posted on March 14, 2001 02:48:26 PM new
mzalez, how do you know that the women who had abortions are weeping and crying over their decision? Have any stats?
My point is this. One more time. Why do you assume the people here need your education? Why do you assume the people here don't know about PBA, and therefore need your gruesome details?
It is presumptuous and patronizing in the extreme, to assume the ignorance of the posters here.
OR...it's just a cheap promotional trick. I'm sure you wouldn't concede that.
posted on March 14, 2001 02:54:25 PM new
James, the Republican version allowed for an exception in the case where the woman would die...but NOT where the woman would suffer a *serious* medical problem, or would have to undergo an alternative (and more dangerous) procedure such as a hysterectomy.
President Clinton vetoed the bill because it didn't allow for the exception in case of a serious threat to the woman's health. I would assume that President Bush would have passed it.
Lisa
[ edited by jtland on Mar 14, 2001 02:55 PM ]
posted on March 14, 2001 02:55:27 PM newSo 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? 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? 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.
What percentage is this? What about the ones who DONT have PTS, or had a father to give the baby to, or family to feel "guilt"? What if the child in question didnt HAVE the capacity to know whether it is alive or loved or unwanted or wanted once born? Serious defects that affected the brain in the child would prevent this. HOW can you know? Or is it just your own ideas of what "could be"?
posted on March 14, 2001 03:05:02 PM new
hepburn, I know the women (and some of the men and families involved)personally. As far as studies go, I don't know of any off hand...but there probably are studies of post-abortion effects.
toke, apparently a couple posters here haven't heard of it. One is even questioning if PBAs are even done. Why are you so against a thread that talks about the PBA procedure? "It is presumptuous and patronizing in the extreme, to assume the ignorance of the posters here."--yes, I agree with you. I don't think there are any ignorant posters here. Do you? Cheap promotional trick? I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that.
posted on March 14, 2001 03:10:50 PM new
Oh. In that case, I know of some women who DONT feel bad about it because of the reasons I stated above. No family to embarass, no father to hand the child over to, no PTS. No adoptive family that would take the child since it was extremely unfunctional and wouldnt live long enough to place for adoption. And it would have put their lives in jeopardy (the mothers). So what does this mean?
[ edited by Hepburn on Mar 14, 2001 03:12 PM ]
posted on March 14, 2001 03:17:46 PM new
Some interesting facts on PBA in case anyone is interested...
(This information was quoted from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops brochure on partial birth abortions.)
Why would anyone support PBA?
Misinformation & Myths about PBA: Misinformation has been continually aired on partial birth abortion, including the following:
1. It may be necessary to save a woman's life.
Not true. In fact, H.R. 1122 allows partial birth abortion to save a mother's life. In any event, "There are absolutely no obstetrical situations...which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother."(1)
2. President Clinton argued that it is necessary to prevent "serious adverse health consequences" to the mother.
Not true. The mainstream medical community agrees: There is NO medical necessity for such a procedure. Even the leading authority on late-term abortion in the United States says that the procedure is never necessary to preserve a woman's health.(2) Furthermore, "health", as defined by law in the abortion context includes all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial and social.(3) This is a loophole large enough to justify any abortion. So, adding any health exception would effectively negate the ban. Addition to the modifiers "serious" and "adverse" will not change the way the law defines health.
3. It may be necessary to preserve a woman's future fertility.
Not true. Medical experts say it does the opposite. Forcefully dilating a woman's cervix for three days and turning a baby in utero to a breech position can make it more difficult to carry a subsequent baby to term. (4)
4. The procedure is not as brutal as it looks. The anesthesia given to the mother kills the unborn baby.
Not true. Leading anesthesiologists in the United States testified before Congress that this is simply not true. (5)
5. It is rarely done, and only for the most serious of reasons.
Not true. It was testified before Congress that 1500 of these were done in New Jersey alone! And 80% of them were done on healthy mothers and babies. We do not know the total number of these abortions... but even if it were only 500 per state (500x50) it would be at least 25,000 babies per year. Practitioners report that the vast majority of these abortions are elective and the some are done to prevent the live birth of a child with handicaps.(6)
1 Testimony of Pamela Smith, MD in U.S. Senate Hearing Report 104-260 (Testimony of Nov. 17, 1995) p. 82.
2 Dr. Warren Hern, in American Medical News, Nov. 20, 1995 p.3.
3 Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).
4 Dr. Warren Hern, in American Medical News, Nov. 20, 1995 p.3.
posted on March 14, 2001 03:22:10 PM new
toke, I just didn't know why you were saying 'cheap promotional trick' to me. The post was not intended primarily to 'gross anyone out', although the truth of the matter is rough. If you think this is a trick of some sort, I sorry you see it that way.
hepburn, I am sorry to hear that--that is certainly tragic.
posted on March 14, 2001 03:25:53 PM new
Ok, then let's say all of this is true....doctors performing abortions for the money....lies being promoted to cover/uncover the "real" truth, etc.
posted on March 14, 2001 03:28:08 PM new
mzalez: I never heard of it except in the antiabortion debate because I'm accustomed to hearing medical procedures described by their actual name. Seems pretty rare, according to the JAMA....
posted on March 14, 2001 03:28:13 PM new
Obviously a hot topic. Many strong feelings both ways. But I do believe a free speech issue in regards to posting a subject that is unpleasant to many.
snowyegret - You mentioned you weren't aware of these PBAs being done at the hospital you worked at. They weren't done at the hospital I worked at either. After 24 weeks gestation, these case were referred out to abortion clinics by the Family Planning Dept.
I do not agree with PBA for any reason other than the baby dying in the womb. Most doctors are aware of any fetal defects by the gestational age of 20-24 weeks, so waiting any longer than this, is most times, unnecessary.
Many argue that late term abortions may be necessary to save the mothers life. A C-section can be done to protect the mothers life, and in late term pregnancies the child then has a chance to survive. My sister had high bloodpressure with several weeks to go and needed to have a c-section to save her life. Her 3#5oz son survived and has had no medical problems. My mother worked in L & D in a hospital in Santa Monica, CA. and they often had 1.5 oz babies that survived.
James, I can't say how much respect I have for your posts. Always fair and balanced.
Some seem worried that banning PBAs will be a 'foot in the door' to banning all abortions. I agree that won't happen unless the majority of voters want it to. A silly comparsion would be cigarettes. First just having to sit in the smoking section, then ending with not being able to smoke outside in some towns. A little at a time.
posted on March 14, 2001 03:28:18 PM new
In much of the middle east and asia they don't go through the legalistic gyrations to get rid of a child. The father has the power of life and death over his family and if they present the child to him and he does not want it or after some time it becomes apparent it is not developing normally it is killed rather than waste further resources on it.
Just as ugly but less hypocritical.
posted on March 14, 2001 03:31:43 PM new
Should I post graphic horror stories about the women who did give birth, even with advice to not go through with it, and how they lost their lives; the baby was left in a home with staff members who chained it to a crib; the horrors shown to this being that did come forth, with the loss of its mother and the family members who wanted no part of "it"? Would that change your mind, mzalez?
Twice now you have posted this information about Misinformation & Myths about PBA--"It was testified before Congress that 1500 of these were done in New Jersey alone! And 80% of them were done on healthy mothers and babies. We do not know the total number of these abortions... but even if it were only 500 per state (500x50) it would be at least 25,000 babies per year. Practitioners report that the vast majority of these abortions are elective and the some are done to prevent the live birth of a child with handicaps."
It appears that the numbers being quoted are based on misleading information.
"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 04:00:37 PM new
Thank-you snowy for the link....but after reading it, like you, it seems like this procedure is only done in VERY rare cases to begin with. I'm glad there are doctors and nurses on this board Like yourself) to help clear up things!!
On that note, I really don't see much of a point to this discussion, so I'm off to another happier thread....care to join me??
posted on March 14, 2001 04:22:27 PM new
snowyegret,
Thanks for that url. It raised a significant problem for American women which is less so in the UK.. that of money to pay for an abortion.
If people would like to prevent late abortions, it would be best to make abortion easy to obtain, and freely available, so that women don't have to scramble around to obtain the necessary finance for it. In the UK, the limit for elective abortions was lowered a few years ago to 24 weeks (perhaps even lower, I cannot remember) as it is clearly a grey area of viability for fetuses born of 20-27 weeks gestation.
Once past 16 weeks, abortion is not as simple as early abortion. No method is pleasant. If PBA is not used, and women are required to labour and give birth to their fetuses, some of those between 20 and 27 weeks will survive. Who will pay for the medical care of these "preemies"? Of those that survive, there will be a higher likelihood of brain and/or respiratory damage. Who will pay for the support of these unwanted children, some damaged, some not?
This is not a method of choice in abortion, neither for practitioners or for women. But it effectively ensures a finality to a tragic situation.
The figure quoted of 1500 PBAs in New Jersey has previously been rebutted, as arising from a rogue doctor: "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." According to the Journal of the American Medical Association there are no reliable figures for the numbers of different types of abortions. They provided figures of 16450 abortions for 20+ weeks of gestation, with just over 6000 of those occurring after 23 weeks and 320 after 26 weeks.
The American College of Gynecologists does not see PBA as the only option in late abortions, but believes that it may, on occasion, be the best option for a woman depending on her medical circumstances. It is best to leave such decisions in the hands of clinicians familiar with all the details of a woman's particular medical history.
Those who wish to campaign against this would be more useful in encouraging free access to early abortion, free and easy access to contraception, effective sex education for BOTH sexes.
posted on March 14, 2001 04:28:36 PM newConsider 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.
A resounding AMEN, to that. Well said!! Why should the burden always fall on the woman?? Excellent statement, Toke!
posted on March 14, 2001 04:42:14 PM new
Please realize that those figures from the JAMA are from 1992. They are 9 years old. Just as the statics have increased for first trimester abortions, in that same period of time, I'd bet (no proof here) that so have late term abortions. It's my belief that is why this late term abortion issue has been debated so hotly in very recent times.
Also please consider that since many states have limits on the gestational age of the fetus that can be aborted (unless the mother's life is in grave danger), that may be why the later term abortions have much higher numbers in some states than in others. Example, a woman in the state of California cannot obtain an abortion if she is 24 weeks or more along. State law. We referred patients out of state who were in their 8th month of pregnancy. Different states have different laws.
No one on either side of this issue will ever change another person strong feelings on this issue, but do you really believe if there were only 320 late term abortions this issue would continue being debated in our Congress for so many years?
Edited to add from snowys URLBecause the CDC collects annual data on abortion primarily from state health departments, the data have limitations. First, some states—Alaska, California, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma—neither collect nor report abortion-related information to the CDC. For these states, the CDC conducts limited surveys of abortion providers or estimates the number of abortions.[10] Second, some state health departments lack information on 40% to 50% of abortions performed in the state.
Nite.
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 14, 2001 04:55 PM ]
You are a great blessing to my mental health...
