# question about partial birth abortion



## Nikki Christina (Mar 27, 2003)

I dont know if this is the correct forumn.. so move it if its not mods

Im prochoice.. but am torn about partial birth abortion.. I KNOW its rare & done only under special cicumstances..

however..I dont understan why its done the way it is.. as in stabing in the back of the skull..

I know someone who had an abortion after 20 weeks & was given a drug & then put in labor & delivered a still born who was intact & was cremated ..but this was in another country

this seems much kinder to me .. so Im wondering why it wouldnt be done this way all the time???
anyone know??


----------



## jannan (Oct 30, 2002)

i was speaking to a pediatrician about this just last night. i 'll tell you what she told me. and remember this is her talking , not me. she told me that the term PBA was invented by the pro-lifers and medically there is no such thing . It does n't exist. nobody stabs the baby in the head and sucks out the brains. at 20 weeks the dr will put the mother into labor and deliver the baby. a 5 month old baby will survive if given medical assistance right away.

this pediatrician is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Maybe she is mistaken. i don't know. there is all this conflicting information out there about this.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

My understanding is that an intact dilatation and extraction (the technical name for the procedure) is done this way to deliver the body first, then remove cerebrospinal fluid with a needle (or remove the brain with a cannula, I've seen both described) so the head will better fit through the cervix without the cervix having to be completely dilated like it would in labor and delivery. Obviously the cervix is dilated partway (through laminaria sticks) but full dilation (like up to 10 cm) doesn't happen.

The thing that the "partial birth" opponents don't talk about is that the alternative procedure that's still legal under the ban is dilatation and evacuation, i.e. dismembering the fetus in utero and taking it out in pieces/parts. This is often more dangerous to the woman in that there's a higher risk of puncture or laceration as the parts are extracted. It also doesn't help those parents who are having this procedure not because they "oops" forgot to have an abortion but because something went dreadfully wrong, and the intact dilatation and extraction procedure gives them a dead baby to hold and mourn, not a pile of pieces/parts.

ETA link to a good Salon.com article about it


----------



## Irishmommy (Nov 19, 2001)

But why do they have to deliver breech? Why do they have to empty the skull? Why can't the woman dilate fully?

I know there are anomalies where the baby's head is huge, but other than that...


----------



## sleeping queen (Nov 10, 2003)

Here is transcript from an abortionist.transcript You could also do a search for a website called silent scream that will give you the truth concerning partial birth abortion. No pro abortion person really wants people to know the horror of what happens.


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

Quote:

Why can't the woman dilate fully?
Well, as faithful members of MDC, we all know that many women have a hard time dilating fully when they are induced.... and that's when they're actually at their due dates.... their bodies and babies simply aren't ready to give birth yet. I guess any attempt at fully dilating a cervix in a body that is nowhere near the point of giving birth would probably fail.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I am really sure a website called *silent screams* is going to give real accurate unbiased info.


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by sleeping queen_
*No pro abortion person really wants people to know the horror of what happens.





















*








:


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

Actually, I am pro-choice and I am very horrified.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

OK do they at least kill the baby before they start the procedure. I am under the impresion that the baby is alive until the start cutting on them. This is just inhumane. That child feels pain until it is dead. It just seems kinder to stop its life and *then*do the procedure.


----------



## Irishmommy (Nov 19, 2001)

I read the Salon article, and the only thing the baby gets is whatever anesthetic goes through the placenta from the woman.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Here is a link about this procedure:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_late1.htm

You know it is awful to read how this procedure is done but for a small % of women it is one of their best if not only option they have. Some women are really facing a life or death situation. Some are losing their baby anyway due to defects.
I just don't buy that there are women lining up to have this done to their healthy babies because they have decided in their last trimester they just don't want their babies any more.

I do hope if the baby is still alive pain meds are given to the baby. I do have a problem with them not numbing the baby.
*edited to add that*


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

That's the part I don't understand.........
the PBA bill Bush signed into law would ALLOW PBAs to be done if the woman's health and/or life was in danger......... it just wouldn't be okay to decide to abort your fully formed baby as an elective procedure. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone would be against that bill.

And the slippery slope argument isn't valid, IMO. If that's the case, women should be allowed to deliver and kill their babies on their own







:


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

from the site heather linked to:

Quote:

Another main reason for an abortion at this stage of pregnancy is that an ultrasound examination or an amniocenteses procedure has revealed that the fetus has a serious genetic defect, like Down's syndrome or spinal bifida. Essentially all pregnant women elect to have an abortion under these conditions.
what? essentially "all" women who know their baby has DS or spinabifida choose an abortion? could this possibly be true?


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I can't image they could actually know that. I wonder where they got that little tid bit from. I mainly posted the link for the explaination of the procedure, I didn't even catch that statement.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

i had to read it a bunch of times to see if that's what they were really saying. . .


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

I guess most women have the u/s and amnio. so they can abort if there's a problem. I knew I wouldn't, so I didn't get either.

Of course, this is a sweeping generalization.... I wonder if there are any statistics out there that makes my statement true







:


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Those were some of the reasons women have second trimester abortions.
Not that it makes it any better.
Third trimester abortions are ,according to that link

Quote:

Fewer than 1% of all abortions are performed in late pregnancy. They are prohibited by state and provincial medical associations, unless the fetus is dead, the abortion is required to save the life of the woman, or it is needed to avoid very serious health complications
. Now it does also say there aren't any records to prove they aren't done for non medical reasons. There appears to also be evidence a hospital was preforming them as an elective procedure.


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

Nikki-if you scroll down and do a search-look under PBA's and you will find the thread "Partial bith abortion ban" It is long, but answers a lot of your ?'s. It's on the activism page-"search this forum"

Here is a link to a support site for families:

a heart breaking choice


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

My heart goes out to the families that have had to make such a heart breaking decision. Those stories are so very sad.


----------



## *Erin* (Mar 18, 2002)

there is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion". any physician who would preform a procedere like the one that the anti abortion lobby has made terrible photos of, and preached about endlessly, well, that dr would be a monster. those types of abortions are like the saline abortions. there are much better, safer and kinder ways of aborting. and of course the fetus is dead. in most cases, in the second trimester, an injection is given thru the woman's stomach, into the womb, and into the fetus that stops it's heart from beating. labor is induced. delivery happens as it normally would.
and i know this to be fact.
this is what " really happens". i had one.
and what kind of real truth is going to be on a site like the one you posted. please.
have some compassion.

Quote:

_Originally posted by sleeping queen_
*Here is transcript from an abortionist.transcript You could also do a search for a website called silent scream that will give you the truth concerning partial birth abortion. No pro abortion person really wants people to know the horror of what happens.





















*


----------



## spatulagirl (Feb 21, 2002)

http://julia.typepad.com/julia/
http://uncommonmisconception.typepad...yearold_b.html

Just some links to bllogs I read. Two women who have actually had these procedures. Women who are suffering from infertility and who made these difficult choices when really they wanted nothing more than a baby.

Gives you a personal perspective.


----------



## jannan (Oct 30, 2002)

erin, thank you. that is what i was trying to say when i first posted. the procedure doesn't exist. period. and to say that all women who have found out about down's syndrome and spina bifida have aborted is not true. if it were true, i'd never come in contact with these children at work in severly disabled classrooms.


----------



## Irishmommy (Nov 19, 2001)

And then there's my sister. It was known before she was born that she had spina bifida. She's alive and well and perfectly normal.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Erin and Jannan, I'm as pro-choice as the day is long and the procedure does exist. The doctors who do them and the women who get them are not monsters. Read through the Salon.com article I posted above, or this site or look up intact dilatation and evacuation on the Web.

The procedure does exist and is performed (although second trimester abortions are rare and third trimester abortions rarer still as an overall percentage of abortions).


----------



## Morgaine (Mar 21, 2004)

If this procedure does not exist then why does it matter if it is banned?


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by sleeping queen_
*No pro abortion person really wants people to know the horror of what happens.*
Hmmm, I've never met anybody who is pro-abortion.

I am pro-choice, but I wish abortions never had to happen. I'd dance in the streets the day abortion become unnecessary.

Sadly, as long as sexually-inhibited conservative no-birth-control lovin' right wingers keep sex in the closet and insist that "just say no" is a solution, abortion will continue to be a sad necessity.


----------



## sleeping queen (Nov 10, 2003)

Saying one is pro choice is like a politician sitting on the fence. A person is either for abortion or agianst it. I know all about hard choices. I carried a baby I knew was going to die. I was offered the option to terminate, but what if the drs had been wrong. I carried her several more weeks after we found out she probably wasn't going to live. I don't regret one minute waiting.


----------



## Nikki Christina (Mar 27, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by sleeping queen_
*Saying one is pro choice is like a politician sitting on the fence. A person is either for abortion or agianst it. I know all about hard choices. I carried a baby I knew was going to die. I was offered the option to terminate, but what if the drs had been wrong. I carried her several more weeks after we found out she probably wasn't going to live. I don't regret one minute waiting.*
well good for you.. but you havent raised a child for 6 years is blind, almost deaf, cant eat by mouth, cant breathe without oxygen, cant move his arms , head, legs.. NOTHING..
you havent watched your child suffer like I have..
you havent raised a child that you know will either spend a few more years dying slowely.. or have an illess tomorrow that will kill him..

so dont pull the"i know all about hard choices" card like you have something over everyone else here.. YOU DONT

i love my son.. I bust my ass trying to give him some kind of life...
but honestly had i know what his life would be like when I was pregnant with him.. he would not be here

I also had a CVS with my daughter since we have a 25% chance of another affected child.. I spent weeks waiting for my results and praying she was healthy..
I wont bring another child here to suffer , that is MY choice

& then a known women who made the choice & carried their babies even though they will be sick..
thats their choice

I am prochoice. I am not FOR abortion..


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*That's the part I don't understand.........
the PBA bill Bush signed into law would ALLOW PBAs to be done if the woman's health and/or life was in danger......... it just wouldn't be okay to decide to abort your fully formed baby as an elective procedure. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone would be against that bill.*
OK, let me 'splain, 'cause you've got it wrong.







Under Roe v. Wade and the cases that come after it, the states regulate abortion, but they have different powers depending on how far along the pregnancy is. In general terms:

1) During the first trimester, abortion is a woman's decision to make.

2) During the second trimester, the state can place increasing restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion

3) During the third trimester the state can ban abortion as long as there is an exception for the life and/or health of the woman.

It is a huge misconception (promoted by the anti-abortion movement) that women are getting third trimester abortions on perfect babies as an elective procedure of convenience. It just ain't so. Very, very few doctors do late term abortions, and in the third trimester it's practically always because something has gone horribly wrong with the pregnancy.

The law in question does NOT ban third-trimester abortion. What it does is attempt to outlaw one particular procedure (as I described in my original post). The anti-abortion movement has picked on intact dilatation and extraction precisely because they're trying to split off pro-choice people who think "well, there's nothing wrong with outlawing third trimester abortions on perfect babies" when that isn't what it's about at all!!! And once one method of abortion has been outlawed (during any trimester), then the door is open to start picking away at other methods.

Just like all the laws that have been passed essentially trying to force abortion clinics to have the same standards as hospitals. "Oh, that's no big deal, we're just trying to protect women" everyone says, when it's all about trying to force abortion clinics - but not other doctor's offices where outpatient medical procedures are done under similar conditions all the time and no one blinks an eye - to shut down.

Under the PBA law, it is still legal for a doctor to do a dilatation and evacuation, i.e. dismembering the fetus in utero and pulling out the pieces. All that the law does is ban a particular medical procedure from being done, but it does not affect when abortions can be performed under what circumstances - that's still goverened by Roe v. Wade and subsequent cases.


----------



## Paxetbonum (Jul 16, 2003)

I think that pulling personal circumstances up is only helpful to a point.
All people who have had abortions need sympathy and compassion.

Let look at this in objective terms however. Putting a value on a human life is impossible. We cannot judge the "worth" of an unborn child by the amount of suffering or pleasure that they give to their parents.
All life is precious. Even children who are blind, deaf, brain damaged etc. are precious. We cannot judge the amount of spiritual good they do for others even by their mere existance.

I don't care how "humane" the procedure of killing is. Even if ppa were the most humane and gentle procedure around it still is chilling.

It still makes me shudder to think that rapists, terrorists, and child molesters still have more rights in our legal system than unborn babies.

How sad that occupying a womb has become a crime worthy of the death sentance.


----------



## jannan (Oct 30, 2002)

and a stab at pro-choicers........i hope you never need an abortion


----------



## jeyer (Oct 27, 2003)

*Erin* and Jannan -- Your assertions are incorrect. This procedure does indeed exist, Erin, even if it wasn't your personal experience.

And the fetus is not killed before it is dismembered during the procedure that doctors call "intact dilation and extraction." Please read this article for more detail: http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...1abortion.html

Here is an excerpt from the story. This is an exchange from the court inquiry involving Dr. Timothy Johnson of the University of Michigan (he heads my ob's practice, by the way).

Quote:

"Does the fetus feel pain?" Judge Richard C. Casey asked Johnson, saying he had been told that studies of a type of abortion usually performed in the second trimester had concluded they do.

Johnson said he did not know, adding he knew of no scientific research on the subject.

The judge then pressed Johnson on whether he ever thought about fetal pain while he performs the abortion procedure that involves dismemberment. *Another doctor a day earlier had testified that a fetus sometimes does not immediately die after limbs are pulled off.*

"I guess whenever I ..." Johnson began before the judge interrupted.

"Simple question, doctor. Does it cross your mind?" Casey pressed.

Johnson said it did not.

"Never crossed your mind?" the judge asked again.

"No," Johnson answered.
Johnson went on to say that he does not tell women that the arms and legs are pulled off, or that the brain is sucked from the skull, even though that is what happens.

He says: "We try to [explain] it in a way that's not offensive or gruesome or overly graphic for patients."


----------



## sleeping queen (Nov 10, 2003)

I'm afraid the fetus do probably feel pain.







Fetal pain I guess it kind of astounds me that people think these little ones feel nothing during any of these procedures.


----------



## Mommy StormRaven (Jan 21, 2002)

I'm pro choice here.

I have to say to those of you that think this procedure does exit seem to be playing into the hands of anti abortion activist.

I'm not sayign abortion is right or wrong but understand that women that REQUIRE a D&X (the proper term) Do not willingly make that choice. And example (which happened to a close friend of mine) she required a D&X at 24 weeks, she had a trisomy baby that had already died in utero. Did she WANT that procedure? Absolutely not, but did she NEED it? Yes, by all accounts she did - she consulted more than 3 doctors regarding the best course of action while she was heartbroken WAITING to see if she would miscarry.

I pray none of you anti abortionists are never forced to make such a heartbreakign choice.


----------



## onlyboys (Feb 12, 2004)

Quote:

Under the PBA law, it is still legal for a doctor to do a dilatation and evacuation, i.e. dismembering the fetus in utero and pulling out the pieces.
So, the women that need this procedure to be performed can still have it done right? Or some procedure to remove a dead/dying fetus from her uterus?

Amanda


----------



## onlyboys (Feb 12, 2004)

Quote:

I know someone who had an abortion after 20 weeks & was given a drug & then put in labor & delivered a still born who was intact & was cremated ..but this was in another country
I had a student who had an abortion at 23.5 weeks who was given a shot to stop the fetus' heartbeat and then given medications to deliver the fetus intact. She essentially went into labor and delivered the fetus into the hands of a nurse. She had to stay overnight at the abortion clinic in a separate space for 2nd trimester abortions.

This was in the US, in Florida. This was approximately 4 years ago. I don't know if they changed the procedure since then.

Amanda


----------



## Mommy StormRaven (Jan 21, 2002)

Quote:



Quote:

it is still legal for a doctor to do a dilatation and evacuation, i.e. dismembering the fetus in utero and pulling out the pieces.
So, the women that need this procedure to be performed can still have it done right? Or some procedure to remove a dead/dying fetus from her uterus?
That is just the thing.... THAT procedure is a D&E - not touched by the PBA law.

a D&E (Dilation and Evacuation) is the procedure most commonly done for abortions and "missed" Miscarriages after 12-15 weeks. It depends on fetal size. My "missed" m/c was at 12 weeks and the doctor almost had to do the D&E vs. the D&C.

Quote:

I had a student who had an abortion at 23.5 weeks who was given a shot to stop the fetus' heartbeat and then given medications to deliver the fetus intact.
That procedure was a D&X - Dilation and Extraction, Which is appropriate in anythign over 20 weeks - REGARDLESS of the reason the procedure is being done.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:

I'm afraid the fetus do probably feel pain.
So do children who are born with malformations and serious diseases.

Quote:

How sad that occupying a womb has become a crime worthy of the death sentance.
Oh please....saying that abortions, especially late term ones, happen juat beacuse a fetus is simply there 'occupying the womb' is simply ridiculous and it ridicules the heartbreaking choices some must make.
How sad that some cannot respect others enough to realize parents have a right over their children's (born or unborn) health decisions.


----------



## Mommy StormRaven (Jan 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Ilaria_
*How sad that some cannot respect others enough to realize parents have a right over their children's (born or unborn) health decisions.*






































WELL SAID!


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

(ot: michelle, my dd's middle name is Maeve too!)


----------



## attachmentfeminist (Mar 26, 2004)

Oh, wow. There are so many smart women on this board! I knew I joined for a reason.

Anyway, I read (can't for the life of me remember where, so please don't ask for a link) the D&E, as opposed to D&X, can give the fetus anethetic. So, they've not only outlawed the safest procedure for the mother, but the painless one for the fetus, provided it can feel pain.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I'm really just don't get why they outlawed the least dangerous of the late term procedures. Why, what is gained by that? Is it just a "win" purely because one form of abortion was banned, eventhough the procedure banned was safer and more "humane" than the one remaining?








:


----------



## jeyer (Oct 27, 2003)

I'm not sure what people mean when they say partial birth abortion "doesn't exist."







: The fact is that in a D&X, the baby, which is usually alive, is partially removed from the mother's body, and then the skull is punctured and the brains removed, at which point the fetus dies.

During yesterday's court proceedings in Nebraska (the court challenge to the partial birth abortion act), the focus was on whether a fetus experiences pain during the D&X procedure, as well as the D&E. This would be irrelevant if the fetus were already dead! Or if it were even anesthetized, for that matter.

See the story: Doctor testifies in abortion case that fetuses feel pain after 20 weeks


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jeyer_
*I'm not sure what people mean when they say partial birth abortion "doesn't exist."







:*
The term "partial birth abortion" is NOT what the procedures are called. That as far as I now is a term pro-lifers have coined it as.


----------



## Ann-Marita (Sep 20, 2003)

Attachmentfeminist -

I think you may have the terms mixed up. As I understand it, a D&E (dialation and evacuation) is when the fetus is pulled out piece by piece, and D&X (dialation and extraction) is where the fetus' body is removed from the uterus as a whole (except for the head), then the cerebrospinal fluid is removed, allowing the head to pass the cervix.

However, I believe you are correct in the assertion that a D&X would allow the doctor to give the fetus anesthetic, since it gives the doctor more access to the fetus' body.

Ann-Marita


----------



## jeyer (Oct 27, 2003)

Quote:

The term "partial birth abortion" is NOT what the procedures are called. That as far as I now is a term pro-lifers have coined it as.
Saying the procedure doesn't exist just because one doesn't agree with the coined name seems dishonest to me.

No matter what you call it, the procedure exists. A rose by any other name...


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I wasn't trying to say that IS why they said it didn't exist. I wasn't one of the posters who posted that. I just really wanted to make sure it was known that "partial-birth abortion" is a pro-life propaganda word. I do think calling a procedure something to just stir up emotion is also very misleading and dishonest.


----------



## Mommy StormRaven (Jan 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jeyer_
*Saying the procedure doesn't exist just because one doesn't agree with the coined name seems dishonest to me.

No matter what you call it, the procedure exists. A rose by any other name...*
Well see, the problem is that the anti abortionists have shown pictures - MOST of the pix shown were of D&E's (the more violent and less safe procedure) and that is NOT the one that has been outlawed. The D&X has, and it (IMO) is a much more humane procedure beign that you CAN anesthetize the fetus and ther is NO ripping off of limbs etc.

If you are going to propagandize (is that a word?) then at least use the CORRECT pictures for the procedure being propagandized.

Geesh!

Quote:

I do think calling a procedure something to just stir up emotion is also very misleading and dishonest.
Especially when they aren't even talkign about the same procedure!







:


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

Here are a few sites the first is an article that also states patial term abortion does not exist because it is not even colse to a 40 week preg. http://slate.msn.com/id/209020

This one is abortion law and terms. I am citing the one concerned with partial abortion, but at the bottom (it's pretty long) you can go back to the homepage for the laws for states and other terms for procedures. HTH>abortion laws

This is a site that is objective. I don't have time to quote, but they are informative.


----------



## *Erin* (Mar 18, 2002)

Quote:

I had a student who had an abortion at 23.5 weeks who was given a shot to stop the fetus' heartbeat and then given medications to deliver the fetus intact. She essentially went into labor and delivered the fetus into the hands of a nurse. She had to stay overnight at the abortion clinic in a separate space for 2nd trimester abortions.
this was my abortion. also in florida. late term. same thing. i stayed overnight, and labored and delivered.

i am horrified that a living creature of ANY kind, most esp. a fetus, would be delivered ALIVE and dismembered, or suctioned, or physically hurt in any way. WHY WHY WHY is the fetus's heart not stopped???? is there some reason the fetus is kept alive? of course it would feel pain. that's absolutely reprehensible.
thank you for the links, i had no idea.
i stand by my statement that any doctor that would do something like that to a LIVING fetus is a monster.


----------



## sleeping queen (Nov 10, 2003)

And a dr who kills the fetus first then delivers it isn't a monster? Erin, I'm not picking on you or judging your past.. You just gave an example of an argument I hear repeated over and over that doesn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum (Jul 11, 2002)

Gently please everyone.


----------



## Nikki Christina (Mar 27, 2003)

i understand what erins saying..
giving a shot that stops the heart should be painless
delivering alive & dismembering would not be painless

it makes sense to me

thats why I started this thread in the first place.. not to debate PBA.. but to get some understanding why the fetus couldnt have its heart stopped before anything was done..
I did get some info on why the baby couldnt be delivered vaginally or the head had be minimized to do so

but still dont understand why drugs are not always giving first so the fetus is dead..


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I agree with Erin and Nikki on this. The baby should feel NO pain.
If they do not already asure that why don't they? I would really like to know more about that. If they indeed don't make it painless for the baby, why aren't people fighting to make it painless?


----------



## jeyer (Oct 27, 2003)

Quote:

The baby should feel NO pain.
Exactly. Why on earth don't they stop the baby's heart first? The abortionist quoted in the story I previously linked to said he never even thought about whether the fetus feels pain.

How could he not think about it??? These late-term abortions he performs are sometimes around the same gestation as when some premature babies are now viable. Certainly if you were to plunge scissors into the head of a preemie after it's born, one would expect it to hurt. Actually, one would expect the baby to feel excruciating pain. I don't see any reason why a "fetus" at the same gestation should be any different.

IMO, if the procedure must be done, then the fetus should be killed first via a humane method. Same goes for a D&E. Anything less is abhorrent.


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

The "abortionist??"
I assume you mean the Doctor?

Nooo loaded language here or anything....







:


----------



## onlyboys (Feb 12, 2004)

Quote:

And a dr who kills the fetus first then delivers it isn't a monster? You just gave an example of an argument I hear repeated over and over that doesn't make a lot of sense.
And, to you there is no discernible difference between stopping a fetus's heart and dismembering it?

There's a world of difference.

Amanda


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by asherah_
*The "abortionist??"
I assume you mean the Doctor?

Nooo loaded language here or anything....







:*
From Websters Online:

Main Entry:abor·tion·ist
Pronunciation:-sh(&-)nist
Function:noun
: one who induces abortions

I am always surprised that people are bothered by the term abortionist, I mean, it is what they do, the vast majority of abortions are done by Doctors who specialize in abortion, and that is the main area of their medical practice







:


----------



## jeyer (Oct 27, 2003)

Quote:

*The "abortionist??" I assume you mean the Doctor?

Nooo loaded language here or anything...*







:
As jess7396 pointed out, that is what a doctor who specializes in or even just performs abortions is called. If you're uncomfortable with it, perhaps you should rethink whether you're really comfortable with abortion.

Does it bother you that doctors who perform surgeries are called surgeons?


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

Um, the fact that the word exists doesn't mean that's what doctors who perform abortions are properly called.

Performing abortions is not, in fact, a formal medical speciality.. so comparing it to surgery and surgeons doesn't wash.

Most doctors who perform abortions are actually gynocologists, or OB-GYNs, so if you want to mince words, that's what they'd be called, not "abortionists." And.. uh.. most also work in clinics where all kinds of gynocological services are also provided.

The better comparison would be calling a gastroenterologist a "colonoscopist" because that is one procedure they perform.
And no one does that, of course.

The only people who call doctors who perform "abortionists" are "pro-lifers."

And you are just being disingenuous and dishonest to say otherwise. You say "abortionist" because you WANT to degrade the doctor, and because you WANT a certain reaction, not because that's what they are called.

It is the same reason you call the procedure a "partial birth abortion."

And I sure could respect you a lot more if you would just cop to it and say.. "yes we use this inflammatory language because it helps us make our point."

And as for your snark about my re-thinking whether I am comfortable with abortion:

For the record:
I am adamantly, unashamedly pro-choice.
I am so radical I do not even believe that women who have abortions have to cover themselves in sack-cloth and ashes to prove anything to anyone.
I believe it is no one else's business, ever.


----------



## jeyer (Oct 27, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by isleta_
*Here are a few sites the first is an article that also states patial term abortion does not exist because it is not even colse to a 40 week preg. http://slate.msn.com/id/209020*
This link is to a column, not an article. And it isn't very convincing to me. According to his reasoning, anything less than 40 weeks or very close to it can't be considered a "birth."

Tell that to the mother of a preemie! When a baby is born at 22, 23, 24 weeks, is it not really "born?" What do you call it, then?

I understand why the term partial-birth abortion is controversial, but let's face it: The fetus is removed from the woman's body at a point where he or she has a chance of being viable (at 24 weeks it has a 50% chance). If the "delivery" [removal?] were to continue, it would be considered a birth. Only because the fetus is killed first is it not a birth.

Also, I stand corrected on the term "abortionist." I have seen it used not just by pro-lifers, but over and over in the mainstream media, in headlines and in stories, so I thought it was the proper term. I just consulted my Associated Press stylebook (my bible on matters like these), however, and discovered that it reads:

"Avoid abortionist, which connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions; use a term such as abortion doctor or abortion practitioner."

Note, though, that it doesn't say to simply write "doctor" or "ob-gyn."


----------



## asherah (Nov 25, 2001)

I have no problem mentioning that the Doctor in question provides abortions. Obviously that would be neccessary in context.

"Abortionist," as you have acknowleged, is another matter.

And I feel the language IS important.

It is what gets people angry and defensive.

If we use neutral terms, then we can actually talk TO instead of AT each other.


----------



## jeyer (Oct 27, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by asherah_
*If we use neutral terms, then we can actually talk TO instead of AT each other.*
I agree! I just posted something in a similar vein in a different thread: http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...0&pagenumber=4


----------



## jeyer (Oct 27, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mommy StormRaven_
*Well see, the problem is that the anti abortionists have shown pictures - MOST of the pix shown were of D&E's (the more violent and less safe procedure) and that is NOT the one that has been outlawed. The D&X has, and it (IMO) is a much more humane procedure beign that you CAN anesthetize the fetus and ther is NO ripping off of limbs etc.

If you are going to propagandize (is that a word?) then at least use the CORRECT pictures for the procedure being propagandized.

Geesh!
*
The pictures -- or drawings, rather -- that I've come across do accurately depict each procedure. National Right To Life has these on their website: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA...hers_Place.htm. I believe these were the images shown during the legislative debate on the issue. I have to say, these images have haunted me ever since I first saw them.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

This is so sad. .


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

Why can't the woman dilate fully?
The cervix cannot dilate to 10 cm without a full grown baby head pressing aginst it, or at least a full grown baby butt sitting on it. If there isn't enough pressure on the cervix it can only dilate to about six with pit or natural labor. I know someone is gonna come in and list all the exceptions, so let me just say, that this is for the most part, there are of course exceptions.

"Partial birth abortion" is an inflammatory term coined by people in the pro life movement to shock and horrify people. So in that sense, "partial birth abortion" does not exist. To me it is sickening that the media has latched onto the phrase. There is so much politicizing, so much ratings whoring that factual information on abortion is impossible to find in the mainstream media. Then pro life groups spread misinformation on the internet as scare tactics. uke


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Quote:

_"Partial birth abortion" is an inflammatory term coined by people in the pro life movement to shock and horrify people. So in that sense, "partial birth abortion" does not exist. To me it is sickening that the media has latched onto the phrase. There is so much politicizing, so much ratings whoring that factual information on abortion is impossible to find in the mainstream media. Then pro life groups spread misinformation on the internet as scare tactics. uke [/B]_
_
_
_
I agree! I have gone to a few anti-abortion sites and some of the info on them is just lies. I know on one site it supposedly showed aborted fetuses and the gestation ages were way off. They showed 8 weeks fetuses that were *way* more developed than my ds was when I got an us at 10weeks4days (he looked like a sweet little bean). I really wish they wouldn't do that._


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

I went to Mass last Sunday (yes, I'm Catholic) and they had a pamphlet showing a baby at 8 weeks when 'most abortions occur'. It was basically a tiny, fully formed baby...whatever point you are trying to get across, you shouldn't lie. It makes your argument weaker IMO.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

You know what I thought of that the anti-abortion sites are probably showing the fetus at actual fetal age and really most women are having abortions when the baby is 6 weeks actual gestation age but considered 8 weeks pregnant. When I had the US done w/ds at 10weeks4day he was acually 8weeks4days. Two weeks makes a big difference in development and that is just so very misleading.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

I agree, it does make the argument weaker. When you bend or ignore the truth in order to arouse an erradic emotional response, you look desperate.

And besides the discrepancy ingestation, what about the "side effects" sites they have to scare women out of abortion? blech.


----------



## 15yrsbetweenboys (Aug 11, 2003)

Just something to think about......
when pre-term labor is experienced, women actually "deliver" the babies-even in what we would call miscarries. There is actual dilation and the baby (or fetus if you prefer) can pass through the vaginal canal. Since I know that this is true, why couldn't they just induce "labor" to deliver the baby/fetus? My mother miscarried at 4 months (not sure of the weeks though, I was only 10) and she had full blown labor and delivered the baby. Wouldn't it be much more humane for the mother to endure a little pain and just deliver the baby? In that case, most babies would die on their own (without being killed) by just a lack of intervention in a very short time. Of course, that in itself wouldn't be very humane-but I am curious why anyone would think it isn't possible to dilate to 10cm until full term? Of course, you wouldn't have to fully dilate to 10cm to deliver a pre-term baby-they aren't nearly as big.
Just my thoughts
Shan


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

My understanding is that this is what is done in almost all cases. Of course if you are aborting a fetus that is very small you may only have to dilate to 5 or 6 cm-- even less with a tiny fetus. The cervix must dilate and the uterus must contract for the fetus, placents and fluid to come out, plain and simple, no matter what.


----------



## PurpleBasil (Jan 28, 2004)

A woman's cervix doesn't have to dilate to 10 cm to birth a 'full term' baby. That is part of a huge misunderstanding about natural birth that needs to stop. The magic 10 cm, aka, 'you're complete and can push' is complete BS.

Some women birth a baby at 9cm dilation. Some at 11cm. It is a
_guess_ at best. And a disgusting act in itself (vaginal 'exam') based in managing birth. Yoni is sacred space and birth managers need to get their fingers out of it.

End of rant.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Sheacoby_
*You know what I thought of that the anti-abortion sites are probably showing the fetus at actual fetal age and really most women are having abortions when the baby is 6 weeks actual gestation age but considered 8 weeks pregnant. When I had the US done w/ds at 10weeks4day he was acually 8weeks4days. Two weeks makes a big difference in development and that is just so very misleading.*
Yes, most of us crazy pro-lifers







do show pictures of babies at actual fetal age, as opposed to what most people







wonder about with the way pregnancy is counted. I feel it is more accurate to show actualy fetal age than to count from LMP, b/c the baby wasn't there to be counting their age prior to conception, all of the pictures I show state clearly that this is the baby's age from conception (I really don't feel you can count a beings age prior to their conception







: ).

I won't speak for others, but I do all I do (which BTW- is only showing pictures of living babies in utero) with the intent of being accurate, not as an intent to mislead. And- our fetal models are all completely accurate to development.

I believe there are people on both sides who are misleading about fetal development- your examples are some on the pro-life side, and then there are the "blob of tissue" comments on the pro-choice side.

I'll post links later showing some unborn babes with actual fetal ages, just for the sense of accuracy


----------



## jeyer (Oct 27, 2003)

I wish the abortion debate would move from what the fetus looks like, to what the fetus can *feel* during an abortion.

Let's start thinking about how abortion can be made more humane for the fetus.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by playdoh_
*A woman's cervix doesn't have to dilate to 10 cm to birth a 'full term' baby. That is part of a huge misunderstanding about natural birth that needs to stop. The magic 10 cm, aka, 'you're complete and can push' is complete BS.

Some women birth a baby at 9cm dilation. Some at 11cm. It is a
guess at best. And a disgusting act in itself (vaginal 'exam') based in managing birth. Yoni is sacred space and birth managers need to get their fingers out of it.

End of rant.*
Um... yikes... 10 cm is a general guideline. Don't clump me into a group of people who manage birth. I'm not sure what the hell your problem is with me but I am so sick of being attacked by you. I've noticed that pretty much all of your posts have a general negative tone, which is fine, just leave me out of it already.

Obviously every baby has a different size head and every woman has a different sized cervix. Many birth managers call 10 cm when the cervix is 11 cm or 9 or whenever the baby's head has no cervix left around it. There isn't really an accurate way to determine the exact centimerage (is that word, I don't think it is,) even if you've measured your fingers.

My point is that a cervix can very, very rarely dilate enough to pass a large part without the part pressing aginst it or intervention. Pit can't always force open a cervix.

I was thinking all night last night about this, and I really think the truth of the matter lies in the fear of stretching out the yoni. If a woman passes the full baby, her yoni tissues will change-- they want her to have the "wedding bed" yoni-- to me this is so SICK!! In Brazil the c/s rate is over 70% for this reason. If a woman is having an abortion, she most likely doesn't have older children, so medical industry wants her to keep her "tightness."

uke


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jeyer_
*I wish the abortion debate would move from what the fetus looks like, to what the fetus can feel during an abortion.

Let's start thinking about how abortion can be made more humane for the fetus.*
From everything I have personally read it is unlikely that a 8week fetus can feel much if anything. Of course on anti-abortion sites they try to make you believe an embryo can feel pain at very young gestastion age. Younger than 8weeks. I have read that a lot of scientist question a fetus's ability to feel pain before 20weeks. This can be argued either way and who really knows. I think to to be on the safe side maybe 12weeks or so and beyond the fetus should be injected so there is no chance of it feeling pain. Just my opinion of course.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

I'm guessing you mean can't feel anything. I guess the question would be, and maybe it's for another thread, when and to waht degree is the central nervous system formed in early gestation?


----------



## guestmama9924 (Mar 16, 2002)

Out of my clients that have had 3rd trimester terminations, ( 2) both reported to me that it was very humane to everyone involved considering the sadness of it all. I will not state the reasons for either situation , as it is completely not the point.
Both had an injection directly into the womb that basically gave baby a quick heart attack. I don't know the meds, or where the injection was given.
Labor was then induced and standard delivery followed, along with a grieving process. It was not a 'partial birth' it was a whole birth of a still born baby.
I agree that the whole shock value of gross propaganda from the anti-choicers is over the top.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Lauren, yes it was a typo. I corrected it.
From what I have read the scientist are basing their opinions on when the nervous system is developed enough to feel pain.
I read quite a bit about this a couple of years ago I wish I could remember some of the sites I read stuff on.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Actually, you were right the first time - it is unlikely that an 8 week old fetus *can* feel anything. Or alternatively it is likely that an 8 week old fetus *can't* feel anything.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Quirky, you are right and I have changed it back. That was what I was trying to say. For some reason when I wen't back and reread it after veganmamas post it seemed wrong but it wasn't.
To be very clear I do NOT think an 8 week old fetus *can* feel pain.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

:LOL Sorry, i must have been skimming...


----------



## *Erin* (Mar 18, 2002)

back to the original question of why not stop the fetus's heart every time?
if you go with the logic that dilation will not happen "enough" to deliver a larger fetus without the fetus actively pushing down on it, then why in the name of all that's decent NOT A C SECTION??

wondering why. why put the fetus thru pain and suffering, the mother thru pain and suffering and full blown labor and delivery of a LIVE baby? is there some reason a csection wouldnt be done?


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

C-sections are more dangerous and it takes longer to heal from them. That's probably at least two reasons why not c-sections.


----------



## Mom2baldie (Oct 29, 2002)

Just a lurker here Erin, but I feel that in the longrun a cesarean would cause the mom more pain and suffering. She would see her scar everyday and remember what its from (not that people dont remember anyways, but maybe you know what Im talking about







). Also, a cesarean would put future pregnancies at a slightly higher risk since it can cause placental problems and a small, but higher than for previous vag. birth, of stillbirth - very rare but it does still happen.

I think that if its going to be done, the shot before the procedure is a very good idea and best for everyone involved.

Okay back to lurking.


----------



## *Erin* (Mar 18, 2002)

maybe i shouldve clarified-i'm well aware of the risks posed by csections. but one of the other posters said that the logic behind NOT giving the fetus a shot beforehand was that the fetus needed to be alive to help the cervix open more, b/c it would be too big to deliver without more dilation. kwim???? they DO give the fetus the shot in most cases. i'm talking about the OTHER times, when they don't. why not a csection for those? i'm sure that the mama would rather take the risks herself than to make her fetus suffer, dying as it's delivered. that's what i meant.

edited to add
i'm not the moral barometer for sure, but that's what i'd do, if there were no way to ensure that the fetus would be dead prior to delivery.


----------



## Mom2baldie (Oct 29, 2002)

Oh, I understand what youre saying now.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

kl


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Just by the fact that you asked the question how you did tells me that there is nothing I could say that would make you get why I had an abortion. I don't think you even really care. The fact you are "floored" by the fact that women actually have a hard time aborting and it is very painful for them says a lot!


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:

have never regretted my choices.
Isn't it great that you did have those choices?

If you are REALLY interested in finding out why one would NEED to get one, you can look around here
http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/


----------



## OneCatholicMommy (Jan 21, 2002)

www.benotafraid.net


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

That link was sad.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I have no idea if the fetus I aborted was abnormal. I was about 7weeks maybe 8weeks pregnant at the time. I think asking anyone why they "killed" their baby is only going to put someone on the defensive.
I have never been in the situation of being pregnant with a baby who has a lot of birth defects some which are deadly. I don't know what I would do under those circumstances. I won't be having any more ultra-sounds (unless I feel something is wrong, I was to bleed or not feel movement etc..) so I guess I wouldn't actually know anyway.

OneCatholicMommy, I can't get your link to work.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

Why?


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

I would have to say that since most abortions are done in the first trimester that no most women don't abort because of defects. I would gather that a good percent of late term abortions are done because severe defects of the fetus. I don't really even know how I feel about it I guess it depends on what the defects are. I imo aborting a baby with say down sydrome is wrong, I would not do that. I however would never think that I know what someone is going thru and why they make the decisions they do.
I know a woman (family member) who was married when she had an abortion. She already had children as well. She aborted because they could not afford to have any more kids, they could barely feed the ones they had. I might also add it was an illegal abortion, done before we had legalized abortions. Most of the other women I know who have had them were not married , most were also teens.
I think asking why someone chose to abort is much more respectful than asking why someone killed their baby.


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

I probably would abort if giving birth to a baby would put my life in serious danger, or if it was a matter of choosing between me and the baby. My born children need a mother, not a martyr.


----------



## *Erin* (Mar 18, 2002)

Quote:

You don't need to be defensive. I am not attacking you. I really can't to understand why someone would kill a baby they want just because they are abnormal ( if they are abnormal at all, there is no way to know this 100%)
i feel very defensive ready your posts here on this thread. You did mean it that way, whether you're consciencely aware of it or not. you are judging. not asking a simple question.

oh, and yes, you can know 100% if your fetus is abnormal, or has a devastating birth defect that is incompatable with life. with u/s and amnio.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

j


----------



## OneCatholicMommy (Jan 21, 2002)

www.benotafraid.net

It's working today, wasn't working yesterday.


----------



## *Erin* (Mar 18, 2002)

hearts light, i'd be interested to see the margin of error. do you have any scientific proof that there is a significant one? a link perhaps? one that does not go right to an anti abortion site, please. thanks. your friend's story sounds tragic. but. didnt they stop preforming saline abortions about 20 years ago? i would imagine that the technology wasn't what it is now, then.
i didnt call you a liar. you said that. i didnt. i don't think name calling and petty eye rolling icons are necessary. we're not in high school. and this thread isn't about your demands that womyn who've aborted tell YOU WHY and HOW. I, and any other womyn who's had an abortion. owe. you. nothing. it's not about you. or the pro-choice vs. anti-choice debate. i believe the OP wanted to discuss the term "partial birth abortion" and what it means.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Well said, Erin. Thank you. No one owes anyone an explanation of their abortion(s). It is totally private. In fact, many midwives do not write down the number of abortions or any abortion related medical history, so it doesn't end up in a client's medical record. Esp. in CA with the new HIPAA laws on records. Many issues midwives discuss with clients don't make it into the record to protect the client's privacy. Why? I think it's pretty offensive to start demanding people give you answers about their abortions.
my~hearts~light- you say you are very pro-choice but not in a political or legal sense.







You say things like, "I can't understand why if this was so hard to do, would you still choose to kill your baby." Would you ask that of someone who chose to end chemotherapy? What about someone who was molested and chose to confront their abuser-- or chose not to? Sometimes good choices are still hard. To me it sounds like you view abortion as morally wrong. You call it "killing a baby" and believe that the better choice is always to keep the pregnancy, since abortion is a hard decision. It is a hard decision to give a baby up for adoption- should mother's who do this just keep their baby because the decision is too hard? To me it's really a silly question, I guess. Choosing whether or not to vaccinate is hard. Should I just vaccinate my child because it is such a hard decision? Many choices in lafe are hard. Sometimes making the right decision for one's self takes much strength to follow through with.


----------



## RubyV (Feb 4, 2004)

ITA Erin.


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Right on, Erin!

I've been following this thread from a distance, because most of the "baby killing" rhetoric is just making me sick. SICK. The NERVE of some of you to point fingers and accusations and put women who have made heatbreaking decisions on public trial!!!

Do you (and I'm referring to the anti-choice folks) honestly think any of these women bothering to try and explain their decisions to you did so lightly?

As far as partial birth abortion, validity and rhetoric aside, do you honestly think any woman considering this as an option does so without the heaviest of hearts? We may be on all sides of the political and choice spectrum, but our lives as women and mothers bind us...and I just can't understand for the life of me how shaming and degrading someone making probably the most difficult choice of her life helps anyone.

And lastly...I've mentioned this before... those of you who are tossing about the term baby-killer are the very same folks posting in other places about how wonderful Bush and co. are with their war-- go, bombs in Iraq! Do dead Iraqi babies not count? I have a feeling that death by mortar attack is definitely not humane or gentle.

Let she who lives in a glass house not throw stones.

I wish all the hate and judgement against women would just go away. I am sad, sad, sad.


----------



## sleeping queen (Nov 10, 2003)

Quote:

because most of the "baby killing" rhetoric is just making me sick.
Technically, abortion is killing a baby. It seems using other terms just softens the harsh reality of abortion.


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sleeping queen*
Technically, abortion is killing a baby. It seems using other terms just softens the harsh reality of abortion.

Laura, you're wrong. If we're gonna get technical, it's "terminating a fetus".

Ahh, the joy of semantics. Words are sharper than knives.

And NO ONE here is denying that abortion is a harsh reality.


----------



## jengi33 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IslandMamma*
Laura, you're wrong. If we're gonna get technical, it's "terminating a fetus".

Ahh, the joy of semantics. Words are sharper than knives.

And NO ONE here is denying that abortion is a harsh reality.

Islandmamma, are you a momma? If so, when you were pregnant did you refer to your child as your fetus? I doubt that most of us refer to our babies as fetus'. And don't any of you give me a response about the difference being because we wanted our babies! (like my grammar!







)


----------



## onlyboys (Feb 12, 2004)

Actually, I _did_ refer to my children as fetuses when they were such. They were embryos first and then fetuses and when they were born they were my child.

I did not know them; I did not know their gender. It did not bother me at all to refer to them using the scientific name.

Maybe this makes me weird, I don't know.


----------



## jengi33 (Jan 7, 2002)

You actually said, through your pregnancy, something like "oh feel my tummy, the fetus is moving!" to your husband or SO?


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:

Do dead Iraqi babies not count?
Born babies and children anywhere (even the US where the number of those in extreme poverty is appalling) don't seem to be as important as the unborn ones.







:

I saw a sign at a rally that said "War is not pro-life" and I refuse to call anyone who supported this maniac and his war a "pro-lifer".


----------



## onlyboys (Feb 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jengi33*
You actually said, through your pregnancy, something like "oh feel my tummy, the fetus is moving!" to your husband or SO?


I usually said "our" fetus. :LOL

I said, it may be weird.

I understand your point, jengi. If we appreciate the nature of our pregnancies and understand that the fetus we carry within is a potential baby, then most of us would probably refer to the growing fetus as a baby. As our baby.

Women who do not wish to continue with the pregnancy, do not see their fetus in this way. They view their pregnancy as unfortunate, even if it is _wanted_ in way. All the women I've ever known who had abortions did not want to have an abortion, they just didn't want to be pregnant anymore.


----------



## Bex80 (Feb 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Quirky*
It also doesn't help those parents who are having this procedure not because they "oops" forgot to have an abortion but because something went dreadfully wrong, and the intact dilatation and extraction procedure gives them a dead baby to hold and mourn, not a pile of pieces/parts.


I am not pro-choice, but that's a good point. I never thought about it that way, under those circumstances, especially when the baby was conceived on purpose. It seems like more closure for the parents?


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jengi33*
Islandmamma, are you a momma? If so, when you were pregnant did you refer to your child as your fetus? I doubt that most of us refer to our babies as fetus'. And don't any of you give me a response about the difference being because we wanted our babies! (like my grammar!







)

Again, Jenny, it's a matter of SEMANTICS.

Of COURSE I referred to him as my baby, but I knew he was a fetus at that point. That's 8th grade science.


----------



## RubyV (Feb 4, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jengi33*
You actually said, through your pregnancy, something like "oh feel my tummy, the fetus is moving!" to your husband or SO?

We used to refer to "Emby". As in Embryo. And "Fety".

I had this conversation with a friend who was also pro choice while pg. He asked me if I thought of her as a fetus, a baby, a person, etc.

For me, I didn't think of Dev as an actual person until somewhere in the third trimester, where viability is possible. I refered tot he "baby", and I was very happy to be pg, but she represented potentiality, the potential to be my child. Yes, we did bond in utero.

Sorry if that sounds strange. Island, ITA, and onlyboys.


----------



## attachmentfeminist (Mar 26, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RubyV*
We used to refer to "Emby". As in Embryo. And "Fety".


Haha! We all called my son "Phil the Fetus" until he was in the hospital bassinet. "Hey, Shina's at the hospital, giving birth to Phil the Fetus!"

I didn't think of him as an actual personality until about the third trimester, round the time you described. He was a part of my body, he had potential. He'll always know he's here because he was/is wanted, that he was my choice and that makes him even more special.

[/ blah] lol


----------



## jengi33 (Jan 7, 2002)

So those of you who call yourselves attached parents now, didn't feel any attachment to your baby until the 3rd trimester? How would you have felt about losing your baby earlier? No sadness? What about when you heard the heart beat for the first time at about 10 weeks?

For me, pregnancy and becoming a mother was the first step in my move away from thinking that abortion was an acceptable option.


----------



## *Erin* (Mar 18, 2002)

hah, we called maya "fety" too! i did feel a stronger attachment to her as a baby after I had to have a level 2 u/s done and we found out she was a girl in the process. still, she was not so much a baby to us until the beginning of the 3rd trimester. the first time i heard the heart beat, it was actually sorta creepy and alien. so was the u/s, at about 12-13 weeks. it was bizarre for me...


----------



## *Erin* (Mar 18, 2002)

also, i would've been sad to lose the pregnancy had i miscarried, but i wouldve moved on and felt like it was meant to be. miscarriages usually happen for a good biological reason.


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

You know, this thread has turned into a general abortion debate thread. I think we should bring this thread to a close and either drop the abortion debate or start another thread for it. IMO, this is getting way OT. It seems to be that every thread re: abortion always comes back to the same old arguments. Maybe I should C&P my stance and opinions, and the arguments I always seem to have to use, so I don't ahve to re-type the same thing every time.







:


----------



## *Erin* (Mar 18, 2002)

"Maybe I should C&P my stance and opinions, and the arguments I always seem to have to use, so I don't ahve to re-type the same thing every time"

mhmmm.
right on. but now, my whole plan to just ignore the predictable metamorphisis of this thread is shot. sigh. i vote to terminate this thread. ooooooooooo. poor taste. sorry.


----------



## jengi33 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *veganmamma*
You know, this thread has turned into a general abortion debate thread.


Is there something wrong with that?


----------



## veganmamma (Sep 10, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jengi33*
Is there something wrong with that?

Yes, actually, it is completely off topic. If you want to have an abortion debate thread, it would be much better etiquette to start a new thread.


----------



## onlyboys (Feb 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jengi33*
So those of you who call yourselves attached parents now, didn't feel any attachment to your baby until the 3rd trimester? How would you have felt about losing your baby earlier? No sadness? What about when you heard the heart beat for the first time at about 10 weeks?

With my first, I certainly did not feel much attachment (in relative terms) per se. I did feel responsibility, and I did feel that this fetus growing within me was a welcomed one. But, to say that I felt bonded or attached would not be entirely accurate.

I had no idea what I was going to feel. I worried that I wouldn't be completely smitten by my child after I had delivered him (or her), but as it turns out, love for my children might begin tenatively while they are in the womb, but when I birthed them, my bond with them truly began.

Then the most marvelous things happened to me, and my love for them grew exponentially. It's incredible.

To be frank, when I heard the heartbeating at 10 weeks or so, and felt the quickening, I thought the pregnanct seemed more real, but to say that I felt more "attached" would be inaccurate.

ETA: I neglected to finish reading the thread before I posted. I agree the topic is now entirely off-base.


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

k


----------



## Changed (Mar 14, 2004)

[


----------

