Abortion Debate Forum - Oh For the Love of God...


Oh For the Love of God...

Medical Questions-> Health Forums -> Abortion Debate -> Oh For the Love of God...

Author

Message

Tylanas

Especially EHEALTHy

Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 12984

Thanks: 3

Thanked:0

Oh For the Love of God... Posted: 04-19-07 11:34am


Pro-choice looses another battle: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ ap_on_go_su_co/abortion_what_next I may not like late-term abortion, and I would discourage a woman from getting one if she didn't have one good reason; but I would never wish for it to be illegal!!! This makes me so angry!

Kypros

Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy

Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 373
Location: Leicester

Thanks: 1

Thanked:0

Re: Oh For the Love of God...
Posted: 04-19-07 13:02pm

Eiri wrote:

Pro-choice looses another battle:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070419/ ap_on_go_su_co/abortion_what_next

I may not like late-term abortion, and I would discourage a woman from getting one if she didn't have one good reason; but I would never wish for it to be illegal!!! This makes me so angry!

As you would pretty much expect from me, I think the ruling is wrong and repugnant, to put it siccinctly.

Jules

Moderator

Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 3840
Location: Merrie Englande, UK

Thanks: 91

Thanked:77

Posted: 04-19-07 13:13pm


Now it's very possible that I don't understand the situation fully so please correct me if I'm wrong but I can't actually see a problem with a ban on partial-birth abortions. Surely if a woman needs an abortion late in her pregnancy it can be performed a different way? For example, can she not have the baby's heart stopped and then labour induced or a d&c?

Birch

Supporter

Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 4159
Location: Bliss,

Thanks: 159

Thanked:16

Posted: 04-19-07 13:18pm


I think the concern here is that while women and their doctors are able to choose a different method, it is that the government is now making blanketed medical decisions for all women, and this bill does not include the exception for the life of the mother. It is a serious blow to the autonomy of women.

Tylanas

Especially EHEALTHy

Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 12984

Thanks: 3

Thanked:0

Posted: 04-19-07 13:18pm

PurestGreen wrote:

Now it's very possible that I don't understand the situation fully so please correct me if I'm wrong but I can't actually see a problem with a ban on partial-birth abortions. Surely if a woman needs an abortion late in her pregnancy it can be performed a different way? For example, can she not have the baby's heart stopped and then labour induced or a d&c? Confused

]

And then again, maybe she can't, and now, she's going to die.

Jules

Moderator

Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 3840
Location: Merrie Englande, UK

Thanks: 91

Thanked:77

Posted: 04-19-07 13:27pm

Eiri wrote:

PurestGreen wrote:

]

And then again, maybe she can't, and now, she's going to die.

But if the woman was dying then surely it would be quicker and safer to do an emergency c-section? I though pba was only used in cases when the baby had a poor prognosis and couldn't be delivered naturally.

Jules

Moderator

Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 3840
Location: Merrie Englande, UK

Thanks: 91

Thanked:77

Posted: 04-19-07 13:30pm

Birch wrote:

I think the concern here is that while women and their doctors are able to choose a different method, it is that the government is now making blanketed medical decisions for all women, and this bill does not include the exception for the life of the mother.

It is a serious blow to the autonomy of women.

But as long as there are other available options then I can't see the problem. It's a blow to the autonomy of men and women that we can't steal from shops but the law is there to protect society.

Tylanas

Especially EHEALTHy

Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 12984

Thanks: 3

Thanked:0

Posted: 04-19-07 13:34pm

PurestGreen wrote:

Eiri wrote:

PurestGreen wrote:

]

And then again, maybe she can't, and now, she's going to die.

My point was that the government doesn't have the right to tell doctors or women how to remove a fetus from their body.

Jules

Moderator

Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 3840
Location: Merrie Englande, UK

Thanks: 91

Thanked:77

Posted: 04-19-07 13:40pm

Eiri wrote:

PurestGreen wrote:

Eiri wrote:

PurestGreen wrote:

]

And then again, maybe she can't, and now, she's going to die.

My point was that the government doesn't have the right to tell doctors or women how to remove a fetus from their body.

Ok I understand you. So who should have the right to control the actions of doctors? For example, there are laws in place to prevent euthanasia so doctors aren't allowed to kill a person who is terminally ill (unless you count o/d of morphine of course). Why should the legislation of abortion be any different?

*star*

Supporter

Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 1807
Location: ,

Thanks: 22

Thanked:24

Posted: 04-19-07 13:47pm

PurestGreen wrote:

Eiri wrote:

PurestGreen wrote:

]

And then again, maybe she can't, and now, she's going to die.

That is what I was thinking when I heard it on the news this morning. If it was a necessity for the woman's health to abort the baby and it now becomes an emergency situation, wouldn't a c-cection now be a better/faster way of coming to the same conclusion? It just sounds so awful with the partial birth abortion and the whole crushing of the skull thing.

Tylanas

Especially EHEALTHy

Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 12984

Thanks: 3

Thanked:0

Posted: 04-19-07 13:50pm


it does sound awful, but if the fetus is doomed to die anyway, and since the anesthesia for the fetus endangers the mother, then this "barbaric" way is actually safer.

msrosie

Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy

Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 369
Location: Ontario, Canada

Thanks: 12

Thanked:2

Posted: 04-19-07 18:42pm


I am soooooooooo glad I live in a country where doctors, not the govt, make medical decisions. To those who asked about c-sections - that is major invasive surgery and far riskier for the woman than an intact d&x. Regarding the issue of euthanasia - that is not a medical procedure. There is not one other medical procedure that is banned by govt. There should be no medical procedures banned by govt.

Tylanas

Especially EHEALTHy

Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 12984

Thanks: 3

Thanked:0

Posted: 04-19-07 21:02pm

msrosie wrote:

There is not one other medical procedure that is banned by govt. There should be no medical procedures banned by govt.

I heartily agree!! I think you said the exact words that need to be said.

nightangel73

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 2769
Location: ,

Thanks: 19

Thanked:18

Posted: 04-19-07 22:20pm


eiri thanks for sharing. That is good news. I don't understand what is alarming about this given that most abortions are performed in the first trimester.

Tylanas

Especially EHEALTHy

Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 12984

Thanks: 3

Thanked:0

Posted: 04-19-07 22:27pm

nightangel73 wrote:

eiri thanks for sharing. That is good news.

I don't understand what is alarming about this given that most abortions are performed in the first trimester.

it is not good news. As ms rosie said, there is no other medical procedure that is illega in the usa; and neither should this one be illegal.

Jincks013

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 1180
Location: ,

Thanks: 23

Thanked:13

Posted: 04-19-07 23:41pm


There is no procedure called "partial birth abortion". It does not exist. Such wording is purely semantic manipulation and every bit as revolting as the goon who signed it into law. I would dearly love to place Mr. Bush and his two supreme court cronies in a hospital NICU when a fetal victim of lethal chromosonal abnormalites is born, perhaps a victim of trisonomy 21 or anencephaly / iniencephaly or other lethal deformity is 'born' and see for himself what he is banning. I'd like those jerks to have to look the woman who was forced to carry that to term only to watch it born dead or die shortly afterward how much they value life..

Jules

Moderator

Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 3840
Location: Merrie Englande, UK

Thanks: 91

Thanked:77

Posted: 04-20-07 01:09am

Jincks013 wrote:

There is no procedure called "partial birth abortion". It does not exist. Such wording is purely semantic manipulation and every bit as revolting as the goon who signed it into law.
I would dearly love to place Mr. Bush and his two supreme court cronies in a hospital NICU when a fetal victim of lethal chromosonal abnormalites is born, perhaps a victim of trisonomy 21 or anencephaly / iniencephaly or other lethal deformity is 'born' and see for himself what he is banning. I'd like those jerks to have to look the woman who was forced to carry that to term only to watch it born dead or die shortly afterward how much they value life..
Evil or
Very Mad

But she wouldn't have to give birth to such a child because it could be aborted by a different method, surely? Confused

Jincks013

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 1180
Location: ,

Thanks: 23

Thanked:13

Posted: 04-20-07 02:44am


I really don't care if other options exist. I want the spineless mutuant thug who signed this atrocity into law to have to deal one on one with the results of his own ego.

Jules

Moderator

Joined: 19 Aug 2006
Posts: 3840
Location: Merrie Englande, UK

Thanks: 91

Thanked:77

Posted: 04-20-07 03:04am


The only real 'threat' I can see from this ban is that people fear it may open the floodgates for other abortion procedures (or indeed all abortions) to be banned. Now that would be something to get concerned about because that would mean women having to obtain illegal and, most likely, unsafe abortions. However, I don't think that a total ban is very likely. However, just because one particular procedure has been banned, doesn't mean that the safety of women has been compromised. As stated before, there are enough other procedures that can be utilised should a woman require a late term abortion for the sake of her health.

nightangel73

Extremely EHEALTHy

Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 2769
Location: ,

Thanks: 19

Thanked:18

Posted: 04-20-07 05:55am

Jincks013 wrote:

I really don't care if other options exist. I want the spineless mutuant thug who signed this atrocity into law to have to deal one on one with the results of his own ego.

how can you possibly defend such a barbaric way of killing a fetus? Even if I had a baby with trisonmy 21 I wouldn't want to abort the baby in such a macabre way. No one would unless you have a henious mind.