# Abortion Law



## Round Belly (Oct 2, 2003)

Maby somebody can answer one question for me.

How can partial birth abortion preserve a mother's health? And if you are going to go through birth anyway, can't you just let the child live?


----------



## feebeeglee (Nov 30, 2002)

I have often wondered the same thing.

What a crazy world we live in.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I wouldn't be surprised if it were only done the way it is to keep the mother's vagina intact.


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is a partial birth abortion. I have never heard of this before.


----------



## turquoise (Oct 30, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by hotmamacita_
*Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is a partial birth abortion. I have never heard of this before.*
This is something that I wish I didn't know about, but if you really want to know - I did a google and here's what I found: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

If you go to the site, be prepared to cry.

This site on surface appears to be pretty balanced. They have info on the VERY rare circumstances that would make it medically acceptable, (the baby will most surely die either way and if you don't perform the procedure he or she will take the mom too) but even then a cesarian could usually be performed instead, giving the baby a hope for a miracle. http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

I think this sums it up:

Quote:

"A select panel convened by ACOG could identify *no circumstances under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.*" They also determined that "an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision."
emphasis mine

I'm reading this paragraph to mean that while there are always other options available, in come cases these options may not be available to the dr (some drs are more skilled than others).

It's all so sad.









Quote:

There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X. Of course, many physicians lack this level of skill, and so need to resort to the D&X procedure. And, even in the United States, not all women have access to good quality pre-natal care. Many pregnant women first seek medical attention when they are about to deliver.
GRR














re:

Quote:

In addition, some physicians violate their state Medical Association's regulations and perform elective D&X procedures - primarily on women who are suicidally depressed.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest.
Why can't she have a first-trimester abortion? And in the case of the suicidally depressed woman, she could be induced and deliver vaginally, and the baby could go to the NICU. How is it that she would be more suicidal if her child lived?


----------



## AmyB (Nov 21, 2001)

"Partial birth abortion" (not a defined medical term) would usually be used in order to to avoid doing ceasarean surgery to deliver a fetus with such severe abnormalities that it will die outside the womb.

We all know that cesarean surgery is far more risky than vaginal delivery. Imposing this ban would force a women to undergo surgery at a time when she is facing not only the tragic loss of a child she probably wanted, but also serious risk to her own health that requires a quick, emergency delivery of the fetus.

When president Clinton vetoed the abortion ban he said:
"I understand the desire to eliminate the use of a procedure that appears inhumane. But to eliminate it without taking into consideration the rare and tragic circumstances in which its use may be necessary would be even more inhumane."

I hope this answers your question.

--AmyB


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I'm sure if a child was wanted, most people would have surgery (or deliver early with pitocin) if there were any chance at all the child would live.

And if a child was not wanted, why wait until the 3rd trimester to do something about it? I understand not everyone knows they are pregnant in the first tri, but early in the 2nd tri they usually figure it out.


----------



## AmyB (Nov 21, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Greaseball_
> *I'm sure if a child was wanted, most people would have surgery (or deliver early with pitocin) if there were any chance at all the child would live.*
> 
> Actually, if something like this happened to me, I would almost certainly choose an abortion and a quicker recovery time over abdominal surgery that would not only make my own medical condition more serious but involve a longer more painful recovery time.
> ...


----------



## Potty Diva (Jun 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by AmyB_
> 
> 
> *Quote:*
> ...


----------



## spero (Apr 22, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by AmyB_
[BWhen president Clinton vetoed the abortion ban he said:
"I understand the desire to eliminate the use of a procedure that appears inhumane. " [/B]
B-freakin'-S.
Don't even get me started on the "desires" that Clinton understands.

The procedure IS inhumane, and grossly so.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I wasn't talking about hydro heads, I was talking about mothers who have PBA because they are suicidal or too young and don't want the baby.

Major surgery is not the only option. How do you think they get the head into the vagina for a PBA? Wouldn't they have to induce labor? Why don't they just deliver a live baby with a small chance of survival? What further inconvenience would this have on the mother? It's not like she has to raise the child. She never has to see it again.

What would the chance of survival need to be for a mother to be willing to have surgery or induced labor? 10%? Greater?


----------



## 3boys4us (Mar 7, 2002)

Quote:

B-freakin'-S.
Don't even get me started on the "desires" that Clinton understands.

The procedure IS inhumane, and grossly so.
Then don't have one. YOU aren't being forced to undergo this procedure - you are supposed to be given a choice - ergo - you would choose not to.

I cannot understand how so many AP women could judge other women so quickly without compassion.

This is form Planned Parenthood:

Quote:

Medical indications may lead to abortion after 12 weeks. Discovery of serious fetal anomalies, such as severe genetic disorders, or conditions in which the woman's health is threatened or aggravated by continuing her pregnancy include

malignant hypertension, including preeclampsia

out-of-control diabetes

heart failure

severe depression

suicidal tendencies

serious renal disease

certain types of infections
These symptoms may not occur until the second trimester, or may become worse as the pregnancy progresses (Cherry & Merkatz, 1991; Paul et al., 1999)

Other Reasons for Postponing Abortion Past 12 Weeks

lack of financial and/or emotional support from the male partner

psychological denial of pregnancy, as may occur in cases of rape or incest

lack of pregnancy symptoms, seeming continuation of "periods," irregular menses

absence of partner due to estrangement or death (Paul et al., 1999)
Adolescents Often Delay Abortion Until after the First Trimester

From NOW:

Quote:

Myth: The "partial-birth" abortion bans only apply to late-term abortions.
Fact: With only one exception, none of these laws mentions stage of pregnancy.

That means that these bans could apply to abortions at every stage of pregnancy.

Myth: If we just pass these "partial-birth" bans, we won't have to worry about access to first and second trimester abortions.

Fact: Abortion procedure bans passed in 28 states are so vaguely worded that they could ban abortions throughout pregnancy, even in the first trimester.

Proponents of these bans admit they intend to limit or eliminate access to all abortions.

Myth: These bans are necessary to reduce the number of third trimester abortions.

Fact: States already restrict abortions late in pregnancy, permitting them only in certain rare cases.

The real goal of these bans is to restrict access to all abortions -- even in the first trimester. When Wisconsin's abortion procedure ban went into effect, every women's clinic in the state stopped providing abortion services.

Myth: "Partial-Birth" is a medical term which describes a particular abortion procedure.

Fact: You will not find the term "partial-birth" in any medical dictionary because it was made up by anti-abortion advocates.

It is a political term used to convince the overwhelmingly pro-choice public to support anti-abortion legislation. As defined in state ballot measures and legislation, the term could apply to any procedure, at any stage of pregnancy.

Myth: Even doctors support abortion procedure bans.

Fact: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) describes abortion procedure bans as ". . . inappropriate, ill-advised and dangerous."


----------



## Round Belly (Oct 2, 2003)

Every life has rights. A right to struggle for survival, a right to die humanly. However, the right to end another human's life for our convience is not one of them.

We have the obligation to extend the right to life to every living thing. This includes weeds, plants, cows and fetuses. IF we do not respect life, then we do not deserve others to respect our own life.

Sometimes we got to end a life of an animal or plant for our consumption. As long as we respect the life of the animal or plant and take joy in the nurishment therein, then that is fine. But if we kill just for sport or convience that is wrong.

Abortion seems to be mostly killing for convience. Convience because you do not want a baby, or because you do not think you want a special needs baby.

Ok ladies, let's face it you kind of have to do something to get pregnant. So if you have sex, expect the consquences- and respect the life. But because you did something to cause this life it is now your obligation to respect it, adn give it a chance at life- that doesn't mean you have to keep the baby- there are many people willing to adopt babies.


----------



## isleta (Nov 25, 2002)

How many more threads are needed for this topic? I mean obviously people have their opinion, but all this information has been on other threads!







:


----------



## 3boys4us (Mar 7, 2002)

Quote:

Abortion seems to be mostly killing for convience. Convience because you do not want a baby, or because you do not think you want a special needs baby.
So why did you start the thread? You asked for reasons as to why a late term abortion might be needed and then go on to state that it doesn't really matter - so what was the reasoning here? We have fought over this issue many times.

If you have a formed opinion already - state it and move on. I gave you reasons why SOME women and couples might make this decision - obviously it's not yours nor does it appear that you really cared for any answer.

IMO this is just baiting BS.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

I agree that this is just baiting bs.

But one comment bears note:

Quote:

I wasn't talking about hydro heads, I was talking about mothers who have PBA because they are suicidal or too young and don't want the baby.
Huh? Can you please cite for me how many intact D&Xs were done last year, or the year before, or the year before that, SOLELY because the woman was suicidal or "too young and didn't want the baby?"

Citations, please.


----------



## GoodWillHunter (Mar 14, 2003)

Round Belly--

Think for a moment you are pregnant. Sometime in the second trimester, you find out this baby has no kidneys (yes, this can happen.). Do you choose to go through the pregnancy so you can watch your beloved baby die immediately after birth? Do you go around with your pregnant belly and have strangers smile at you and ask you when it's due? Knowing that what you will be doing when that baby is delivered is picking out a coffin? A burial plot?

Some women can't cope with this. There is no way some fetuses can live outside of the womb. D&X, while seeming to be barbaric, can allow a woman to mourn what might've been instead of continuing to live in denial until the day of delivery.

Some women, I guess, are not as strong as you are. Good luck if this happens to you.


----------



## seren (Jul 11, 2003)

Quote : I cannot understand how so many AP women could judge other women so quickly without compassion.

Well, I can't see how so many AP women can be for something so cruel to a baby.

Edited to correct a mistake.







:


----------



## GoodWillHunter (Mar 14, 2003)

Oh, and just to point out something...

D&X are usually done in the second trimester. A fetus is not viable untill approximately 6.5 months...... You can't just give birth to a second trimester fetus and expect the NICU to save it. It has never been done. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is highly improbable.

Are you against abortion in the event of an ectopic pregnancy?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Do you choose to go through the pregnancy so you can watch your beloved baby die immediately after birth?
Yes. If my baby were to die, I would want it to die in a loving environment after I got to hold it.

For ectopic pregnancy, if you don't abort, your body will abort for you. I have never heard of a fetus being able to survive past the 1st tri if it is in the tube. (I have heard of full-term babies who were implanted in the abdominal cavity, though.) So if I had an ectopic I would abort, but I would tell them they are to treat the fetus with respect, remove it painlessly, and then give it to me so I can have a funeral service. If they refused to do this, I wouldn't go through with it.

My sister was born late in the 2nd tri and grew up fine. She's not the only one, either.

Those situations where 3rd tri abortion is needed doesn't explain why the head must be evacuated. I think they are just trying to spare the mother the pain of delivering the head.

The world record for preterm survival, well I forgot the gestational age, but the baby weighed only a few ounces. Who's to say mine couldn't do the same thing?

If anyone here started to go into labor at 25 weeks, wouldn't you rush to the hospital to try and have its life saved? Would anyone really just say "Oh well, it will die anyway, why try?"


----------



## GoodWillHunter (Mar 14, 2003)

Good point, Greaseball...

I stand bashfully corrected...

Thank you.


----------



## Potty Diva (Jun 18, 2003)

Quote:

For ectopic pregnancy, if you don't abort, your body will abort for you. I have never heard of a fetus being able to survive past the 1st tri if it is in the tube. (I have heard of full-term babies who were implanted in the abdominal cavity, though.) So if I had an ectopic I would abort, but I would tell them they are to treat the fetus with respect, remove it painlessly, and then give it to me so I can have a funeral service. If they refused to do this, I wouldn't go through with it.
And you might die.

Do you know how big your fallopian tubes are? Do you know how tiny the embryo is in an ectopic pregnancy?







:







:


----------



## AnnMarie (May 21, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by AmyB_
*"Partial birth abortion" (not a defined medical term)*
Doesn't change the fact that it is exactly what it is. The baby is partially born before it's killed and then the rest of it is born. So saying, "not a defined medical term" doesn't mean it's not true.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:

For ectopic pregnancy, if you don't abort, your body will abort for you. I have never heard of a fetus being able to survive past the 1st tri if it is in the tube.
But I have heard of women dying from ectopic pregnancies or being unable to have children after one. I really think this is something that requires immediate attention not waiting around for m/c to occur, the results of waiting could be terrible.


----------



## barbara (Feb 13, 2002)

Quote:

Major surgery is not the only option. How do you think they get the head into the vagina for a PBA?
Thank you Greaseball for stating the obvious.


----------



## feebeeglee (Nov 30, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by GoodWillHunter_
*Think for a moment you are pregnant. Sometime in the second trimester, you find out this baby has no kidneys (yes, this can happen.). Do you choose to go through the pregnancy so you can watch your beloved baby die immediately after birth? Do you go around with your pregnant belly and have strangers smile at you and ask you when it's due? Knowing that what you will be doing when that baby is delivered is picking out a coffin? A burial plot?*
If it were my 'beloved baby', I think I would want to pick out a coffin and a burial plot for him or her no matter the cause of death, be it from having his or her skull crushed or from the birth defect shortly after birth.

How much harder to grieve the death of a child when YOU have caused it.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Yes, I know death is a risk. My mother nearly died from an undiagnosed ectopic. She was really lucky to be able to conceive me.

My thinking was that since it's such a great risk, the hospital staff would be horrified to hear that I would do nothing about it. So horrified that they would agree to my demands of being able to have a funeral for the baby.

I could also find a hospital that believed in that sort of thing and just have the surgery there.

There was a debate about whether fetal remains removed duing a miscarriage that ended in d&c should belong to the mother. Currently they are considered medical waste. Pro-choice supporters feared that assigning funeral rights to a dead fetus could undermine abortion rights, but I say, just word it differently - make it about the mother and not the baby. Make it a right of the mother to keep anything removed from her body. Children are not medical waste!

If I were truly in a situation where my baby would die right after birth, going with what I believe is right for me would be the hardest thing ever. Dh would be totally against it. I'd have to tell well-meaning strangers really sad personal stuff just about every day. I can't really understand what it's like, so it's easy to have this idea of "what I would do."

I have a friend who deals with something similar. She has a 3 yr old son who, because of a genetic disorder, will probably not live to be 20. Every day she has to hear people comment on what a big strong man he is going to be, how there will be handsome grandchildren, etc.

People who are giving their babies up for adoption also deal with those comments, although that is nothing like knowing the baby will die, of course.


----------



## mrzmeg (Jul 16, 2002)

I usually avoid these discussions, so I'm getting in late. Wanted to correct this, though:

Quote:

A fetus is not viable untill approximately 6.5 months...... You can't just give birth to a second trimester fetus and expect the NICU to save it. It has never been done.
Not true. Babies have survived when born as early as 21 weeks. These micro-premies don't have a great chance, but they *do* have a chance.
I went into preterm labor, so it was pretty important for me emotionally to find out about gestational viability...

Back to your regularly scheduled debate


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

One situation I have heard of is if the baby has a specific muscular abnormality where it cannot fit out of the vagina w/out this proceedure *and* could only be born through c-section by a complete removal of the uterus which *often* leads to the mother not being able to bear additional children. In this case, the intact d&x may be the best solution in that the current child in uturo is not viable AND the woman would like additional children.

And that brings up the *REAL* point. Just because we don't know about these odd medical proceedures DOES NOT mean they don't exist and it DOES NOT mean that doctors should have do perform a more risky proceedure with NO ADVANTAGE.

Kay


----------



## jannan (Oct 30, 2002)

So, after reading this thread , is the pro-life movement defining a PBA as and abortion after 12 weeks? if that is true then I've Had a PBA and my reason for this is just as individual as all of us. It doesn't seem reasonble to say that" women have BPA's for this reason.........................."When i had my abortion I was told at the hospital that 20 weeks is a PBA and that PBA is not a medical term and that in california you have to be refered for a PBA and have it done in Los Angeles. this is all know.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

could only be born through c-section by a complete removal of the uterus which *often* leads to the mother not being able to bear additional children
I've never heard of this. Why wouldn't the baby be able to get out through a cut in the uterus? They could cut it really big! As far as taking the uterus out, do you mean a hysterectomy, or the common practice of temporarily removing the uterus from the peritoneal cavity during a c/s? (Why do you think they have those drapes? No one wants to see their internal organs lying next to them on a table!)

I wonder what most people would do in a situation like that - it's like, are the lives of your future children, even though they do not physically exist, more important than your living child who does exist? What to do...(of course, if this were a woman's last baby, I'd think it was sad that it had to die because she didn't want to have surgery.)


----------



## Irishmommy (Nov 19, 2001)

Okay, but why do they have to jam a scissors in the baby's head, then suction out the brain before breaking the skull to finish delivering? Why can't they at the very least, inject the baby with whatever they give to convicted murderers when they are executed and kill the baby that way, then deliver.

Why are innocent babies given less humane treatment than murderers?


----------



## Ms. Mom (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Irishmommy_
*Okay, but why do they have to jam a scissors in the baby's head, then suction out the brain before breaking the skull to finish delivering? Why can't they at the very least, inject the baby with whatever they give to convicted murderers when they are executed and kill the baby that way, then deliver.

Why are innocent babies given less humane treatment than murderers?*
I completely agree Irishmommy, thank you for saying it so well.


----------



## Lucysmama (Apr 29, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*

Major surgery is not the only option. How do you think they get the head into the vagina for a PBA? Why don't they just deliver a live baby with a small chance of survival? What further inconvenience would this have on the mother? It's not like she has to raise the child. She never has to see it again.

*
Some babies do not have a chance for survival. And, some babies have larger-than-normal heads that cannot be delivered vaginally without the surgical procedure which reduces the head circumference and allows it to pass thru the vagina. (Such as PBA)

"And what further inconvenience would this have on the mother?"
I don't think anyone should dismiss a decision like being faced with a PBA for medical reasons like that....the truth is, we have no idea what the mother will go through. But a small mention would be: abdominal surgery (far riskier to the mother's health) and death. (as in the case of being denied a PBA although your life is in jeopardy.)

These circumstances are rare, true - but so is PBA. If a mother is suffering from ecclampsia and must either cease to be pregnant or potentially die, and her fetus is not viable outside the womb, would you rather her die? Two lives will then be lost.

If a mother has a deformed fetus that cannot be delivered vaginally, and is not viable, would you have her go thru abdominal surgery while losing her child?

I do think this is a gut-wrenching procedure to imagine. A horrible choice to be faced with. I feel for every famliy faced with this decision. Women will now be forced to have a more dangerous procedure if they need to terminate, which is not right. I don't understand how this will benefit mothers whose lives may be in jeopardy, fetuses who aren't viable, and families who may lose both a woman and a child.


----------



## Lucysmama (Apr 29, 2003)

By the way, Irishmommy - ITA with you. Every precaution should be taken to ensure that the fetuses will not be in pain if PBA is necessary.

And re: ectopic pregnany -
Greasball said, "If you don't have an abortion, your body will abort for you."

Ectopic pregnancy is extremely dangerous to a woman if it is left alone. 40 to 50 women per year die in the US due to untreated ectopics. The embryo can only grow so large before it will burst the fallopian tube. (The most common place of implantation.) This can cause tubal damage, tubal loss, blood loss, internal bleeding, and death.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Some babies do not have a chance for survival.
But why can't they just be delivered (if their heads are normal sized) and then die peacefully, instead of dying painfully before being born?

About what I said re ectopics: I didn't mean that people should just wait for the natural abortion. I meant that since there is no way around losing the fetus, most pro-lifers probably would not oppose abortion in that situation. I still think it's horrible how babies - dead or alive - are treated in the hospital.

I don't know much about ecclampsia, but I thought the common treatment was bed rest and a cesarean.

Quote:

If a mother has a deformed fetus that cannot be delivered vaginally, and is not viable, would you have her go thru abdominal surgery while losing her child?
I wouldn't have anyone do anything. I'd never try to stop someone from having this procedure. I'd just be very sad.

Also, about the huge heads - is this a condition that is only discovered in the 3rd trimester? Wouldn't it be noticeable in the 2nd tri as well, when the mother could have an earlier abortion?


----------



## luckylady (Jul 9, 2003)

For everything we do there is a consequence that we have to live with for the rest of our days. it's easy to judge someone when you are not in their shoes but you never know what you will do until you are faced with the same set of circumstances. I imagine that people who jumped out windows on 9/11 never imagined they would do that. Or the Donner party never imagined they would eat one another. I can only imagine what having a PBA would do to a woman psychologically and spiritually. IMO abortion is murder. Period. I am one of the 1st trimester murderers, and that choice is something I have to live with the rest of my life. It's bad enough what I experienced. I cannot even imagine going through something like a PBA. My heart breaks for the babies and for the women who choose to do this.









and wanted to add

Quote:

Not true. Babies have survived when born as early as 21 weeks. These micro-premies don't have a great chance, but they *do* have a chance.
YES! A dear friend had a preterm baby at 21 weeks! AND HE LIVED. And he is bright and healthy.


----------



## Lucysmama (Apr 29, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*
I don't know much about ecclampsia, but I thought the common treatment was bed rest and a cesarean.
*








T

That would be the treatment for pre-ecclampsia, which, as the name insinuates, is the precursor to ecclampsia. An immediate member of my family had both, and nearly died before they could deliver the baby. (She was almost full-term.)


----------



## jannan (Oct 30, 2002)

i wish someone at the abortion clinic had said "and you won't be able to sleep for about 3 months, you'll think about your dead baby lying in a steril bowl instead of your arms after all this is done. " I thought the abortion would end something but it actually started a mourning process. the pro-choice people never tell you that.


----------



## pie (Apr 7, 2006)

Sometimes people use their 'AP-ness' as a badge of cool, and as a suit of identity, to give themselves a sense of self they might otherwise lack.

I am pretty offended that anyone would bring up how we choose to parent as an argument for or against a topic like this. Get an argument that has relevence to the topic. AP is its own thing, not an abortion issue.

edited for spelling


----------



## Lucysmama (Apr 29, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by jannan_
*I thought the abortion would end something but it actually started a mourning process. the pro-choice people never tell you that.*
I am very sorry that you had to go through this. Let me just respectfully point out that most "pro-choice people" like me, have never experienced an abortion first-hand. So it's not within our realm of knowledge or experience to tell people how they will react to abortion. Nor is it up to us. And, I know several people who are fine with their abortions, and who were not traumatized by them or even haunted afterward by what they had chosen to do. So even if we HAD had abortions, we really couldn't tell anyone something like that.

And let me also gently point out, pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It means pro-women's-choice. I am pro-choice, yet I would never personally have an abortion unless some medically necessary reason arose, in which case, I may now be denied that right.









Edited to add: Pie- we posted at the same time, but ITA with you.


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Irishmommy_
*Okay, but why do they have to jam a scissors in the baby's head, then suction out the brain before breaking the skull to finish delivering?*
I am *not* getting into the ethics discussion. But my understanding is that this is done when the fetal head is too big (as mentioned before with the fatal hydrocephalus) to fit through the pelvis. And I believe there are some practitioners that do inject the baby with medication to stop the heart before performing this procedure.


----------



## pie (Apr 7, 2006)

my opinion of all this is that late term abortion should absolutely be avoided whenever necessary. Which would be probably pretty much all the time. I am pro choice but I have the choice to say, I don't think it's a procedure that is very often medically necessary. I don't even think it belongs in the pro choice agenda.


----------



## Ms. Mom (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pie_
*I don't even think it belongs in the pro choice agenda.*
You know pie, I've never thought of it that way before. You got me thinking in a completely different direction on this - thank you.

I don't consider myself pro-choice or pro-life. Quit frankly I'm still confussed by how I feel on abortion. But 2nd term PBA just dosn't sit well with me. I'm trying to understand and be objective, but it's hard. When it comes to the life of the mother however, my views change There's no point in ending two lives when one can clearly be saved.


----------



## luckylady (Jul 9, 2003)

Lucysmama, I agree with you 100%. Taking away a woman's right to choose would not end abortion. It would only cause harm to women. I am also pro-choice. Most of all I am pro-education and pro-responsibility. In this day and age you would think that there is no reason why someone would have an accidental pregnancy to begin with, but it happens - a lot. All problems need to solved at the root, not at the blossom. It disgusts me that there ARE women for whom abortion is their method of birth control.

wanted to add that you quoted another person's post, but I agree with her 100% and I could have written those words myself.


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Quote:

_*... by pie*
... Sometimes people use their 'AP-ness' as a badge of cool, and as a suit of identity, to give themselves a sense of self they might otherwise lack.

I am pretty offended that anyone would bring up how we choose to parent as an argument for or against a topic like this. Get an argument that has relevence to the topic. AP is its own thing, not an abortion issue.
_

Tell it, mama.

And no, the doctors who perform abortion don't necessarily tell you how you'll feel emotionally afterwards. You know what? They don't tell you before childbirth, or heart surgery, or dialysis, either. That's not their job. They deal with the body, there are others trained to deal with the mind.

And it's inconceivable to me that any woman who goes through a 2nd or 3rd trimester abortion, particularly, doesn't go through her own personal hell, both leading up to and following the procedure. Yet the way it gets dismissed, as if it's cold calculation or even simple heartlessness ... that dismissal in itself strikes me as cold calculation and heartlessness, a simplification made for political gain and without any basis in reality ...

And not that this is directly responseive to the thread, but personally would have more understanding of the anti-abortion position if they placed any efforts in the direction of birth control and realistic education. Not that abstinence isn't a fine ideal, but it's not for everybody. But no, there's no interest in discussing or funding birth control initiatives.

Which is where the "anti-choice" crowd loses me totally. And gets my full-blown cynicism at full strength ...


----------



## MFuglei (Nov 7, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Irishmommy_
*Okay, but why do they have to jam a scissors in the baby's head, then suction out the brain before breaking the skull to finish delivering? Why can't they at the very least, inject the baby with whatever they give to convicted murderers when they are executed and kill the baby that way, then deliver.

Why are innocent babies given less humane treatment than murderers?*
Actually, this is a good point - one addressed at www.religioustolerance.org on their abortion information pages. It is believed that prior to 26 weeks a fetus can not feel "pain". After 26 weeks gestation, a fetus upon whom a D&X is performed, IS given pain medication prior to the procedure, whether they believe the fetus is "aware" or not. . . or at least it's strongly recommended according to the governing Obstetrical medical association.


----------



## MFuglei (Nov 7, 2002)

I just wanted to add, also, that we're talking about around 0.2% of all abortions performed here. . .

Women don't have PBAs because they don't decide until they are 24 weeks that they don't want their baby. . . a PBA is often an emergency procedure performed to save the life of the mother and is preferable to a hysterotomy (like a c-section), especially in the case of a child with an abnormally large head, to preserve the woman's ability to have children in the future.

It's very easy for us to throw around judgement and ethics here, but we're not talking about a woman who doesn't WANT her baby - often we're talking about a woman who has to grieve the loss of her child. In removing the option for herself, her partner, and her physician to choose a PBA, we may in fact be removing ENTIRELY her ability to have children in the future.

So essentially we're saying to her -- We find what you are doing to your dying child so reprehensible we wish to remove your rights to future children. Please lay down so we can filet you.

For the record - I don't know what my decision would be if faced with a PBA or hysterotomy. I hope to God I never have to be in the shoes of a woman who has had to make that choice. How empathetic is it of me to judge her?


----------



## pie (Apr 7, 2006)

I agree Ms Mom! There should be no reason a mother should die when it is clear she could be saved by a medical procedure. And that's what this is, it's a medical procedure, seperate to me from a ten week termination. I don't think late term abortion should be a 'choice' so much as a medical option to save a life.

I don't even really consider it to be abortion. I never thought I would see the pro life side of anything, but I don't think this is a method that is acceptable to be used as a choice. It should be there in case of necessity, but it's a heart rending and violent operation and it doesn't belong with the typical Planned Parenthood issue, in my eyes.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

I agree Ms Mom! There should be no reason a mother should die when it is clear she could be saved by a medical procedure. And that's what this is, it's a medical procedure, seperate to me from a ten week termination.
ITA. And, as a MEDICAL PROCEDURE it should remain in doctors hands to decide whether it is necessary or not.

There *are* a lot of people out there who believe that any abortion (even performed on a non-viable or even dead baby) is an abortion and would not allow them. Heck, there are people who don't believe in allowing people to end etopic pregnancies.


----------



## Round Belly (Oct 2, 2003)

Maby a way to solve this problem of unnessicary partial birth abortions is to acknowlege that the fetus is a life and a member of the family, and needs to be buried and treated as any other member of the family.

Antiabortion laws won't do it, because there is a rare medical need, but simply to respect the life that was with a burial will sit very well with those who wanted the babies and should hopefully teach those who are using it as birth control a valueable lesson about what they are actually doing.

So mamby a law declaring that all fetal remains from abortions after 12 or 16 weeks are to be treated as any other human remains and be either cremated or buried at the family's discression. (and family's exspense)

ed- for spelling


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

unnessicary partial birth abortions
I would first like to see any evidence of "unnecessary" partial birth abortions. If you "just" don't want the baby, you don't have to have a partial birth abortion. These are usually reserved for parents who did want the child and want to be able to hold a whole baby that looks as "normal" as possible (even though they may have developed with a 20" head or no organs...).


----------



## spero (Apr 22, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by TiredX2_
*I would first like to see any evidence of "unnecessary" partial birth abortions.*
http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html

Quote:

In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are "purely elective." In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that "elective" does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbacampaign.html

There's another blurb on Dr. Haskell here.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/m...20031107.shtml

Quote:

Advocates next advanced the fiction that partial birth abortion, which they had renamed the "intact dilation and extraction," was performed only on severely disabled fetuses or in medical emergencies involving the mother.

This march of mendacity was interrupted by one burst of candor in 1997. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, elected to come clean and admit that, contrary to the "party line" assertions of most abortion advocates (himself included), partial-birth abortions were actually performed several thousand times a year (perhaps 6,000 to 7,000), mostly on healthy mothers with healthy babies. In 1999, in Kansas alone, 182 partial birth abortions were performed on babies declared "viable," and in each case the reason cited was the mental, not physical health of the mother. Other investigations revealed that the reasons women sought these second trimester abortions were quite similar to the reasons women chose abortion in the first trimester.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4174196.html

Quote:

"For the first time in history Congress is banning a medical procedure that is considered medically necessary by physicians," claimed lead opponent Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

Not true.

A pioneer of the procedure, Los Angeles physician James McMahon, submitted to the House Judiciary Committee documentation that in one series of about 2,000 such abortions he performed, only 9 percent were performed for "maternal" health reasons. Of those the most common reason was "depression," a highly treatable condition.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

I'm still waiting for a response re how many intact D&Xs were performed in 2002, or 2001 or you name the year, in which the procedure was performed because the woman simply didn't want the baby (ie, there were no significant medical issues with either the woman or the fetus), or because the woman was suicidal. I'll need citations too, please.

I suspect the lack of response indicates a lack of data.

This thread is a red herring, folks.

EDITED TO NOTE: skebelle posted at the same time as me.

Note that I'm looking for data that doesn't come from hopelessly skewed and untrustworthy sources such as the National Right to Life Council and the like. If it's not on PubMed, it's a problem.


----------



## Lucysmama (Apr 29, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Marlena_
*
Note that I'm looking for data that doesn't come from hopelessly skewed and untrustworthy sources such as the National Right to Life Council and the like. If it's not on PubMed, it's a problem.*








I thought the exact same thing....


----------



## spero (Apr 22, 2003)

Well, I figured that would come up. I only posted the RTLC link to corroborate the Dr. Haskell info.

If prominent partial-birth abortion providers (Haskell and McMahon are the supposed "pioneers" of the procedure) are *admitting* that the majority of PBAs they provide are elective, and the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers himself says that he "lied through his teeth" (in a Nightline interview) about the numbers, what more evidence do you want?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

It would be nice to see some anti-abortion stuff that isn't religious for a change. As soon as I hear about god and sin and hell and damnation and how women are inherently evil and are tramps who should have kept their legs closed I just quit listening.


----------



## OceanMomma (Nov 28, 2001)

I don't even want to think about the mechanics of PBAs. I truly have a problem seeing how they could be elective. As in, a woman decides she doesn't want the baby anymore & asks for one ? I did notice that the baby in the diagram in the link someone posted looked very normal. Having a young baby myself, I couldn't really help but have a totally emotional response to the image so I doubt I could be objective about this right now. My heart truly goes out to any woman faced with this decision or having to go thru this procedure.

Slightly







T but since Greaseball brought it up. What I did want to say was about ectopic pregnancies. With my one I nearly died & was way too drugged up & out of it to even think to ask for the baby & they never offered. Something I truly regret. One of my friends had an ectopic at a different hospital & was offered the baby. For some reason she thought this was pretty wierd & declined. However, when I had my d&c after I lost the following baby in the 2nd tri, even tho I had already miscarried the baby, they offered to give me everything they removed during the d&c so I could take it home. I worked with a teenager who had an abortion & she got them to give her the baby so she could bury it. I think you just have to ask.


----------



## pie (Apr 7, 2006)

greaseball you said it.

Why don't some of you informed ladies start a factually based information group so that pro choicers who want to see actual numbers can be silenced with reality?


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by skellbelle_
*Well, I figured that would come up. I only posted the RTLC link to corroborate the Dr. Haskell info.

If prominent partial-birth abortion providers (Haskell and McMahon are the supposed "pioneers" of the procedure) are admitting that the majority of PBAs they provide are elective, and the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers himself says that he "lied through his teeth" (in a Nightline interview) about the numbers, what more evidence do you want?*
Let me tell you what I DON'T want, first. I don't want "evidence" offered in an editorial by someone who also authored a book called: USEFUL IDIOTS: HOW LIBERALS GOT IT WRONG IN THE COLD WAR AND STILL BLAME AMERICA FIRST.

Puh-leeeze. :LOL

I promise not to quote Al Franken for my info if you promise not to quote screed-writers like Mona Charen for your so-called "facts."

What I WOULD like is a halfway decently constructed, published, scientific study on the matter. Thank you.


----------



## Super Pickle (Apr 29, 2002)

If there is such evidence, which I doubt there is, it would probably be available through the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Though the AGI is part of PP, it is often trusted as the source of the most accurate statistics, even by pro-life org.s.

I still don't "get" the issue in terms of practicality and don't believe it will save any babies' lives.

But it brings the abortion debate into the public consciousness, and one "side" is going to win the rhetoric war and win the sympathies of the American public. The winning side will then be able to forge ahead with its agenda.


----------



## MFuglei (Nov 7, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by pie_
*greaseball you said it.

Why don't some of you informed ladies start a factually based information group so that pro choicers who want to see actual numbers can be silenced with reality?*
WWW.religioustolerance.org says that approximately 0.2% of abortions are PBAs this accounts for approximately 1-3 thousand abortions per year. . . but I've yet to see a non-biased source that can give me the breakdown of emergency PBAs/medical necessity/elective.

So when you can find me these numbers, why don't you also find me the number of women who would lose their ability to bear future children from a hysterotomy to remove an already dead or dying child when this ban takes place. . . and how many children each of those women wanted to have. . . so we can really talk about how many healthy children "could" be affected by this ban.

Then give me these numbers: How many women voted FOR the PBA ban? How many men?


----------



## pie (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Super Pickle_
*But it brings the abortion debate into the public consciousness, and one "side" is going to win the rhetoric war and win the sympathies of the American public. The winning side will then be able to forge ahead with its agenda.*
well that is exactly what makes me want to puke.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

Quote:

If there is such evidence, which I doubt there is, it would probably be available through the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Though the AGI is part of PP, it is often trusted as the source of the most accurate statistics, even by pro-life org.s.
Quite so. I've already looked there, and haven't found anything (though the search was good but not exhaustive).

Folks, I think everyone agrees that abortions are horrible and that we ought to do everything we can to help diminish their use. What we disagree on is how horrible the alternatives are (notably in comparison with abortion), and what we should do to diminish the use of abortions.

Sparring and harping on about stuff like intact D&Xs is pointless and stupid, given the above.

Get it?


----------



## feebeeglee (Nov 30, 2002)

Here is the best site for philosophical, non-religious arguments that abortion is a very bad idea.

Libertarians for Life

Quote:

Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong, not a right. Our reasoning is expressly scientific and philosophical rather than either pragmatic or religious, or merely political or emotional. Politically, of course, our perspective is libertarian. Libertarianism's basic principle is that, under justice, each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else -- for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy.
HTH


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

That's funny...I read a Libertarian candidate's statement in the voters' pamphlet and it said that he supported a woman's right to an abortion, but only if "his tax dollars didn't have to pay for it." (I suppose his tax dollars don't want to pay for social services for mom and baby, either?) I have read similar statements from others, so I don't think this is just a lone semi-pro-choice Libertarian.

I suppose a non-political argument would be best, but it's better than a religious one.


----------



## spero (Apr 22, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Super Pickle_
*If there is such evidence, which I doubt there is, it would probably be available through the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Though the AGI is part of PP, it is often trusted as the source of the most accurate statistics, even by pro-life org.s.*
From the Alan Guttmacher Institute:

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/03971.html

Quote:

The campaign to ban so-called partial birth abortions was bolstered last month when Ron Fitzsimmons, representing the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (NCAP), said in a published interview that he "lied through his teeth" two years ago about the f requency, timing of and reasons for the procedure. Fitzsimmons' assertion implicated the entire prochoice movement in some sort of conspiracy of deception.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

The claims of one person do not constitute a tolerably well-devised, published scientific study.

Again, folks, all this is a red herring. Let's move on to something more productive, eh?


----------



## GoodWillHunter (Mar 14, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by MFuglei_
*So essentially we're saying to her -- We find what you are doing to your dying child so reprehensible we wish to remove your rights to future children. Please lay down so we can filet you.

For the record - I don't know what my decision would be if faced with a PBA or hysterotomy. I hope to God I never have to be in the shoes of a woman who has had to make that choice. How empathetic is it of me to judge her?*

Awesome point. There is no way I could judge a woman who had to go through this procedure. My heart would break for her and her baby... Abortion is never an easy way out. A later term abortion of a baby you have felt move around inside you would be that much more difficult.

However, in the event of saving the mother's life, I would have to go in that direction. As my husband has always said, If my wife dies, so does any chance we have for more children... (or something along those lines...)


----------



## sohj (Jan 14, 2003)

But I've got to stick my nose in to give my opinion all the posters who keep wondering about 'why not just have a caesarian'.

Some of you on this board may be aware of my extreme fear of the medical establishment and having ANY surgery or medical treatment whatsoever.

If I was told I have to have a caesarian to deliver a child that would die I would shoot myself... After shooting the doctor who told me that and any other person who told me that that is what a 'loving' and 'responsible' woman would do.

And this is not hyperbole.

Any of you want to report me and have me wrapped up in a white coat with buckles down the back, just pm me and I'll send you my address...but I'll take you down with me. Go ahead, call me a murderer. I'll make it worth your while.

And you can call me crazy and recommend treatment and whatever. We are all products of our experiences. To me, it would be crazy for me to put myself under the knife if there was a less invasive TO ME option.

Having a caesarian is major surgery. I am SHOCKED to see people on THIS board advocating major surgery. And advocating FORCING someone to have it. Aren't there multiple postings about the medical complications of caesarians and the survival rates?


----------



## Lucysmama (Apr 29, 2003)

Sohj, good point.
As someone who has experienced cesarean, it is a difficult and very painful procedure. I had my daughter almost 2 years ago and still have pain from my c/sec - because I developed terrible adhesions as a result of the surgery. I have now been TTC another baby for 7 months...I finally got pregnant a month ago, and lost the baby right away. Studies show adhesions can cause a dramatic reduction in fertility and lead to miscarriages. I feel that this is what is going on with me...I had an unnecessary c/sec and I am paying the price for it now.
Not only that, but cesarean is dangerous to a mother. PBA is much safer. In cases where fetal mortality is imminent or has already taken place, a cesarean is NOT the sort of procedure I would want thrust upon me. If the baby is dead/dying, why put the mother through a terrible surgery, with a higher risk of infection and death, that may effect her future ability to conceive and carry a child?


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Some of you on this board may be aware of my extreme fear of the medical establishment and having ANY surgery or medical treatment whatsoever.
I have never had any sort of surgery, so it's easy to recommend it. But, having an abortion of any kind would put a woman into contact with the medical establishment and possibly a cold, uncaring doctor. If I wanted an abortion (????) I would do it myself with herbs. I would never let some abortion doctor touch me. They do not always care about women's feelings, and many do not provide pain relief of any sort.

I think the people on this board are not against surgery per se - they are against unnecessary cesarean sections for babies and mothers that are healthy and could have vaginal deliveries.

I think there is class discrimination in deciding which babies are to be saved and which are to be aborted. I know low-income women who have been told they have to have abortions, while those same doctors deliver babies of higher-income women who have those same conditions. Often the deliveries are vaginal and uncomplicated. It's easy for a doctor to recommend an abortion when he thinks the patient has no right to be pregnant anyway.

For example, someone posted a link about hydro heads and how there is surgery to correct that, and the baby can be born alive, albeit through surgery.

There was a case in Open Season about a court-ordered cesarean on a woman who was dying of cancer. It was determined the baby had more chance of surviving the surgery than the mother did, and the mother had more of a chance of surviving a vaginal delivery than the baby did, so they did the surgery. Both died.

But in the case of a live baby with a normal sized head, I'll say it again: induce with pitocin! Deliver it alive, and then see if it lives! If it dies, it's not like the mother had to go through any extra trouble. How will this be worse for the health of the mother?

Most term babies who die in utero are delivered vaginally with pitocin. The heads are delivered intact. If the fetus is already dead, it's not really an abortion, is it?








T
I read another thread long ago where a woman was 39 weeks pg and her dh tried to convince her to have a PBA just because he decided he didn't want to have a baby! Good thing men don't have a say in things like this, if they are going to be dorks like that.


----------



## Marlena (Jul 19, 2002)

Quote:

There was a case in Open Season about a court-ordered cesarean on a woman who was dying of cancer. It was determined the baby had more chance of surviving the surgery than the mother did, and the mother had more of a chance of surviving a vaginal delivery than the baby did, so they did the surgery. Both died.
I believe actually the case involved a woman dying of cancer who was about 24 weeks preg. She was obviously within days of death, and was minimally competent (ie, in and out of consciousness). When they asked her what she wanted, she sometimes seemed to indicate that she wanted something done to save the baby, but the longer they waited, the more she seemed to indicate she did not want a c-section to save the baby. A c-section was the only option at that point; inducing labor apparently was not. The husband was too distraught to offer any imput at any time. So the docs took it to a judge, who ordered a c-section. Both mother and baby died within a couple days of the operation. It was a real train wreck, and is regularly taught in bioethics courses.

Quote:

I read another thread long ago where a woman was 39 weeks pg and her dh tried to convince her to have a PBA just because he decided he didn't want to have a baby!
This is almost certainly apocryphical.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Well, I looked up your word in the dictionary and am still confused, but here goes:

I don't think this happens a lot, and I don't think anyone would actually consider aborting a healthy full term baby because dh suddenly doesn't want it, but wouldn't this woman have better things to do than come here and make up something like that?

I think I saw it in TAO. I don't remember the name, and it was over a year ago so I didn't want to go dragging it back up.

Some women, however, do have 1st and 2nd tri abortions just because some guy tells them to.


----------



## spatulagirl (Feb 21, 2002)

Greaseball,

I understand what you are saying (I think) with your posts but an awful lot of the time it seems like you are advocating that someone else should be deciding what is best for the mother and not the mother deciding what is best for herself.

You said that you wouldn't trust a doctor to do an abortion, that you would do it yourself and yet it appears to me you are advocating a woman being forced to deliver a baby who will die at birth just to see what happens. Isn't that cold and calculating itself, just like the doctors that perform abortions?

I think it is sad that we are saying all doctors are evil because I really don't believe they are. I think some of them truly care about their patients, about women's rights, about freedom of choice, etc.

Quote:

But in the case of a live baby with a normal sized head, I'll say it again: induce with pitocin! Deliver it alive, and then see if it lives! If it dies, it's not like the mother had to go through any extra trouble. How will this be worse for the health of the mother?
This statement saddens me. What about the mental state of the mother. What about the health of the baby. What if this woman has no health insurance? A thousand "what ifs" pop into my head. We don't know every situations. We can't know what will come up in the future. We shouldn't force childbirth on anyone.

It makes me sad to think that if there were something wrong, horrible wrong with this baby I am carrying now that people would judge me for a decision I make that should be none of their business. I don't think I would be able to carry a baby I knew was going to die to full term. I just don't have it in me. And then people would call me a murderer.

I don't think people are able to keep a clear head when it comes to talking about PBAs. It is such a small percentage of abortions and it has become this great big controversy. I feel for the poor mothers who will now have to die or go through second rate care because of this new law.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

I understand what you are saying (I think) with your posts but an awful lot of the time it seems like you are advocating that someone else should be deciding what is best for the mother and not the mother deciding what is best for herself.
I think it's more that I simply don't understand the reasons for this procedure - meaning, if I had any of the conditions that have been mentioned, I would not choose it. Of course it's not up to me what other women do, nor do I want it to be.

Quote:

You said that you wouldn't trust a doctor to do an abortion, that you would do it yourself and yet it appears to me you are advocating a woman being forced to deliver a baby who will die at birth just to see what happens.
If I were to induce my own abortion, I would do it in the first trimester. I read a book called - I hope I can write this here - Cunt, and the author had 3 abortions, the last being a self-administered herbal termination. She said it was definitely the way to go, and I can see what she means. I'd much rather be in the privacy of my own home than in a clinic with activists trying to break in and kill the doctor or in a hospital with a doctor who thinks I don't deserve to be there and who refuses to give me drugs.

Quote:

What about the mental state of the mother. What about the health of the baby. What if this woman has no health insurance?
I don't understand how the mother's mental state will be harmed by inducing and possibly delivering a live baby, or how it will be helped by terminating it just before it is born. If she has no health insurance, she will need free care whether it is an abortion or delivering a baby. I wouldn't be surprised if PBA were the first thing a doctor would suggest to a woman whose baby he didn't want to send to the NICU because she had no insurance. I don't think uninsured women should be discouraged from having live babies just because taxpayers don't want to foot the bill.

I can understand how anyone carrying a fetus they know will die shortly after birth would not want to go through with it. There are also moms who would deliver the baby anyway. But, are these life-threatening decisions really not discovered until the 3rd trimester? Routine ultrasounds are done in the 2nd tri, sometimes in the 1st, and the organs (or lack of them) can be checked out. Also, the question that would be nagging me is what if everyone was wrong? U/s has a high rate of false positives, and even amnio is not 100% accurate. Sometimes it predicts genetic disorders, such as Downs, when the baby is healthy, and then after it is born and clearly does not have Downs everyone watches it anxiously to see if it's getting "not normal" and puts it through excessive testing.









And if a woman doesn't have a u/s...well, that seems to me it would be common among those having home births, and I read that women who give birth at home are not likely to terminate a pregnancy.

Maybe this hits too close to home since I've seen a family member narrowly escape death because a doctor was willing to give her a chance, even though he said it was slim to none. (Probably because there was insurance involved.) So I see huge measures being taken to save this one baby who is not expected to live, and then I see other women who are not even permitted to have that chance because no one wants to pay for it. Just how much is a life worth, anyway? Of course, there may be people here who have actually had to endure this procedure, and I can't imagine how close to home this hits for them.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

UUmm...since it is a book title it should be fine. Calling someone that is another story. :LOL

I am not sure about herbal terminations. They can be really dangerous in the wrong hands. Herbs are not necessarily safer than pharmecuticals they are just found outside, they can be everybit as dangerous and deadly.

Unless someone REALLY knew what they were doing I wouldn't recommend them at all.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:

_Originally posted by abimommy_
*I am not sure about herbal terminations. They can be really dangerous in the wrong hands. Herbs are not necessarily safer than pharmecuticals they are just found outside, they can be everybit as dangerous and deadly. [/]b*
*
*
*
Not to mention that if the termination effort doesn't work, one might be left with a severely damaged fetus - not any more kind than a PBA, IMO.*


----------



## Elizabuddy'smama (Jul 10, 2003)

Just to add my two cents. . .

Is there any question at all that abortion, especially partial birth abortion, is PAINFUL for a baby? I know there've been studies that measure it and the fetus does experience pain when it is killed. Older fetuses will move in the womb to try to get away from the instrument that is there to hurt them.

I've never had an unwanted pregnancy myself but I know that I couldn't cause a life that is totally dependent upon me to suffer.

I feel like we are playing God when we take into our own hands who should live and who should die. For this reason, I think it's impossible to draw the line for when abortion should be allowed and when it shouldn't.

I believe life starts at conception. Even now we're just made up of cells, whether that be 10 cells or 10 to the 13th power. Our soul exists from the start.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Don't get me wrong - I can see the horror in PBA all too clearly, from both the perspective of the mother and the fetus. However, I wonder if those opposed to PBA because of agony caused to the fetus aren't discounting the agony that the fetus experiences when dying after his/her mother has given birth by c-section? I don't imagine it's anymore pleasant to die slowly outside of the womb from not having any kidneys than it is to die the PBA way (which I'd rather not repeat for my own hope of sleeping at some point).

Thinking out loud....


----------



## CanOBeans (Apr 7, 2002)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Greaseball_
*IBut in the case of a live baby with a normal sized head, I'll say it again: induce with pitocin! Deliver it alive, and then see if it lives! If it dies, it's not like the mother had to go through any extra trouble. How will this be worse for the health of the mother?

Most term babies who die in utero are delivered vaginally with pitocin. The heads are delivered intact. If the fetus is already dead, it's not really an abortion, is it?*
Pit induction causes a much higher rate of cesarean. So that would be worse for the health of the mother.

A pit induction of a dead baby is a different story. Because there's no worry about the baby's life or health, it can be a much more aggressive and lengthly process; fewer cesareans will result.


----------



## TiredX2 (Jan 7, 2002)

Quote:

it can be a much more aggressive and lengthly process
Red too many horror stories about that (doctors saying, "it doesn't matter if leg/arm gets broken, the baby is dead anyway" type of stuff).

If the main objection of Intact D&X (outside of "normal" abortion objections) is pain to the baby---- does it change anyones mind if pain relief drugs were given to the baby. How about if the baby's heart is stopped *first* with drugs and then ID&X?


----------



## Wildcrafter (Mar 11, 2003)

I think it's sad that pro-lifers are using pba to horrify people and sensationalize the abortion issue to further their own cause.

Having grown up in a home where one parent was (still is) entirely devoted to the pro-life issue, I know one thing for sure.
Prohibiting abortions of any kind does not solve the root problem of unwanted pregnancies. I believe it all starts with the teaching and parenting and loving of children. As for abortions for major medical reasons, for life saving, for victims of rape and incest, how can we not allow exceptions?

To me, pro-lifers are akin to allopathic medicine, they are only trying to treat the outward symptom without going deep, releasing fear and getting to the bottom of the real issue.

It's a shame that women who are going through horrific experiences as described above are additionally bombarded with a media blitz of the evils of this procedure.


----------



## Round Belly (Oct 2, 2003)

You have a point Mary,

We can pass laws all we want but if we want to cure the problem we have to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place.

Would it be to much to ask people to keep sexual relations inside of marriage?


----------



## Ilaria (Jan 14, 2002)

Quote:

Would it be to much to ask people to keep sexual relations inside of marriage?
You can ask, but I definitely would not listen. Not everyone who has sex outside of marriage will have an abortion, nor is that the only reason for having one, even an early one.

Plus, how is sex outside of marriage related to late term abortions? I think it's been clearly established why late term abortions are performed.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

Quote:

Pit induction causes a much higher rate of cesarean. So that would be worse for the health of the mother.
But a cesarean is usually done to save the baby, for fetal distress in this case, right? If the idea is just deliver and see what happens, they wouldn't need to resort to surgery. It probably doesn't make sense, but somehow it seems logical to me.

Married women do have abortions. As a married women, I would seriously consider it if I got raped by another man. I also know married women who aborted their husbands' children. Marriage does not solve everything. And yes, it's unreasonable to ask everyone to practice a certain type of institutionalized sexual behavior.

About pain - I may be wrong, but it seems to me the baby would not feel pain if its skin were not cut into. In a 1st trimester abortion, don't they just suck it out? Wouldn't it just feel a loss of oxygen, then nothing? And with the heart-stopping drugs, how do those feel? Is there a chance the baby would feel pain even for a second? Why is that OK? Babies should not have to feel pain.








T
I read that when women are given the opportunity to administer their own pain relief for delivery, they give themselves much smaller amounts than doctors give them. This has also been true when they can control the flow of the pitocin. Perhaps the chance for fetal distress would be lessened if the mother controlled the flow.


----------



## Wildcrafter (Mar 11, 2003)

Quote:

Would it be to much to ask people to keep sexual relations inside of marriage?
I don't think being married has anything to do with the abortion issue. What I meant is caring for babies in a way that they are not out there seeking what they never got as a babe, i.e. attachment parenting, extended breastfeeding, nurturing and co-sleeping. I'll probably get mightily flamed for saying all this, but I think the lack of closeness when humans need it most, at infancy, brings about oral fixations (food, drug, smoking and sex addictions) and a desire to have sex just for the feeling of being close, hearing & feeling a heartbeat. With the basic human needs not being met, these needs remain with us.

I think that in a society where infants are treasured and cared for the way humans were designed, the need for abortions would be limited to those women with medical problems, rape, incest. And might I add if the majority of infants were nurtured in such a way I doubt there would be so many medical problems, rapes and incest.

Let the flaming begin.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

What did you think you were going to be flamed for? It was right on! The way children are parented truly matters! It's not always a guarantee, but it's the best thing one can do for their child.

But, I don't think that sex outside of marriage is necessarily sex addiction. There are many sex addicts who act out sexually within their marriages, like by raping their wives. Some peoples' religious and spiritual beliefs do not support marriage, and if that works for them, I say go for it!

If children are not treated lovingly by their parents they will search for someone else to do it, and that other person may do it in the wrong way.

Will this prevent abortion? Not necessarily. If a girl is raised to be loving and to know she doesn't have to have sex with some guy just because he wants to, she can still get raped. She can still have contraception withheld from her.

One thing that would help is if girls were not raised to defer to men. That way when their husband or boyfriend told them to get rid of the baby, they would know it's not a man's choice, but a woman's. Too many women I know have had abortions because some lame-o man didn't want the baby.







True, you can always say it was her choice, but it she was raised never to disobey a man from day one, she won't know she had a choice.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

Re the self-induced "herbal" abortions...

Quote:

Not to mention that if the termination effort doesn't work, one might be left with a severely damaged fetus - not any more kind than a PBA, IMO.
And now, since we seem to be prosecuting women for delivering drug or alcohol affected children, I think prosecutors would start foaming at the mouth to send these ladies to jail.


----------



## GoodWillHunter (Mar 14, 2003)

Excellent point, MaryTG. Well said.

No flames from me!!!


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

I heard of a case several years ago when a woman was denied an abortion because she couldn't pay, so she shot herself in the stomach and was charged with murder.

Why is it legal to have someone else abort your baby but not do it yourself? It's legal to deliver your own baby...


----------



## Lucysmama (Apr 29, 2003)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Round Belly_
*
Would it be to much to ask people to keep sexual relations inside of marriage?*
In a word? Yes.
Marriage is social, sex is biological. Not all cultures believe in marriage, and cannot be expected to abstain because others believe that they should only have sexual relations inside of marriage. Such a proposition is disrespectful of cultural tradition and the treats sex as social issue instead of a biological one.

As far as the whole, "Just induce the mother with pitocin..."







: No comment.

MaryTG- ITA that prohibiting abortions is not going to get a the root of the problem. If abortion were completely illegal, I'm sure back-alley abortionists would pop up everywhere. Unwanted pregnancies can be reduced through education, readily available birth control, and a society supportive of sexual education.


----------



## steph (Dec 5, 2001)

Quote:

One thing that would help is if girls were not raised to defer to men. That way when their husband or boyfriend told them to get rid of the baby, *they would know it's not a man's choice, but a woman's*
(emphisis mine)

You just made the case for why the discussion about abortion should be between a woman and her health care provider and not the courts.


----------



## Greaseball (Feb 1, 2002)

How do they get the head into the vagina for an abortion in the first place? If not with pitocin, I'd really like to know. Do they just stretch open the cervix and then pull the baby with forceps? That sounds like it would hurt.

Of course abortion - or not having an abortion - should be up to women alone, but I'm all for reducing the need for abortions. Isn't everyone? Does anyone really WANT to have an abortion? I don't know of anyone who doesn't want kids who says, "Well, if I get pregnant it'll be just fine because I can have an abortion!" Most pro-choice people, I think, would rather avoid it. People tell me it's no fun at all. And that it hurts.


----------

