For those of you who have said they don't "like" late term abortions......

[bettyellen]

Do you think this couple "like" late term abortions, or are merely damned grateful they were available in their own state......

"What we saw on the monitor looked more like a cinematic alien than a 20-week-old fetus. Instead of arms, there were truncated flippers, and it looked like those drawings I've seen demonstrating how close man and dolphin are on the evolutionary scale. The legs were gnocchi-shaped buds that barely protruded from the pelvis. The chest cavity was deformed as well, although we wouldn't know that until later.

You've seen this before: a young couple staring in wonder at an ultrasound monitor, getting a first, magical glimpse of their unborn child. It wasn't like that for us. ''What I'm seeing is a fairly significant abnormality,'' Dr. Eddleman said, shaking his head sympathetically. Tears ran from my wife Liz's closed eyes as she wiped the blue goop off her swelled belly.

We walked on rubber legs down the hall to Dr. Eddleman's office, where he emerged from behind his veil of jargon just long enough to impart that we hadn't done anything wrong. Osteogenesis imperfecta type II was his diagnosis, a freak mutation over which we had no control. I could see in Liz's expression that it would take some time for her to believe him.

The fetus might make it to term or die in the womb. Either way, it wouldn't survive for long after birth. This disease, the doctor said, is ''fatal in infants.'' You know you've arrived in a different universe when the word ''fatal'' comes as a relief. Because until that moment, I had been trying to extrapolate what the flesh-and-blood version of this baby would look like in the maple crib we'd ordered, asking myself if we had it in us to raise such a severely compromised baby. Liz would later tell me that she was also sadly relieved. ''Fatal'' was our absolution -- we would not have to learn darker truths about ourselves."

By JONATHAN TROPPER

Published: March 6, 2005 NYT

more.......

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/magazine/06LIVES.html?oref=login

what is all this uninformed crap about "liking" late term abortions, and why do people like this sometimes have to fly to get one in this country? why would you deny them the chance to end this pregnancy, even if her life wasn't in emminent danger?

[LittleClarkie]

1. Serious issues that should be thoughtfully considered

not used as a political blugeon to score points for "your side."

For fuck's sake, can't we have a civil discussion about these issues? One where one side or the other doesn't resort to the extreme examples that prove their point of view? One where the very real emotions on both sides are not fluffed off, as when someone here said that women who feel bad about having abortions are only reacting to what society tells them they should be feeling? Or on the other side, where some make it sound like these women are just loose and using abortion for birth control?

I hate hot button issues. Hate, hate, hate.

[bettyellen]

2. I have seen so many posts from idiots saying they "don't like it" so...

it should be banned. That's the extent of their reasoning and knowledge.
Some really dumb uneducated posting going on around here lately.
Fuck, if everything I "didn't like" was banned...... omigod this country would be Bettyville.
Even I wouldn't want to live there.
 

[The Straight Story]

4. How to handle one offs seems to be a question in this

Now, how does this parlay into the thread? Banning a procedure of many types outright can allow extreme cases to wallow in a tar pit which causes undue suffering. The moral would seem to be - always leave loopholes for the "one off's" - ie, write sensible legislation if you must write it all.

This goes back far in mankind I would venture to guess, and the nature of having 'judges' to weigh matters. What is right in one situation is not in another - so laws are made, and when needed and judged to not apply exceptions are made (ie, compromise on a case by case basis).

This is not an endorsement of a law, nor against it - just putting my two cents (or paragraphs) in on the general handling of things and how we can have both if that is what we want. Sadly, too many blindly see things solely as black white and the gray gets erased. But on the same token, we cannot always allow the gray to prevent baseline laws either.

[uppityperson]

3. I don't "like" them, but think it is necessary to be able to have them

Just because I don't like something doesn't mean they should not be allowed. I will fight and fight and continue to fight on to keep abortions legal, whether I like them or not. The right to have one is a necessary right, in my opinion.

[bettyellen]

5. .

[Padraig18]

6. So, no one is entitled to find them 'distasteful?

Excuse the hell out of us...

:eyes:

[prolesunited]

8. And what do you think

would be the most humane course of action for the parents and the severely deformed fetus in this case?

For all of the people who "don't like playing God" in cases such as these and in cases of people facing life and death issues and dealing with euthanasia: Hasn't modern medicine and technology already given us the ability to "play God."

We now can extend life beyond whatever was dreamed possible. Perhaps we need to stop doing this if we aren't also going to look at the opposite end of the spectrum, ending life with humanity and dignity.

If you had a pet suffering terribly, wouldn't you take it to the vet to give it a peaceful passage?

Some of these anti-abortion people saying the baby is the "will of God" have no qualms about using fertility drugs, in vitro fertilization or surrogates. Excuse me, but wasn't the will of God that you *not* have babies since you can't conceive without medical intervention. It goes both ways.

[Padraig18]

10. I didn't say I would not permit it, in such a case.

My comment was posted in response to the 'none of you have any business thinking anything' tone of the opening post.

[leesa]

14. It's a medical procedure. Why would you want this child to suffer?

[Padraig18]

15. Did I say that?

No, I didn't.

[Bridget Burke]

18. Medical procedures are often distasteful.

Have you spent much time in hospitals? Perusing medical records?

The Textbook of Fetal Abnormalities is required for medical students, but not recommended for the rest of us.

Be grateful that you can remain above all this mess.

[Padraig18]

21. I worked in a funeral home for 3 years.

I've seen plenty of fetal abnoramilities and assorted other things that would churn most people's stomachs. That said, I still find the thought distatseful.

[Beaverhausen]

22. And parents aborting a wanted child might also find it distasteful

They wanted to have a normal healthy child.

But the decision is their's and their doctor's to make.

[Padraig18]

24. If you will be so good, please go back and read ALL my posts.

I specifically stated that I would not have opposed it, which makes me wonder both with whom and why you're arguing...

[bettyellen]

41. "be grateful you can remain above this mess" isn't that presuming just

a bit?
lotta time in hospitals, a fuckload of time, thanks for asking.

[cally]

30. I find them distasteful, I find most human suffering distasteful

I find the horrors in falujah distasteful, I find the republicans neocons distasteful.

That does not mean for one second that I have the right to turn my back and ignore the reality of the situation. I can't pretend it away. I wish I could but I can't.


Once more, I've experienced this with a friend. If she carried to term with a fetus that would die, my friend would die. Yep, I don't like the reality but that is what happened. Under current law, my friend would have died and her fetus would have died when she did or shortly after birth.

[bettyellen]

39. you think the couple found it tasteful? that was my point. sorry if i

wasn't clearer that it was directed to those who want to attack my reproducitve rights. They ain't going anywhere without a hell of a fight. LOL.

which, i know quite well is not you Pad. i love you for not trying to legislate your likes and morals into law. But some people here have used this as the crux of their arguement to outlaw/ restrict abortion, and they're smart people, they can do better than than throw around the work like. it's just really fucking insulting to women, this "like" bullshit.
because i don't have to respect their beliefs and "likes" and vice fucking versa. we are in america, not bettyland, and not fundie land.

hope that's clearer and sorry to have offended you.

[snippy]

7. Statement of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Law
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists


Washington, DC -- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose so-called "partial birth abortion" laws, including the conference committee bill approved by the US House of Representatives yesterday and sent to the US Senate. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure known as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).

In 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska "partial birth abortion" law in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, ruling that the law violated the US Constitution by (1) failing to provide any exception "for the preservation of the health of the mother," and (2) being so broadly written that it could prohibit other types of abortion procedures such as D&E, thereby "unduly burdening a women's ability to choose abortion itself." The bill now before the Senate, which its supporters claim can meet any constitutional test, blatantly disregards the two-pronged test the Supreme Court carefully established in Stenberg.

As noted in a 1997 ACOG Statement of Policy, reaffirmed in 2000, and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, ACOG continues to object to legislators taking any action that would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.

ACOG's Statement of Policy explains why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement notes that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "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 added)."

The Statement of Policy further reads that such legislation has the potential to outlaw other abortion techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. This was the second basis upon which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg case. The Court will invariably strike down laws that are overly broad or imprecisely drawn. Bills that frequently use terms -- such as "partial birth abortion" -- that are not recognized by the very constituency (physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize, and that purport to address a single procedure yet describe elements of other procedures used in obstetrics and gynecology would not meet the Court's test.

In this case, the bill before the Senate fails to respect the Stenberg test because bill supporters flagrantly refuse to include an exception for the health of a woman. Instead, legislators try to circumvent the Court's requirements by issuing their own opinion to the nation's physicians and patients that such a procedure is never needed to protect a woman's health -- notwithstanding opposing opinions from the medical community.

The medical misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician -- not legislators -- are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-03-03.cfm

The coat hanger wing of the republican party are liars.

[lynne]

9. In all fairness -

- I believe that when most people state they "don't like" late term abortion, they are thinking of abortion where neither the life of the mother nor the viability of the baby is an issue.

This is clearly a different situation that at least I - as one who "doesn't like" late term abortions - feels that abortion is certainly necessary.

[DebinTx]

11. What most people don't realize

is that late term abortions are used (before the ban) in dire circumstances. A close friend who is an ER doctor told me long ago that doctors do not perform these under optional circumstances as it's a major ordeal compared to early term abortions. Something must have gone severly wrong to warrant a late term abortion.

She's practiced over 30 years and had only performed 3 (at the time we discussed this), all of which were after auto accidents and they were all medically necessary.

[lynne]

12. I believe that it was the partial-birth abortion procedure -

- that was banned and not all late term abortions.

For a late term abortion, the physician would have to use a procedure other than partial-birth but the option for the abortion is still there.

[cmkramer]

13. However

From what I understand, the procedure that's become known as "partial-birth abortion" is the only one that will preserve a woman's ability to have children again.

[sandnsea]

28. the "other procedure"

Do you know what it is?

[lynne]

42. Have no idea how many other options are available -

- but there are a few for 2nd and 3rd trimester. There is the "D & E", info below found at http://www.drtiller.com/procedure.html

" . . . involves managing the pregnancy by the premature delivery of a stillborn. During this process, we will try to duplicate the natural, safe, and reliable process that nature has developed. Your cervix will be opened over a one to four day period with repeated insertions of sponge-like sticks (laminaria). When your cervix is opened adequately, labor will be induced with naturally occurring hormones, and you will have your delivery under "twilight" sedation. With twilight anesthesia for the labor and delivery most patients do not remember much about the process. Generous amounts of medication are administered during the labor to relieve discomfort. On the first day of the process, an injection of a medication is made into the baby to assure that it will be stillborn and will not experience any discomfort during the procedure. After the delivery, all patients receive a D&C and are usually able to travel the next morning."

It certainly doesn't appear that the D & E would prevent future pregnancies.

There is also the option of either Digoxin Induction or Saline non-surgical chemical abortions, both used for late term situations.

It seems that 2nd trimester elective abortions are accepted but the 3rd trimester is reserved for health of mother or non-viable fetus situations.

[Hidden Stillness]

16. Save the Fetus, Murder the Woman

I think the tone of the original post can be explained by the fact that no matter how many rights women win and how long they have been established, it is always as if we are hanging by a thread, eternally, and any career-opportunist prick who comes along, can just rip the rug out from under us and obliterate everything we ever had, effortless, and we cannot stop it. It is an infuriating, scary feeling that a lot of us are getting used to recently. It is as if we are never safe, that it is not really established law at all but only what "THEY" feel like adhering to, and that we never really achieve anything permanent.

Late term abortions are always used for medical emergencies, they are never done casually, and it is only the relentless propaganda of the fascist oligarch that makes people have to explain these things over, and over, and over, and still meet with the same ignorant--or deliberate--remarks after. Women have enemies who never quit, and have no limit. They would make rape and battering legal if they could. They murder the good people at abortion clinics and will not protect them; they even stalk and threaten the children of clinic workers. Phil Donahue long ago pointed out that the leaders of anti-abortion groups are always males, and that there is a reason for that. These are frightening oppressors, they are always plotting, and it eventually makes you sick of it--decades after we thought we won this right! These are the same people, of course, who never, ever protest outside of a clinic that performs vasectomies, which presumably also prevent eventual births--a clue. Remember the Reagan "gag rule" that prevented abortion clinics from recommending abortion even when the life of the mother was at stake? They knew they were murdering those people, and intended to. Clinton repealed that law.

You hear people making arguments and using phraseology that makes no sense, but is directly from the propaganda of these anti-feminist groups, and it makes you fear that they are making progress on their attack against you: You hear people refer to the "unborn," when it is a fetus, or rather than refer to a pregnant woman, they will actually pretend there are two living people, ("Laci and Connor," etc.), and this is very scary to people who are themselves censored, and can't get past the corporate pimp censor, to answer anything. Sen. Harry Reid recently made a remark about being against late term--there is NO SUCH THING as a "partial birth abortion"--abortions where they were not necessary; but they all are! That is why they are done--an extreme medical emergency, either undiagnosed or already monitored before, suddenly now threatening.

When your rights are so easily taken away, by asshole rich boys who aren't even serious about life, who are only playing with legislation and budgets as if they were toys, it makes you panic.

[Ariana Celeste]

26. That was very well stated-

Thank you for that. And you are absolutely correct.
I am only 19. I'm not married to my man yet, and have no job, no insurance. He makes enough money to pay our bills, buy our food, and buy anything necessary along with a few luxuries here and there. We couldn't afford to have a child, and I live in fear constantly, of getting pregnant and not having the option to have an abortion.
If they take that right away from me, away from all women.... what's next?
What's next..... I often wonder about that. It is indeed, a scary thing to ponder.

[DrGonzoLives]

17. Just because people don't "like" something

doesn't mean they're looking to outlaw it.

I don't like the KKK, but I'm not going to outlaw them either. And, before the histrionics start, no, I'm not comparing the KKK to later-term abortions.

Why is it that some people aren't happy with support, they must have complete ideological and psychological purity as well?

[MNAZ]

19. My sister-in-law had a similar case...

and they decided to carry the baby to term. The child lived for about 45 minutes and died in her mothers arms. Both Mom and Dad said they would not trade those 45 minutes for anything.

Even though I'm anti-abortion, abortions of this type don't bother me nearly as much as the casual abortion--which make up 84% of all abortions. It's the mother that just doesn't want to be bothered with the baby and uses abortion instead of birth control that concerns me.

[Bridget Burke]

23. What about the fathers that just don't want to be bothered?

What do you think about them?

[MNAZ]

37. Yes, I guess that are some fathers...

who pressure the mother into a casual abortion. I stand corrected.

[sandnsea]

29. First 12 weeks

Protected by law. "Casual abortion" has no place in the late term abortion debate, they don't happen.

[Lone Pawn]

20. I certainly don't like them one bit, but I wouldn't deny them either--

especially not on medical grounds.

[Zynx]

25. The problem is, what if the child is autistic?

Autistic children would be aborted by many many people if they had the chance and the same argument you are using could be applied to mental deficiencies as well. Maybe when the baby is going to die anyway, but it sets a dangerous standard when people will start aborting their babies for other reasons. I am not willing to let that sort of thing happen to humanity.

[bush_is_wacko]

40. To use the same argument this puts forward, ANY inconvenient child

could be aborted because it is "inconvenient" for the parents.(undue burden)

Look, I believe a baby like this one should be "medically removed." It had no chance at life. But I have two children and I can tell I love them NO MATTER WHAT. One is a "difficult child" and the other is the kind that raises herself. I love them both. The "difficult" child was screened and re-screened during pregnancy many times for an abnormality that could never be determined pre-birth. He COULD have been autistic or worse. In fact, we STILL don't know MANY years after the fact if he has a genetic abnormality or is just one of those kids that struggles. I'm not going to go into the problem because it is too convoluted but suffice it to say he had an abnormal umbilical cord that left doctors with the impression he may not develop properly. He is NOT medicated with drugs because his teachers think he should be or I find him too difficult to deal with.

As far as I'm concerned he is loved for his "difficulties" EVERY bit as much as he is loved for just being a kid. I NEVER even considered abortion but I'm sure it did come up. It wasn't an option for me. Personally, I cannot understand anyone that would opt for that in my situation. I have heard a whole lot of women talk about how they support abortion in the event of Siamese twins and several other abnormalities that IMO are NOT legitimate reasons for an abortion in ANY trimester but if they choose to have an abortion there are 12 weeks to make that decision. I had MANY doctors visits during those 12 weeks and at least 3 ultrasounds so I really do not think it is unreasonable to expect that an abortion performed for a genetic reason can't be accomplished in this time frame. Actually I think it is even reasonable to extend that to 18-20 weeks for RARE cases.

There has been a SERIOUS disconnect in this country between parents and their children and as a parent I have to say I see way too many parents thinking their children are property to be "taken care of" by employees instead of raised and loved by the people that created them. I tend to think some of that disconnect comes from the fact that there is this looming question about when life begins. Who the hell cares when it begins? There is more than one solution to an unwanted pregnancy and abortion really should be RARE and legal but only up to a certain point! There is a point that it becomes murder infanticide or whatever you want to call it and we all ought to face up to that fact. Babies CAN AND DO survive at 26 weeks outside the womb. IMO, their life has begun!

[Lerkfish]

27. Did I miss something? why 12 threads on abortion today?

is something going down I'm unaware of?

Otherwise, hot button issue that has little to do with anything except to rile up disparate factions. Everyone has an opinion on it, that they are not going to change.

[Bridget Burke]

44. Divide, Distract & conquer.

And they're usually started by a male with algebraically elegant, abstract thoughts on that remote "abortion" issue....

[Lerkfish]

45. I like what Dennis Miller said, before he became a pod puppet repub...

He said that as men, not having a uterus, we should not even have a voice in the abortion issue.

And, as a man, I tend to agree with his former wisdom, there.

Ultimately, to me, since pregnancy occurs within a woman's body, framing the issue from the POV of the fetus completely ignores the woman, and in that way, to me, I find the more virulent anti-abortionists to be closet misogynists.

but hey, that's just my opinion.

[MissMarple]

31. Late term abortions are tragic, why should we "like" them?

I wouldn't "like" amputating a gangrenous limb, but, I do see the necessity for keeping it as a legal procedure. I don't like any abortions, they are sad and tragic events, but I don't think the government should intervene across the board to prevent them from occurring. I support Roe and wish Casey would be over ruled.

[sonicx]

33. the point is, who cares if it's 'liked' or not if it's medically needed?

[bettyellen]

38. that's my point..... I have read the --here of all places--

so many people here (who comment saying they would support outlawing all late term abortions) slip the work "like" into their arguement. for some it's the heart of their arguement. since when are we wanting to legislate over our likes. it's disturbing.
an overlapping and really disturbing subset of people who oppose LTA are also fairly ignorant of the truth of how difficult it already is in this country to obtain, and to go through. I think some people here are ignorant abpout who they are reallly hurting.
Maybe I wanted some people here to see who they would be judging and calling murderers.

[bush_is_wacko]

32. If this was discovered late enough in preganancy to require

partial birth abortion this womans doctor is an idiot! I suspect this was a second trimester discovery. Which does not qualify as a partial birth abortion. In fact, I think if it had been a third trimester issue they would have HAD to perform a ceserean section because it would have been safer for the mother.

While I am no fool and do realize these abnormalities occur I suspect this is a little more of that "extreme liberal" rhetoric. I have seen being thrown around way too often in this party.

I didn't read the article, quite frankly, because I am sick of having to use fifty million user names and passwords just to keep up with this.

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS DIFFERENT. They are RARELY if EVER needed. Again, I say this is a fairly rare deformity and this womans doctor should be sued if he let this go to the third trimester and told her she would need a partial birth abortion. Giving birth to something you know will not survive is dangerous to your mental and physical well being!

[sonicx]

34. you can copy the link into google, hit the search button, and...

click the link to read the article.

[bush_is_wacko]

35. Thank you! n/t

[bush_is_wacko]

36. OK read the article. Still think BAD doctor. Cesarean section should

have been an option and it would have preserved her fertility but she would have had o wait for a while longer. This story is EXTREMELY vague though. I'm just not sure how much merit to give this story. 18 hours of labor to deliver a severely malformed fetus is cruel and inhuman treatment as far as I'm concerned and there are better ways to handle things like this. I would have NEVER let my doctors do this to me. I have had two children and a miscarriage and there is no way I would go through this awake. Valium is not enough to kill this kind of pain!

[lynne]

43. A C-Section carries additional risks to the mother -

- and I would imagine that's why they had her deliver vaginally. I had a similar situation but with a much better result so I understand a bit of what they went through in that hospital. For me it was a very pre-term baby, only 27 weeks gestation. I was in hard labor and they couldn't stop it.

Like that couple, I was in the maternity ward surrounded by the sounds of happy parents and healthy babies being delivered while I was told that mine would die shortly after birth. This was 25+ years ago and 27 week babies had little to no chance of survival.

One woman in the ward would curse with each contraction and I wanted to strangle that bitch. She was cussing a blue streak yet would soon have a healthy baby in her arms while the hospital staff was asking me if I wanted them to handle the disposal of my babies body or if I would make personal arrangements.

Long story short - my baby lived and beat horrific odds. But, those hours in that delivery area of the hospital were a nightmare. And for years I swore I'd never have another as I was just so afraid. It took 9 years to get up the nerve to try again and the baby was full term and healthy.

My situation colored my opinion of abortion, too. A 27 week fetus is a BABY - not a glob of tissue. I know that as I've held one in my arms. I would never deny the option of a late term abortion for medical reasons but I must say that my thoughts of 2nd and 3rd trimester elective abortion changed entirely.

[bush_is_wacko]

46. Yes C-sections do have risk. I feel for this couple immensely

but their are risks with inducing preterm labor as well! Big time risks to the mother! There is no easy way to end a pregnancy at this stage of the game, but I suspect they delivery option was to make it easier for her to get pregnant again sooner! I also have a little bit of insight here about this situation and find it really hard to believe they would make this mother stay awake for this birth. A 20 week gestation fetus could still be under the D&E procedure, I think, and this baby didn't need to have the puncture in it's skull because it was going to die anyway. This makes it a little dificult to fit this scenario into the PBA area. I just find these SEVERE cases to be so misleading for people. Most especially people who have never given birth.