Do you have a view on time limits for
abortions? Are you pro-choice up to a
certain gestation or do you believe in
them up to birth?
The current law here is that abortions for
'social' reasons are allowed up to 24weeks
and up until birth for threat of severe
danger or death of the woman or for sever
foetal abnormalities.
Opinions?
Mine personally is pretty much in line
with our current law, although I think
maybe it should be slightly lower for
'social' abortions (the age where the
fetus is compatible with life outside of
the womb with over a 50%chance)
|
oopoopoop
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 1484 Location: ,
Thanks: 75
Thanked:5
Posted: 05-08-06 11:00am
Obviously, abortion for the life/health of
the woman can be allowed anytime. The
number of abortions for "social" reasons
performed after 20 weeks is so negligible,
that it is almost not worth talking about
-- the vast majority are for medical
reasons. Access to early abortion is the
main way to prevent late abortions. 24
weeks is reasonable anyway, and remember
that before 26 or 28 weeks, serious
medical intervention is necessary for
survival. I guess my view is that at
about 25 weeks, if for some reason a woman
decides she does not want to be pregnant
anymore, the fetus should perhaps be
delivered, and if someone is willing to
pay for the artificial incubation and take
respsonbility if it lives, then do it.
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Re: Time Limits Posted: 05-08-06 15:29pm
moo
wrote:
(the age where the fetus is
compatible with life outside of the womb
with over a
50%chance)
this is not entirely
accurate. Viability is a statistical
measure, measuring not the chances of the
individual neonates (infants) but the
chances of all neonates around that same
gestational age. Viability is the
probability that at least 50% of .A.L.L
neonates born at that time will survive.
(though nearly all of them require medical
care, some extreme medical care). It is
not an indication that your specific fetus
will be able to survive.
However, I feel that the words "viability"
and "viable" are deceptive because many
times it is not explained how they
are being used. Because true viability
only refers to that time when 50% of
.A.L.L neonates (infants) survive, many
people mistakenly believe that if their
pregnancy reaches that stage they are
garaunteed to have a live child. In
reality, if a pregnancy is ended at
viability, they only have a statistic
chance of 50% or less survival of their
child. Their individual child may
survive and yet they may also die. A
child born at this stage requires
extensive medical care and may have long
lasting medical problems. Good
indications of survival are: weight (the
more the better), general health of the
mother during the pregnancy, nutrition
during the pregnancy (just because you
gain 35 pounds doesn't mean you're
necessarily eating the right things), any
genetic problems, and the actual problem
with the pregnancy that led to the
premature birth.
In industrialized nations, if we did not
have the access to the level of medical
care that we do, far fewer children would
survive their premature births.
Therefore, viability is often misleading
because the pregnancy only has a 50%
chance of resulting in a live child when access to
proper medical care is available.
In developing nations, women and children
are still dying from pregnancy
complications that are easily treated in
other locations. Viability in a
developing nation is far later than it is
for industrialized nations simply because
we have access to health care and they do
not.
People also mistakenly use the term
"viable" to describe a pregnancy that has
reached viability. However, the only
pregnancies that can be said to be
"viable" are those that result in a live
infant (and actually a truly viable
pregnancy is one that results in a live
infant who survives two full years). So,
even if you reach viability with your
pregnancy, there is no gaurantee that the
pregnancy is actually viable. In the
case of third trimester abortions, the
pregnancies were wanted and most of the
women believed they had "viable"
pregnancies because of the length of time.
However, some problems we can only test
for late in pregnancies and these problems
can necessitate in an abortion even at
that stage. Just because true viability
has been attained, it does not mean that
the actual pregnancy is viable.
|
Sawney_Bean
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 3 Location: VA
Posted: 07-16-06 23:07pm
Well, I had an abortion at 5months. I
guess it's ok through the 2nd trimester,
but after that it should only be done for
emergency reasons.
|
cherry88
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 633 Location: ,
Posted: 07-17-06 00:04am
I voted no, only because I think abortion
should be until 20 weeks.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 07-19-06 13:38pm
lolbahlolbah123
wrote:
sawney_bean
wrote:
well, I had an abortion at
5months. I guess it's ok through the
2nd trimester, but after that it should
only be done for emergency
reasons.
the my abortion is the moral one
answer.
she's allowed her own opinion. Stop
attacking pro-choice. It's idiodic.
|
cherry88
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 633 Location: ,
Posted: 07-20-06 22:22pm
Lol tyna.
Shawney bean, can I ask why did you have
an abortion at 5 months.
If u want to reply. Reply on the abortion
forum. Nice people do go there, when
theres something new.
:)
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 07-23-06 13:28pm
lolbahlolbah123
wrote:
eiri
wrote:
she's allowed her own
opinion. Stop attacking pro-choice.
It's idiodic.
she isn't pc.
i haven't seen any proof otherwise. She
aborted, and she just so hapens to have a
limit on when she thinks abortion should
be legal. She still thinks the woman
should have the choice to abort, and
that's what pro-choice is.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 07-23-06 15:53pm
lolbahlolbah123
wrote:
eiri
wrote:
he aborted, and she just so
hapens to have a limit on when she thinks
abortion should be
legal.
yes. We've determined that she is in
the "my abortion is the only moral one"
crowd. Kind of like
tazzy.
that is still pro-choice. Just because
she feels that the time period she had her
abortion in is a bad time, doesn't mean
she isn't pro-choice. This issue isn't
black and white- there are vrying degrees
of pro-choice people and varying degrees
of pro-life people.
|
cherry88
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 May 2006 Posts: 633 Location: ,
Posted: 07-23-06 20:28pm
eiri
wrote:
that is still pro-choice.
Just because she feels that the time
period she had her abortion in is a bad
time, doesn't mean she isn't pro-choice.
This issue isn't black and white- there
are vrying degrees of pro-choice people
and varying degrees of pro-life
people.
thats true tyna, if she wasnt pro-choice
then she would have came on here being all
abusive, and she hasnt even came back
since...Sooo...
|
jenn_smithson
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 808 Location: Texas
Posted: 07-28-06 16:47pm
I voted up to birth but largely for a
theoretical purpose.
I believe in the fundamental right of
every woman to choose an abortion for any
reason. Rights do not have time limits
or borders.
I voted yes. The time a foetus has been
inside the female makes no difference in
my eyes. Whether it is ten weeks old or
twenty nine, it is still occupying the
mother's body as a parasite and she [the
mother] has the right to choose what lives
in and from her own body. Simple as that.
It's beyond me why people feel a need to
have a limit.
