not involving the potential death or serious disability of the woman. "
posted on March 14, 2001 01:07:41 PMOr subjecting a child to a lifetime of being unwanted, unloved and in care, or being handicapped, unwanted, unloved and in care...
Typical rhetoric. There's no way you can forecast the future, mivona. Where there's life, there's hope.
Abortion is death. It's final.
Furthermore, there are plenty of kids who grew up in orphanages -- you know, lifetime of being unwanted, unloved, blah blah blah -- who have contributed greatly to our society and our country, and/or who have simply made lives for themselves despite having grown without parents.
As for your second comment about handicaps, what an insult to all people born with handicaps. To assume that a handicap conveys "unwanted" status on a child is arrogant and cruel.
It's okay to disagree. I don't hold anyone's opinion on this subject against them. But for the sake of argument, don't you think the sort of situation you describe represents only a tiny fraction of all the abortions performed in this country? As for the "should they have to endure" portion of your question, I'm going to pass on that one because my answer has more to do with faith than anything else, and I don't want to stray down that path. My objection to abortion isn't based in faith or religion.
Absolutely, those circumstances probably do make up a small portion of terminations.
As far as the endure portion, it has little to do with faith if the physician is certain the child will not be viable. The medical profession can be very precise when it comes to certain abnormalities that are easily seen on a sonogram.
Pregnancy places women on an emotional roller coaster to begin with. To have to deal with the fact their unborn child will not live beyond delivery can and does send a woman "over the edge". Why add duress to an already stressful and highly emotional situation?
posted on March 14, 2001 01:29:28 PM
Babies born, for whatever reason, before 24 weeks are more likely to be damaged. This procedure, if used, ensures that fetuses of an age of possible viability do not survive.
Fetuses who undergo abortion are unwanted. Those who survived the procedure, in whatever condition, will still be unwanted. They may find someone who wants them, but there is no guarantee.
Children who live in care can have happy and fulfilling lives, but the odds are against it.
You are on one side
--------------------------------------
and I am on the other
I still feel the energy that goes into the "debate" against abortion would be better spent on making contraception more easily available and promoting sex education. Prevention is always much better than cure, and that holds particularly true with abortion.
"I still feel the energy that goes into the "debate" against abortion would be better spent
on making contraception more easily available and promoting sex education.
Prevention is always much better than cure, and that holds particularly true with
abortion."
posted on March 14, 2001 01:35:20 PMI still feel the energy that goes into the "debate" against abortion would be better spent on making contraception more easily available and promoting sex education. Prevention is always much better than cure, and that holds particularly true with abortion.
posted on March 14, 2001 01:40:11 PM
Ok then, let's say that abortion is illegal...who is going to pay for their upbringing?, medical bills?, education?, etc. We can't even look after the people we have now, so if you want a REAL discussion on this issue, then let's talk about that....
Terry
P.S. snowyegret, have you heard of this partial birth abortion thing?
I was away from my desk for a bit, and am just now playing catch up. There have been some personal remarks made in this thread, though it appears everyone is back on topic now.
Just a reminder...please discuss the topic, not the individual.
posted on March 14, 2001 01:55:08 PMGeez, Dubya, you really do think women are stupid don't you. Of course they know they are ending a life within. Otherwise it wouldn't be agonizing now would it.
No, I don't think women are stupid at all. But it IS an interesting choice of words given that the pro-abortion mantra is that the fetus isn't really a life since the baby hasn't been born yet.
posted on March 14, 2001 01:58:01 PM
Because, james, if PBA is taken out of the picture, particularly in the wholesale way that is being sought, it will leave some unwanted babies being born. So, say it is made illegal.... the questions about the care of the baby are valid.
In deciding a policy change, consequences of the change must be addressed.
posted on March 14, 2001 02:03:34 PM
kraftdinner, I've never heard of it except in the anti abortion debate. I think I would have heard of it if it was being done in the hospitals I worked in considering how much time I spent in L & D. But it might be a specialized procedure only done by a few docs. I'm going to look it up.
If abortions were illegal we would see backstreet quacks leaving the women to die because they didn't want to go to prison or murder. We would see women performing self-inflicting abortions and bleeding to death.
posted on March 14, 2001 02:08:55 PM
Many people who advocate the banning of partial birth abortion want to use it to get a "foot in the door" for outlawing all abortion.
posted on March 14, 2001 02:15:56 PMMany people who advocate the banning of partial birth abortion want to use it to get a "foot in the door" for outlawing all abortion.
Even if true (and I'm not disputing your contention that it is), the merits of the arguments against PBA are no less valid. It's still barbaric and disgusting even if there are some who would use it as a stepping-stone to banning all abortions.
posted on March 14, 2001 02:23:01 PM
Hi james....I guess I brought that up because I'm not sure why this thread was posted to begin with.
Does the originator want us to talk about how yucky her PBA story is? Does she want to shock us all into changing our views? What is there to respond to?
I feel this subject is just as gruesome as killing animals to eat, but until we can find a better way to address these issues, they're going to remain the same. If we just get stuck on the story itself, then nothing gets resolved.
The ONLY problem with this issue is MONEY. If enough money was there for everone, abortion wouldn't be in the dictionary. But since it is, I would like to know how we would pay for these children when we can't even afford to pay for the ones we have?
Everyone on this planet would rather not have these terrible things happen, but they do. I think the fact that we all want to try and come up with a better solution is a sign of our humanity.
If we did do away with abortions, not to go into the back-alley-dark-ages-thing, how would you deal with it?
posted on March 14, 2001 02:26:37 PMBecause, james, if PBA is taken out of the picture, particularly in the wholesale way that is being sought, it will leave some unwanted babies being born. So, say it is made illegal.... the questions about the care of the baby are valid.
In deciding a policy change, consequences of the change must be addressed.
To remedy this situation, women would be obliged to have an abortion prior to the point when the fetus is in fact being naturally delivered.
I have yet to hear of a plausible story where a woman had to have a PBA, rather then one earlier in the term, when her health or life where not at stake.
posted on March 14, 2001 02:33:23 PM
Well... in my opinion, a ban on PBA with exceptions isn't contrary to Roe v. Wade.
The "slippery slope" argument, that it will be used as a stepping stone to ban all abortion doesn't wash. Abortion will not be banned in this country so long as the vast majority are opposed to a ban. There are many, many pro-choice people that support such a ban as well. Congress would have already passed such legislation, had it not been vetoed. Some people say that legal abortion is also a slippery slope too. How do you address that? There should be no absolutes, either way. The procedure described earlier, which is so horrific that even ardently pro-choice people are disgusted -- that cannot be compared to the "it's just a bunch of cells" argument.
posted on March 14, 2001 02:36:26 PM
Hi snowy...I'm glad to hear that because, to be honest, I've never heard of such a thing. It all sounds like propaganda "overkill" to me (the details of the original post), but I admit my ignorance here.
movina and bobbysoxer...you are both so correct!! We would be taking a big step backwards because there ARE no other solutions for the time being, which is sad for everyone involved.
So, as a Pro-Choicer, if there is such a thing as PBA's, I would be against them if they were done as a means of birth control.
Now, can someone address the question of how do we look after these children?
Terry
[ edited by kraftdinner on Mar 14, 2001 02:40 PM ]
posted on March 14, 2001 02:38:53 PM
It seems to be pretty rare that D&X's are performed unless the mother's life or health is at risk, or the fetus is already dead or won't live for more than a few hours.
Both the democratic and republican parties agree that the D&X should be illegal except in certain cases. The hang-up seems to be that the Democrats want a clause to be in place to allow for D&X's in case the mother's health is at *serious* risk, while the Republicans do not want such a clause.
Also, some people want to legislate that a woman must have a hysterectomy instead of a D&X in those cases where the child can be born 'alive', but will die a few hours later because of severe medical problems. Others see that forcing a woman to have a hysterectomy (serious surgery) to save the 'life' of a child that will live only a few hours is a waste.
Lisa
(edited for clarity)
[ edited by jtland on Mar 14, 2001 02:47 PM ]
posted on March 14, 2001 02:40:18 PM
debbielennon posted a very good link earlier, that provides reasons for why a late-term PBA would be needed for medical reasons.
the reasons listed for late abortions were:
the fetus is dead.
the fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
the fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
the fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed hydrocephalus.
These are not always things that can be diagnosed or predicted in early pregnancy, and many will not be diagnosed until 16 weeks. Time to reflect on this diagnose and further discussion about other options, would delay it longer.
I don't know of any woman who has had the misfortune to undergo a PBA, but I do not discount that there are serious reasons for its retention. Apparently many doctors also view it as necessary, and have actively lobbied for its continued use, despite the distress for everyone involved.
posted on March 14, 2001 02:43:36 PM
Consider vasectomy.
A good choice for men who wish to have sex...yet avoid unwanted pregnancies. If pregnancy results from consensual sex, the men obviously failed to use birth control. They either relied on the woman to take care of that little detail...or didn't care to trouble themselves about it at the moment.
Remember...for every woman having an abortion...there was a man involved in the need for it. Oddly enough, it is often men that decry abortion in the most offensively self-righteous manner.
posted on March 14, 2001 02:44:01 PM
Kraftdinner, “what type of discussion would you like to ensue?” A polite, honest discussion. “but only makes me wonder why the Pro-Lifers are willing to go to such lengths to talk about the hidious” Because the hideous truth is avoided by today’s media, and the truth is hidden. “Sometimes the world just isn't a nice place, and the decisions we have to make in this life are ours alone and alone we are accountable for them”—True enough, but the complication here is that there is an innocent person involved who isn’t able to speak up for herself.
Dubyasdaman, “Of course not. They do it for cold, hard cash.” True, but I wouldn’t say all, but many will do anything for money—just like lots of other people in the world.
Toke, “Do not dare to patronize me. If we are not too stupid, in your view, then we must be uninformed. Otherwise who, pray tell, are you presuming to educate?” I’m not patronizing you or anyone here. The information posted is for those who did not know what a PBA entails. If you know, then you already know.
Bobbysoxer, “What exactly is partial birth abortion?” It depends on what side of the abortion issue you "listen" to” The procedure is the same no matter what side of the abortion fence you are on. I haven’t seen ‘Cider House Rules’ yet, but will as soon as I get a chance. “BTW it was I who posted the pro-choice petition thread the other day after you posted your anti-abortion petition thread to give people a "choice." Both were deleted...” I was wondering who did that, I heard about it. Maybe you could start another thread opposed to this one.
Spazmodeus, well said.
Rawbunzel, I’ve read books by ‘pro-choicers’ that say the illegal abortions (pre Roe vs Wade) were safer and better than the legal ones going on now. I think the name of one of the underground clinics was ‘Jane’ in California…
Mivona, ”Or subjecting a child to a lifetime of being unwanted, unloved and in care, or being handicapped, unwanted, unloved and in care...” Don’t you think people would love a chance to live even if they were unwanted, unloved, handicapped, etc.? “there are thousands and thousands who agonise over the decision to end the life inside them. They have to endure the reality of that, they have to live with the consequences of that.” So why compound that agony by living with the knowledge you ended your baby’s life—when you had the chance to give the child up for adoption or to the father? I know way too many women who had abortions, and each one suffers from Post Traumatic Stress. They either didn’t realize what they were doing, or their parents forced them into it. Each one wishes they could go back and undo the abortion, and give the baby up for adoption. They are living their rest of their lives beating them selves up with guilt—not to mention the effect the abortion had on the fathers and families.
posted on March 14, 2001 02:44:25 PM
The version of the legislation that could pass does contain exceptions for those sorts of legitimate sitatuations. The people that call for absolute bans are not reflective of the mainstream, and their versions of the legislation is not what is being considered.
This topic is 11 pages long: 1234567new8new9new10new11new
