Will doctors give a woman an abortion after 20 weeks if the baby is perfectly healthy?

[joshcryer]

As far as I understand Europe has a ban on abortions (unless life threatening) after this point. So my question really is, would a doctor give a woman an abortion if the baby is healthy and posed no risk to the mother?

I am pro-choice, yet I cannot reconcile the idea that a woman would get an abortion with only three-four months to go (with each passing week considerably increasing the odds of viablity). The vast majority of abortions are within the first 10 weeks.

[madfloridian]

1. Read this.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1293

And this.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1289

It is a battle of words, and the GOP won and the Democrats and women lost.

[joshcryer]

3. That doesn't answer my question.

[madfloridian]

12. Actually those posts did answer your question.

They do answer the question. They just don't give a percentage.

The bill from 2003 that was upheld this week makes the health of a woman less important now.

[Totally Committed]

2. I see from your profile that you are male.

I cannot reconcile the idea that a male should have an opinion about what a female wishes to do with her own reproductive system.

I suggest if you can't reconcile the idea of an abortion with only three or four monts to go, don't have one.... :sarcasm: ... and allow women the dignity of respecting their ability to decide for themselves what to do with their own bodies.

Thanks.

TC

[joshcryer]

5. That doesn't answer my question either.

[varkam]

10. Last time I checked this is America.

I think we're allowed to have whatever opinions we wish to have.

[joshcryer]

13. I don't get it. I'm pro-choice.

I'm wondering about whether or not doctors will perform an abortion on a technologically viable fetus.

People say that it's not a baby or it doesn't have rights or it can't feel until it's born.

Yet thousands of premature babies are born a year in this very small window where apparently 1.4% of abortions are occuring. Are these all women who are having complications or are they people chosing to abort an arguably viable fetus?

[varkam]

17. I don't presume to know why one would have a late-term abortion.

I would think that the circumstances differ from case to case.

For my part, I don't think there is any good way to determine when a fetus becomes a human being. Viability is one way of determining that, I think.

[joshcryer]

52. This is why I asked about the DOCTORS.

The Hippocratic Oath might preclude some intelligent doctors from performing the procedure due to viablity. What people are missing here is that I am not asking about people who want abortions, I'm 100% sure that there are some women out there who would thoughtlessly attempt a 20th+ week abortion without having considered the issue earlier on in the pregnancy when viablity was not a point of question.

[varkam]

59. How can you be sure? eom

[joshcryer]

71. Intuition. And the stats below this post prove it. 233 fetuses.

Viable.

[varkam]

152. Intuition is a poor route to certainty.

Can you point out these stats to me?

[rainy]

38. I've tried to get this question answered here too. but I get the same

answers you get. My question is if the fetus is viable but must be aborted for the health of the mother is every step taken to save the fetus? I've heard the late term abortion method described as birthing the baby alive head only and then destroying it. If the fetus if viable and could be born healthy then any form of killing the fetus is murder to me. I can't get any info on who actually has late term abortions and if they are all about the immediate health of the mother. Most say that there is no such thing as partial berth but what is it when the fetus is delivered head only then killed? I am pro abortion but I think it should be done when the baby is just cells multiplying, not a baby. Once it is a baby then aborting it seems like killing it to me. I'm just looking for some clarification.

[madfloridian]

45. I want to know about a lot of medical procedures men undergo.

I don't hear much talk about that around here, only about women's procedures. You know, vasectomies, implants in certain organs...are they regulated. Shouldn't we check into all that?

Where are you guys getting the idea that women just prance into a doctor's office 3rd trimester and demands an abortion? I don't think that happens, and I think you are falling for media and right wing spin.

Now, back to the procedures and prescriptions men undergo....time to start looking into those things now.

[rainy]

46. all I really want to know is what the procedure actually is and

who actually gets it. That is all and i think the media has failed to inform the public to these facts. They just keep it as sporting game between two parties and never get the facts right. can someone here tell me? I have googled and came up short.

[madfloridian]

47. Is that your right to know a person's private medical decisions?

When did you get that right? Ok, then I want to know about which men get implants, have vasectomies and take Viagra.

[joshcryer]

54. It is my right to know about doctor practices.

This has nothing to do with whether or not females are getting these abortions on viable or otherwise healthy babies, this is wondering if there are doctors who perform the procedure on viable (or very close to viable) healthy babies.

[SharonAnn]

66. Democratic Underground is not a medical practice forum. You may want to try those.

[joshcryer]

74. You're right, I should've googled more before asking.

...I mean if I knew I'd be flamed to death by haters I totally would've avoided asking the question.

[rainy]

193. Im just trying to understand what the procedure really is. Do you know?

If not your argument is moot. It's not about men and their medical procedures, it's about ending the life of a living being that may be viable if allowed to be taken from the womb alive. What say you now?

[Heathen57]

224. What I have found out

from talking to a woman who worked as a bodyguard/escort at a clinic is that the fetus is almost never viable in those cases.

As far as the procedure is concerned, the baby's head is NOT pulled clear out and then crushed. The head is turned around to the front of the cervix. The brain matter is removed and the skull collapses. Sounds bad, but the vast majority of the D&X (the proper term) cases are done because the fetus is not viable due to complications resulting in the fetus not able to survive outside the womb.

I am sure that the doctors will try and save a fetus that is viable. However when the choice is between the life and health of the woman and that of the fetus, the woman should be foremost in the equation.

[joshcryer]

53. Viablity is not third trimester.

That's the misinformation I am seeing in this thread. Third trimester is quite obviously viable. And I wouldn't think any doctor in their right mind would give a woman an abortion to a healthy third trimester baby.

The question is about known viablity. 20 weeks, at the point that this ban is occuring.

This has nothing to do with women seeking abortions, this is a question about doctors. Sorry it bothers you all so much.

[madfloridian]

84. Don't worry, the doctors will be jailed for it now. Happy are you?

Of course it has to do with seeking abortions.

I feel sick.

[LoZoccolo]

99. In many states, a man cannot get a vasectomy without the wife's permission.

Yet bring that up, that a man is not allowed to do what he wants with his own body, and you will hear a bunch of groaning and snarky and sarcastic comments about how men are so persecuted. Ditto for male reproductive choice.

[loyalsister]

186. When a stupid law exists

mobilize and try to have it changed. That is a bad law.
No one should have another person have any kind of control over their body.

Although, it is hard to avoid the evidence that men have an advantage in this arena when they don't have to be forced to carry a fetus.
The outrage is simply proportional to the insult.

[kath]

189. Can you give an example of such a state statute, please?

Never heard of such a law, but would love to know which states have such laws.

[LittleClarkie]

104. I think it's valid to say that late term abortions are generally medical in nature

The hypothetical you are proposing, where the woman just decides one day that she doesn't feel like being pregnant anymore, even though she's quite far along, just doesn't happen.

I'd love to see some hard facts about why the D and E is used and in what percentage. I wonder if they're available somewhere.

[joshcryer]

106. I'm merely trying to find statistics and data about this.

I however haven't really found such data. I do not consider, for example, hypertension to be a "life threatening debilitation" (especially given that midwifery techniques would make it a non-issue). However a given doctor could very well consider it as such. Especially if they can profit off of such an assessment.

[LittleClarkie]

111. But you are also putting a fairly negative spin on the idea

of late term abortions. You're not really coming at it objectively are you?

[joshcryer]

114. The 'spin' you cite is in order to elicit counter arguments.

It's called debate. We now have evidence that viable fetuses are indeed aborted. Now we need to know how many of those in fact had other complications that could've resulted in death.

I expect that out of all of them a few have to, statistically, get through without there being any complications at all.

[LittleClarkie]

116. But why concentrate on a few versus most

Why the emphasis on what you say are but a few abortions statistically. Seems a tad myopic.

[joshcryer]

122. Well, the evidence does seem to suggest that the vast majority...

...of these late term abortions are indeed due to complications. I suppose I can accept that as a big enough picture, but I am concerned that those doctors that are performing the procedure without any health reasons to do so are doing it for the money.

[TankLV]

228. SURE ya are - just because YOU say so...

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[varkam]

41. You're being sexist eom

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[varkam]

51. You can stop with the vitriol - it doesn't impress me.

For the record, I'm completely pro-choice. I don't think any politician (man or woman) has any business telling any woman what they may or may not do with their reproductive rights. I don't see, however, how because I am a man I am not allowed to express or much less have an opinion on the issue. Having an opinion is just a by-product of being an informed consumer of information.

[joshcryer]

55. You totally missed the question. It's about doctors, not women.

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm specifically asking about doctor practices.

[The Gunslinger]

92. Last I checked a man has a lot to do with the reproduction process

and our opinions should have solid footing on this issue. Anything else is pure sexism.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

120. But you don't have much to do with the pregnancy and giving birth process

2 seconds of ejaculation does not equate with what the woman contributes to the effort. That's biology, not sexism.

[LittleClarkie]

100. Is the woman a tribble?

The hypothetical woman didn't impregnate herself.

He has the right to an opinion the same as any human being.

[Thothmes]

182. They sometimes may be called fathers

[fuzzyball]

214. How is the health of any mother helped by late term abortion?

And since males are involved in every conception,
ofcourse males should have a say in abortion.

I am 100% pro-choice in the 1st trimester. In the 2nd
trimester mother's health issues should take precedence.
In the 3rd trimester, when the baby is capable of surviving
on its own, I am against killing the baby even if it involves
risk to the mother's health.

But what no one has ever explained in a rational manner is
that how is the mother helped by first killing the baby and
then delivering it versus delivering the live baby.

[Taverner]

4. How much of a nervous system is there at 20 weeks?

What are it's life experiences (none)?

All medical ethical questions should stand up against the question of suffering. And the possible mother's suffering needs to be taken into account as well...

[joshcryer]

6. I'm pro-choice, I don't get the responses.

[Taverner]

7. I'll admit my response was a bit cloudy

I get that way sometimes :)

But my argument is that all medial ethical questions (like abortion) should be answered by weighing the amount of suffering - both by the kid, the fetus and the mother.

[joshcryer]

9. The question is really about viablity and time.

If you're past the halfway mark and viablity is increasing at an alarming rate, with viablity as early as 24 weeks (rarest case 21 weeks). We're talking a month before viablity here.

[Totally Committed]

8. The day the U.S. government seeks to regulate your reproductive system...

oh, wait, that won't happen... YOU'RE MALE.

I'm glad you're pro-choice, even if you can't reconcile WOMEN'S entire right to their own reproductive systems and the choices we make. That makes you pro-choice only when you can reconcile yourself to allowing us to make the choice ourselves, and with our doctor. You see what I'm saying, right?

TC

[joshcryer]

11. Actually, the US government does regulate my reproductive system.

You see, if I knock someone up I have no choice as to whether or not I have to finaically support the child. I have to, by default.

Yet mothers have that choice from the get go (ie, if they do not want to finanically support a child they do not have to have it).

But your hostile responses are clearly not going to get that point, and I would rather not go off on a tangent. I'll be back later to discuss this further. Hopefully it won't devolve into a flame war, but I see that it starting early on even though my intentions were simply to ask a question.

[niyad]

18. really? then how do you explain the BILLIONS of dollars in back child support owed by so many in

this country? you might want to look at the stats on child support--ie, amounts actually awarded (believe it or not, the amounts in most cases are very little) and percentages of cases where child support is actually awarded (hint: it is NOT 100%) and the percentage of cases where child support is actually PAID IN FULL IN A TIMELY MANNER.


THEN you can come back and whine about YOUR reproductive rights being controlled by the (mostly MALE) government.

[Big Pappa]

77. I pay $1100 a month for 1 child

And I pay the entire amount on the first. So according to you I guess I have my "whine" priviledges reinstated. This is not a male or female issue. It's everyones issue.

[JetCityLiberal]

204. No it isn't

It is the WOMAN'S issue. Period.

Jesus this right wing crap is repulsive.

[joshcryer]

215. So it's okay that women get second chances but men can't?

This isn't right wing, this is about equality.

[Big Pappa]

237. What if

the woman is is my 15 year old daughter, is it still not my business. What if the woman is on medicaid, as a taxpayer is it not my business. do not tell me about "right wing crap" this is a very personnel issue. And BTW JCL if it is not my issue then why does it just magically become my issue after the child is born?

[Totally Committed]

19. That's not regulating your REPRODUCTIVE system...

You have the choice to "knock up" a woman or not. You can buy a condom almost anywhere these days. We women can't even get birth control from some pharmacists, even if we have a valid prescription from a medical doctor... or even get Plan B - the morning-after contraceptive -- which is supposed to be OTC now.

You are PRO-CHOICE as long as you agree with the CHOICE women make. My responses are "hostile" (your opinion, not mine... I see it as assertively protective) because your position is paternalistic as those men who are NOT Pro-choice. I resent it, yes, but I am also . Thanks, anyway, but no amount of discussion between us is gonna make me less "hostile" to your "pro-choice" position. It's like saying you're Pro-Equal Rights as long as you get to decide who's as equal as you.

I fought hard for the passage of Roe v. Wade, and seeing it dismantled piece by piece in front of my eyes is frustrating and angering to me. And, it is being dismantled because "pro-choice" men like you will not stand up for our right to make our own CHOICES. You may be well-meaning, but you are no help at all.

TC

[joshcryer]

49. Women have birth control, they have the choice. Men do not.

Did I at any point say I am against 20 week abortions? I asked if doctors were against it because they understand a 20 week or thereabouts fetus is viable.

You are hostile because you do not see the inequality apparent in paternal relationships, that men do not have the choice to prevent themselves from having a child without undergoing a rather difficult to reverse surgery (condoms do break you know).

Women who complain about not being able to get birth control at certain pharmacies are just complaining. I can't buy booze at certain places (I look young). There are always places to find booze, though, just like there are birth control pills.

[The Gunslinger]

94. A woman has a choice too

Of weather or not to have unprotected sex. A woman can carry condems too. Roe vs Wade should stand as it is originally intended, but a women can control if they get pregnant or not, and therefore have a choice.

[Bridget Burke]

40. Well, then you'll be glad to pay the many thousands in premie care....

And, if the kid survives, it might have permanent problems. Some of of the very early ones do, you know.

This sounds like a research question. Why don't you do some research?

[joshcryer]

50. I have done the research, actually.

JAMA suggests that 20 weeks is the area where we are technologically capable of having a viable human being. They place 27 weeks as the "point of no return" (almost all fetuses are viable, and capable of being nursed to good health at that point). My brother was a month premature. He's fine, no significant health problems. The point of full viablity is increased (and the costs of viablity decrease) as technology improves. Yet no one here recognizes this and they would like to kill viable humans, presumbably.

[madfloridian]

56. "they would like to kill viable fetuses"....what the hell are you talking about?

Who wants to go around killing fetuses. It has been against the law.

[joshcryer]

60. 233 people in Kansas apparently.

Killed what the doctor considered viable fetuses.

[madfloridian]

68. Did you see the reasons given? Are you heartless totally? Scary.

"To prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of major bodily function."

Are you happy? They sure won't be doing that anymore.

[joshcryer]

78. I saw the answers...

...I think they're interesting, and I would like to see a more detailed explaination than given.

[madfloridian]

79. You said the women "chose" to abort, like it was casual.

That was shameless.

[joshcryer]

93. So "pro-choice" shouldn't be called that?

[shimmergal]

191. No, no, no!

In almost all cases where the intact D & E was used, the fetus would not have been viable under most common sense definitions. It might have lived a few hours or days, but suffering greatly, or with no consciousness and zero quality of life. Sort of like the Terry Schiavo case.

[Bridget Burke]

177. Then share the research with us.

OP's with questions--to which the writer already has the answer--are cute & coy. And quite unconvincng.

Your complaints about child support indicate you're in the "Women are Demons" camp. Wonder where you did that research?

[sandnsea]

14. Kansas data

since this came from a Kansas law.

It's gone from 5% in 1998, to 4% since they were outlawed. But they may be improved diagnostic technology, and more women making sure to get the tests early. It looks to me as if all the PBA's actually went to digoxin induction, where they inject digoxin into the fetus before it's born.

http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/absumm.html

[joshcryer]

57. Thank you for an actual answer! THANK YOU.

God. How hard is it to get an actual answer.

So according to the statistics for 2006, 233 viable fetuses were aborted. I knew that some women would chose to abort a fetus at that late stage. Only 141 non-viable fetuses were aborted.

I got my answer, I'm done with this thread after a few more defensive responses.

[madfloridian]

65. My God...did you read the reason for those????? It was their health.

From the report:

Prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.

That is the statement by doctors for the abortion. What is your purpose in this.

Are you guys aware that this is the state in which the AG wanted the names of all young women who had abortions so he could decide if they were legal??

Well, looks like KS women are now sh** out of luck....no more abortions for health.

[madfloridian]

81. In fact "irreversible impairment" might refer to death.

.

[joshcryer]

83. Says doctors in a country with the highest infant mortality rate in the western world.

Why should I trust what the medical community is saying here? The question was about health. Am I to believe every one of those viable fetuses were actually going to result in "irrevocible damage" to the mother? There are only a handful of disorders that would affect a woman with a viable fetus.

The fact remains that the US fetal care system is abyssmal (with the shunning of midwifery). Are you implying that those who have viable fetuses but have complications would've been better off having an abortion?

[madfloridian]

86. Now DU is questioning doctors? And women?

That is what we have come to here.

[joshcryer]

91. LOL, I don't represent DU.

I actually want to have all the answers rather than playing kneejerk. If I could find actual health statistics for unviable fetuses then I'd be happy. However, my intuition tells me that it's not the case.

[seabeyond]

178. you got the answer irreversable impairment then argue it to support

you angle on aborting 233 viable preg and cant possibly be because htese women were in danger. even with receiving an answer you refuse it for your argument

[Kool Kitty]

110. And you don't believe the doctors either?

What answers are you looking for then?

[Solon]

143. Uhm, yes...

Besides, we have the highest infant mortality because of LACK of access to medical care, in that case, blame our private system, not the doctors themselves. Most women who end up pregnant avoid pre-natal care because they simply can't afford it.

The fact is that, due to biology, being pregnant is one of the more dangerous conditions a woman can find herself in, its only thanks to modern medical practices that maternal mortality is as low as it is. With that in mind, I say leave all medical choices up up to doctors and the women themselves, rather than to some legislation that can't cover everything.

[niyad]

15. maybe you ought to find out just how many abortions are done at 20 weeks or later, and for what

reasons. THEN ask your question. sounds to me like you are swallowing the reichwing koolade about 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.

[joshcryer]

58. I looked for statistics but could not find any.

sandesa (spelling) provided very useful information.

[niyad]

20. by the way, please cite actual information on abortions in europe, particularly with regards to

abortions after 20 weeks. "I understand" is NOT sufficient.

[Mass]

32. Here is a fairly good map that indicates the motives and the limits

of abortion laws in the world.

http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_abortion_laws.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. I would guess that would depend upon the doctor. As it should.

In conjuction with the woman.

The older, or more developed, the fetus the more dangerous the procedure would be for the woman. It would seem to me that there is a point where a doctor would recommend going to term, not for the sake of the fetus but for the sake of the woman. If they decide otherwise it is probably because going to term would be more dangerous to the woman than having the procedure would be. That's why the SC ban on intact dialtion and extraction is so misguided - it is a procedure that does carry a certain risk to the mother and is used only when all other choices are even worse. The decision puts the life of the fetus, whether healthy and viable or hideously deformed and non-viable, above the life of the woman who is already a viable human being.

[JoDog]

22. You pose a good question

and one that pro-choice should have an answer to. Unfortunately, as with everything in the abortion debate, there are no easy answers to this one.

I spent part of the weekend going over the recent SCOTUS decision, and found it to be so much moral posturing that probably won't prevent 1 abortion, but merely limits a doctor and patient's options in an emergency. For heaven's sake, they used the old "women are fragile and emotional creatures" arguement!

But I digress. Many of the court decisions that established or supported the right to choose (Roe, Casey and Stenberg for example) tended to support a viability or "trimester" rule--if the pregnancy has advanced to the point where the fetus can survive outside the womb, and the fetus is healthy, abortion is not allowed. However, if the fetus has died in utero or has little chance of ever surviving outside the womb, or continuing to carry the pregnancy or going through childbirth poses a signifigant risk to the woman's heath, then an abortion can be performed.

Then, we must ask the question of what constitutes "health"--is it only physical health that must be considered, or emotional/psychological health has well? Some doctors will perform a late 2nd trimester abortion if continuing the pregnancy would send a person over the edge mentally--for instance, if there is a high likelihood of postnatal depression or suicide. Some doctors will only proform the procedure if the physical being of the mother is in danger.

Often, by the time a woman gets to this stage in a pregnancy, it is because she is committed to seeing the pregnancy through and either wants to make an addition to her own family or to that of someone else. There are rare instances where a woman does not realize she is pregnant (seriously, it happened to a friend of mine!). Also, a traumatized person or a victim of incest may not have been able to get the abortion she wanted earlier in the pregnancy. In areas where there are no abortion providers, it may be impossible to get to a doctor within the 10 to 12 weeks of the first trimester (bare in mind, even women who are on the top of their cycle's timing may not know they are pregnant until they are 2 to 3 weeks along).

Now, my own personal thoughts on this question as a pro-choice woman. If the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or the woman lives in a rural area with no clinics, then I am willing to accept abortions in the second trimester. However, in other cases, if the fetus has reached the stage of viability, where it can be reasonably expected to live outside the womb, and there is no health danger to the mother, the pregnancy should proceed. I have reached this opinion as an extention of my beliefs that the mother's life and will trumps that of the fetus so long as she is physically supporting it, and there is no way the fetus' systems could support it. In essence, she is the only potential independently function organism, so she has precedence. But, once the fetus could breathe air and survive on its own, its life and potential will becomes equal in value to that of the mother (at least in my eyes). Then it is better to let both live, and give up the eventual child for adoption if the mother does not wish to raise it. I think this is the most intellectually honest position I could reach on this one.

I know I'm gonna get burned. Others are as always free to disagree with me. I hope this has helped some, joshcryer.

[madfloridian]

26. I wonder how the children of a mother in such circumstances...

would feel if it came to a point that the mother they loved and needed was not as important as the fetus.

I have often wondered how a father and husband would feel in such circumstances.

A mother with children and a husband would be considered less important than the baby which endangers her health.

[JoDog]

34. I never said

that the mother was ever LESS important than the fetus. I merely suggested that there is a point in a healthy pregnancy that a fetus gains a claim on physical life that I personally bring into consideration. If continuing the pregnancy would endanger the mother, then I fully support ending the pregnancy. Especially if there are other people who depend on her.

My thoughts hinge on the standard set forth in the Casey and Stenberg cases--abortion is always allowable when the life and health of the mother is at stake. Besides being my opinion, that is the law in most cases. The OP asked a question about 2nd trimester abortion in the case of a completely healthy pregnancy in a healthy mother with a healthy and viable fetus. That is the facet of this topic that I was trying to address.

I'm sorry if I did not make this perfectly clear.

[madfloridian]

36. The bill and ruling say that.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1291

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003

[JoDog]

39. I know what the law says

I spent part of the weekend reading the Supreme Court's decision. The OP did not put forth a question that specified any certain abortion procedure. He merely asked about ALL potential abortion procedures. Thus, I tried to pose my answer as dealing with all potential procedures. Since he did not ask about what the SCOTUS ruling did and did not make illegal I kept my answer as general as possible.

Let me make one thing clear: I do NOT agree with last week's decision. It embraces a view of women that is ancient at best, tells doctors how to practice medicine and flies in the face of all precedent on the issue. Please do not put words in my mouth.

[joshcryer]

62. 233 women in Kansas had the procedure even though it wouldn't have harmed them to go to term...

...other than, you know, actually having to give birth which women have been doing for tens of thousands of years.

[madfloridian]

72. That is a flat out lie. I just quoted the reason to you twice. Lying.

"To prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of a major body function."

That is from the KS report.

You are lying.

[joshcryer]

85. How many disorders do you know of where a viable fetus could harm the mother?

I don't know of many and I've been researching this all day.

[madfloridian]

88. Oh,god. Let someone deal with you. I am done.

It makes me sick.

[joshcryer]

90. Thanks, I'll figure it out myself.

And I'm sure that if my intuition is correct it's unlikely you'd care either way.

It's not like you actually wanted to educate or answer my question.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

126. Pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, kidney disease, lupus, macrosomia.

I don't know what you've been researching all day but that took me about a minute on Google.

[joshcryer]

128. Bah, I have researched almost all of those!

Pre-eclampsia (the hypertension I mentioned) kills a lot of babies, more so than women. And it doesn't fit the description of "viablity" yet "damaging to the woman."

Gestational diabetes is treatable with very good success. Doesn't fit "viablity" yet "damaging to the woman."

Kidney disease I may have to conceed to. But wouldn't that render the fetus unviable? We're looking for diseases where the fetus is viable, but the female may be harmed by the delivery. Doesn't fit.

Lupus doesn't match the numbers or fill in the gaps as far as I can tell.

Macrosomia wouldn't necessarily be viable. But it is the one thing that definitely would result in harming the female in delivery.

[sandnsea]

139. My god - except when it DOESN'T

Just because something is treatable, even 99.99% of the time, it doesn't mean that there aren't cases where the disease doesn't respond to treatment. I posted you an example of a real live woman - and you dismissed it too. These are the cases in question. Sometimes the fetuses aren't viable, sometimes they are. Any time you intentionally end a pregnancy, it's called an abortion. Sometimes the fetuses are viable, but have defects wherein they will die within a short time after birth. The mother's health is in danger as well. That's one of your viable abortions.

Doctors do not report the circumstances of every abortion because patients have a right to privacy. Do you want them to report all of your medical conditions to the state??

[joshcryer]

144. How is a baby that will die shortly after birth viable?

I don't get that one.

[sandnsea]

149. Heart beat and respiration

It has to be put on lifesaving machinery, regardless of whether it'll die in 3 minutes or 300 minutes. Therefore, it's viable.

It's the age of the fetus, not the medical condition.

[joshcryer]

155. Where are you getting this?

I've read half of this court document and I don't see a thing about it.

[sandnsea]

166. Being a responsible and informed citizen

Being born alive is enough for many doctors to claim there is viability.

Baby Sun is an excellent example. They didn't diagnose his condition until very late in the pregnancy. The mother did not have an abortion, I don't know why, doesn't matter really. The baby was born and because of abortion laws, it was required the infant be put on life support. The hospital finally did the futile care thing, and removed the baby from life support and he died very quickly. I disagreed with that because it was against the mother's will. That's why women's rights are included in this, it can't just be the doctor's decision before birth any more than it can be the doctor's after birth. And it sure as hell shouldn't be the government's, either way.

Most abortions happen in the first few weeks, when they're not much more than a blastocyst, which isn't much more than the cell sluffed out during a woman's menstrual cycle. The late term are medical. That's the reality of at least 90% of abortions. Better health care would reduce the numbers, all the way around, even more. That's what we should be fighting for, not hounding a few hundred women a year facing the most traumatic event of their lives.

[madfloridian]

80. "233 women in Kansas had the procedure even though it wouldn't have harmed them to go to term."

That is not what the report said. You are not telling the truth.

[sandnsea]

101. Back there on post #6

you were lying about your motives in this thread, is that it?

And you still pretend not to understand, despite having been told about various reasons women NEED late term abortions, like they have illnesses that need treatment or hydrocephalus or ability to autopsy the fetus.

Are you kidding me?

Here. A court case on whether it's better to chop fetuses up or do an intact extraction.

http://www.lc.org/ProLife/pba_ny_040804.htm

How in the world do you come to the conclusion that it's better to chop the fetus up.

[joshcryer]

105. No, I was not.

And I never said we should be chopping fetuses up. I don't know where that comes from.

BTW, hydrocephalus would result in a non-viable fetus. What other illnesses can you think of? I've been doing the research but I cannot find the answers here. If I could find the illnesses, then I could correlate them with the raw statistics then I can come up with a good likelihood that these viable (by the abortion doctors own admission) fetuses were aborted for reasons related to these diseases.

[sandnsea]

108. That's the alternative

You've made up your mind that women are murdering babies when the only information you've gotten is from the fundie pro-lifers.

Read the link. It's actual court testimony. It lists the conditions under which late term abortions might be done.

There are over 50,000 pregnancies a year in Kansas. There are over 10,000 abortions. And you want to focus on 200 of those, and believe the ridiculous notion that these 200 can't possibly be the medical complications describe in the court document I already posted for you.

Why?

[joshcryer]

112. I fully believe the unviable abortions were due to complications.

That is not hard to accept. The rest however are increasingly difficult for me to accept without more data. This has nothing to do with pro-life fundies. Though slander is expected.

[sandnsea]

115. It's in the link

The fact that you won't read the link says all that needs to be said.

[joshcryer]

119. I read the link.

And I don't trust it. Statistically it cannot be possible. In fact I don't trust a lot of what comes out of the medical industry. Call me paranoid.

[sandnsea]

121. lol, you don't trust it

You know, it doesn't matter what the topic is - when the right runs up against reality - they just poke their fingers in their ears and sing lalalalalala.

It's COURT TESTIMONY. What the hell do you mean you don't trust it.

[joshcryer]

123. I was talking about the Kansas documents.

They don't match up statistically speaking.

[sandnsea]

125. Read the court testimony

It will explain the circumstances under which abortions are performed - and why some are called viable when it's really more complicated than that.

And if it's all life - then why are you focused on these 200 abortions instead of the 10,000 that really are elective and could be prevented if men and women were more sexually responsible.

[joshcryer]

130. Viablity is only mentioned once in here... still reading.

[ProudDad]

148. Ok

You're paranoid.

And, it appears, you are trolling...

[Heathen57]

225. And don't forget that

there are a number of those "late term abortions" that are done on women who come from neighboring states (and even farther) because they cannot get the procedure done where they live.

A friend helped a woman in New Orleans obtain a late term abortion but the woman had to travel to Chicago because that was the closest place that would do the procedure.

And yest it was medically necessary.

[Kool Kitty]

113. Women have been giving birth for millions of years.

Starting when the human race evolved.

[joshcryer]

61. Thank you for the very reasonable reply.

I appreciated it very much, and that's how I felt about the situation.

[cmkramer]

23. Well, that's the thing

In almost every instance, these late term abortions only take place when the fetus has a condition which is incompatible with life or if the mother's health - reproductive and otherwise - and life is in danger.

By the way, Roe v. Wade does allow for some regulation by the state in the third trimester. It was hardly the "abortions at any time" horror the rightwing tries to make it out to be.

[sinkingfeeling]

24. To answer your question, yes, most abortion doctors will follow Roe vs. Wade.

The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

However, there are many reasons that women and young girls will be into their second trimester before seeking abortion. Among those are ignorance, lack of services, lack of funds, or for many the diagnosis of severe problems with the developing fetus.

How much do the 'pro-lifers' distort the numbers? Here's an example:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000078.htm
During 1979 and 1980, third-trimester induced abortions* reported to Georgia's Department of Human Resources (DHR) accounted for 123.1 per 100,000 legal abortions (86 of 69,876). Because of concern about this reported number and the indications for late abortions, the DHR undertook a medical record review.

The DHR reviewed medical records and verified pregnancy outcome** for 78 (90.7%) of reported third-trimester induced abortions. Of these 78 reports, three were for women who had true third-trimester induced abortions. Two of these were performed to terminate pregnancies involving anencephalic fetuses at 25 and 34 weeks' gestation. The third woman had an abortion at 26 weeks' gestation, but little information was available from which to determine the reason for the procedure. Of the 78 reported to have obtained third-trimester induced abortions, 58 (74.4%) were fetal deaths in utero, while 15 (19.2%) were first- or second-trimester abortions; one was a duplicative report, and one was not an abortion. Thus, the occurrence of true third-trimester-induced abortion was 4.3 per 100,000 legal abortions (3 of 69,876) instead of the reported 123.1. Reported by JW Flynt, MD, M Lavoie, AK Schoenbucher, MD, Georgia State Dept of Human Resources; Program Evaluation Br, Div of Reproductive Health, Center for Health Promotion and Education, CDC.

[joshcryer]

63. I'm not asking about third trimester abortions.

And I have not found anything about doctors performing third trimester abortions on viable fetuses.

[jobycom]

25. Yes.

Roe V Wade ruled that a state could outlaw abortions in the third trimester, and limit them in the second, but the next year in Doe v Bolton ruled that a doctor could provide an abortion up until the time of birth if he believed that, for any reason including emotional or familial, the mother's mental or physical health was at risk.

A 92 decision (Planned Parenthood v Davis, I think) ruled that the trimester rule was outdated, and that a state could limit abortions after a fetus becomes viable, which means it is able to live outside the womb, with technological assistance. The earliest time would be, as of now, 22 weeks, for viability. After that, a state can restrict abortion rights.

However, the 92 decision did not overturn Roe or Doe, so a doctor is still allowed to make the decision to abort a viable fetus under the terms of Doe; in other words, if "in his best clinical judgment", in light of the patient's age, "physical, emotional, psychological familial" circumstances, finds it "necessary for her physical or mental health."

So a healthy FETUS (I object to the use of the term "baby" here) can be aborted after 20 weeks if the doctor believes the mother is at risk.

Only about 1.4% of abortions are performed after the 20 week mark, so it seems unlikely that many, if any, doctors are performing late abortions on healthy fetuses. But that's entirely up to the doctor, based on the patient.

As I understand it, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Current_legal_situation

[madfloridian]

27. Now only if her life is in danger...to hell with her health.

That is really what it says.

[jobycom]

30. Could you elaborate?

[madfloridian]

35. Here's the bill from 2003 that was upheld this week. Health not considered.

"Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003 "

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1291

[jobycom]

151. As I understand it, the law only restricts that procedure, roughly .17% of abortions

Not that it wasn't a horrendous decision, but only in the case of that procedure must a patient's life be in danger, and the argument which the Court agreed with was that this procedure was always unsafe, and therefore there was no need for a clause allowing the procedure only for a patient's "health," since the procedure would always endanger the patient more than the health issue would. Only in terms of the patient's life being in danger is the risk justified.

It's all bullshit, and it dangerously weakens many of the principles Roe and Doe are built on. The ruling also weakens the principle that the patient's rights are all that matter, by agreeing that the state has an "interest" in the fetus (implying, if this is taken to it's conclusion that the state therefore has control over the patient's body).

But it does NOT allow laws to be passed banning all abortions, or the basic practice of abortions, if a mother's health is at risk. The ruling rejected the need to include an exception for the patient's health ONLY because the procedure was ruled unsafe (by Congress, and that's also bullshit, but that's another argument), thus creating risk for the woman.

So, so far, this ruling only bans a little used technique. It creates dangerous channels along which more restrictive legislation can be crafted, and that is a tremendous concern. It underscores why we need a Democratic president to veto any more such bills and appoint true judicial candidates, rather than hyped-up political hackers posing as judges. We must take control of the Court before too much more damage can be done to the Constitution and the entire principle of equality.

But so far, a patient can still have an abortion if her health is in danger, and so far, any law which violates that principle is unconstitutional, unless it follows the ruling laid out by this court. That's what we are fighting for from this point on--to prevent this from getting any worse.

Republicans make me sick. As abortion rights have become increasingly supported by a majority of the public, these shits have tried every trick they can think of to circumvent the will of the people and the essence of the Constitution.

[JoDog]

37. Last week's decision

Only made an exemption if the life of the mother is definitely at stake. Not her health.

Which may end up being an impossible standard for a doctor to prove in court.

The decision also states that any procedure is allowed if the fetus has died in utero. If the fetus still registers a heartbeat but would not be live outside the womb, the law allows doctors to use other means to stop the heartbeat (like medication), and then can use the intact D&E to complete the abortion.

Intact D&E is only outlawed if the fetus still registers a heartbeat at the time of the start of the procedure. Regular D&E (where the fetus is dismembered in the womb and the pieces removed) is still allowed in all cases, and is not covered by the law. Since the beginning of a D&E usually involves pulling some part of the fetus out of the womb, the law establishes anatomical benchmarks--remove the fetus up to such-and-such a point on its torso, it's still a D&E. Pull it out any farther than that, it's an intact D&E, and thus illegal.

[patricia92243]

28. A coat hanger will be much better for the fetus than a doctor,

:sarcasm:

[Totally Committed]

29. See this EXCELLENT post by madfloridian:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3229908&mesg_id=3229908

TC

[Beaverhausen]

31. The laws vary by state

I think some states do outlaw abortion on a healthy, viable fetus after 24 weeks unless the mother's life or health is in danger.

Most women don't get to be 6 months pregnant, then suddenly decide, oh I don't want to have this baby.

[AtomicKitten]

33. as long as it is legal

In my experience, the only late term abortions that cross my desk are those performed after an amniocentesis has revealed a catastrophic birth defect. In 35 years, I have NEVER come across the procedure known as partial birth abortion, and I have come to the conclusion that that term is used exclusively to incite opposition to abortions.

[ripple]

43. Agreed, AK- the right is playing on emotions, rather than facts

From what I understand, late-term procedures are pretty much only performed under the circumstances you mentioned, or when the health of the mother is at-risk.

It seems to me that the same people who complain the loudest about "elective" abortion just scored a major victory in the one area that abortion is performed strictly for health reasons.

Not to mention, federal matching dollars for the Medicaid funding needed to provide adequate services and medical care to those with permanent, debilitating disabilities continues to decline- where is the outrage from the so-called pro-life groups about that?

The hypocrisy is stunning.

[joshcryer]

64. Do you consider 20-24 week (late second trimester) fetuses viable?

Because apparently abortion doctors in Kansas do but they aborted 233 of them anyway.

[AtomicKitten]

97. double post

again

[AtomicKitten]

98. * viable *

Viable technically means can live outside the womb - which a 20-24 week fetus can as modern science in Neonatal Intensive Care Units nowadays has shown.

But that is not the point which is * abortion is up to the woman *. It is her decision and none of our business. Period.

You are only entitled to tsk, tsk with a wag of your finger if and only if you put up the money to raise the child, for living expenses, medical and dental care, orthodontia, college, etc. and if you pledge to share the parenting including attending all school plays, recitals, sports activities, etc., organize birthday parties, wipe away their tears, listen to their dreams, give advice, and provide taxi duties 24/7.

Because if you don't, your opinion on what a woman does with her body doesn't mean a damn thing.

[Bridget Burke]

179. "Abortion Doctors"?

You mean OB/GYN's who perform abortions, don't you?

Or did you get the phrase from a site with targets drawn around these doctors' photos?

[Solo_in_MD]

42. Also have to wonder if the woman would be able to find a doctor willing

Abortion is being taught less and less in the medical profession, and it never was all that popular. Given the social and economic pressure on those few doctors who do them , as well as thier own conscience, there won't be many providers for late term abortions, legal or not. At least one OBGYN I know reasonably well, won't do one after 10 weeks.

[joshcryer]

67. Do you think 10 weeks is enough time for a reasonable woman to make that decision?

I think 20 weeks is more than enough time. Why they would be irresponsible about such a thing and bring a fetus to viablity is beyond me.

[Sparkly]

73. Fortunately, your judgments of women and their decisions are irrelevant. nt

[joshcryer]

96. That's why I asked specifically about doctors. But the message got lost.

And I still don't have a clear answer. Funny, that.

[Solo_in_MD]

103. Since I am not going to face that decision, I am not sure I get a say in much on it

That is the OBGYN's call, since it is her practice. I won't presume to have standing to intevene.

A long while back I was stationed in a small town that had only two OBGYNs, in a group practice. No others withint 120 miles. Neither of them would do abortions, not even theraputic ones, though I know that one did operate to save the life of a woman with an eptopic pregnancy. A clear case of being unable to excersize ones rights due to the freedom of choice of others.

[madfloridian]

48. They will go to jail if they give an abortion for health reasons...so why

in the world would you ask if they just give one because she asks. The bill was passed by Congress in 2003. Why would you ask....it would be illegal for them to do it.

" "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003 "

You really believe a doctor would risk jail time?

[joshcryer]

70. Doctors in Kansas did it 233 times...

...guess that didn't stop them.

[madfloridian]

75. You are not telling the truth about that report. You should be ashamed.

Read the whole report.....those 233 were for health reasons.

[madfloridian]

76. Page 9 of the KS report posted by sandnsea above.

Read it and tell the truth.

[joshcryer]

95. 8% of pregnancies in the 20th week could result in DEATH.

Due to prevelance of hyptertension in that period. Yet 8% of pregnancies in the 20th week are not aborted. And 8% of women don't die in childbirth.

But that could easily fit the definition given by the paper that was cited.

In other words, there simply isn't enough information for you to come to your conclusion.

[Heathen57]

226. According to the CDC

12% of women die during childbirth or immediately afterwards.

[Sparkly]

69. Check your state here...

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/state-profiles/

[Hippo_Tron]

82. 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester, most done after that are for medical reasons

You're trying to address a virtually nonexistent problem, which is women suddenly deciding late in the second trimester or in the third trimester that they want to have an abortion. If that does happen, the cases are extremely rare and therefore there's no real need to legislate on the issue. It's all about the Republicans trying to create a problem that doesn't exist.

And even if there are protections in the legislation for the life and health of the mother, they will likely be vague and therefore left up to the courts as to what determines "health of the mother". Therefore, doctors will be hesitant to make a call that an abortion is necessary for the health of the mother.

Any legislation against abortion is a stupid idea.

[joshcryer]

87. So instead of providing concrete reports...

I'm given something about viable fetuses and "irrevocible harm" which I find unlikely.

[madfloridian]

89. Watch me....

when someone says stuff like that I am done.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

127. I've been reading this thread and come to the conclusion

That we are dealing with an MRA* troll. Time to stop feeding him.....


* PM me for the definition of that acronym if you don't know what I'm talking about.

[joshcryer]

133. Name calling does not a good debate make.

Thanks for your useless commentary.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

137. I can honestly say that I don't care what you think of me or my commentary.

I know everything I need to know about you from your posts on this thread.

[joshcryer]

140. You don't know anything about me.

You couldn't make one generalization about me that would be true.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

223. You got that right!

And this isn't the first time. :eyes:

[joshcryer]

231. Substantiate or shut up.

Seriously. All the baseless bullshit by posters here is really just pathetic.

[sandnsea]

102. MEDICAL PRIVACY

That's why you'll never get the exact information you want. It's private medical records.

Plain old common sense ought to tell you that women are not murdering fetuses. What sick shit were you raised with that led you to conclude that that's what is going on.

Are there medical emergencies in pregnancies? Yes. Back in the day, it was called "taking" the baby - in order to protect or save the life of the mother. Women were supported with love and compassion. We intuitively KNEW it was a tragic moment.

What the HELL happened to decent human beings that this has been forgotten.

[joshcryer]

107. Actually, I can create a correlative dataset if I just knew...

...exactly what 'disorders' you all think are really life threatening to the female yet still do not impact fetus viablity. I know of very few and many (like heart disease or other heart issues) are mitigitable. And in fact it is easy enough to conjure up some sort of disorder that would fit the criteria of wording in the data that I have seen. Until I see otherwise I remain a skeptic.

[sandnsea]

109. Health is included

Nobody said anything about life threatening. That's fundie talk. Health is just as important. As is severe abnormalities of the fetus. There are certainly enough complications to justify 200 abortions out of 40,000 pregnancies in Kansas.

[joshcryer]

117. Yeah, like hypertension...

Which isn't a significant cause of deaths for the female though it could easily be if not taken care of. I'm still looking for data and I will happily come to a conclusion acceptable to your worldview if it is correct, but I don't think it is.

Statistically speaking, yes, out of 380 people it is very likely that some of them were perfectly healthy.

[sandnsea]

124. You mean toxemia?

Situations like this? You think this woman CHOSE to abort a viable baby??? NUTS.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050314/lerner

[joshcryer]

129. That fetus was unviable!

I will read the court testimony you linked in more detail in a little bit. I was looking up more good old statistics. I'm trying to conjure the exact causes for these abortions, if the numbers don't match then I don't know what to say.

[sandnsea]

135. Have you heard of medical privacy?

That's what the AG cases in Kansas were all about. The AG wanted to go rifling through women's private medical records in order to hunt down abortion doctors. Why are you obsessed with the belief that women are aborting healthy fetuses for no reason whatsoever???

[joshcryer]

141. I'm not. I'm wondering if doctors are doing it.

Why do you turn the argument around? Because you want to make this about womens rights when it was intentionally about doctors acts?

[joshcryer]

142. BTW, I find it interesting that the first few responses were flames...

...I mean, in reality it does seem to be trending toward doctors only performing these procedures in the rarest of cases (primarily due to health problems, but so far the numbers aren't adding up quite yet).

Yet everyone in this thread talked about how it's "the womans right" and so on and so fourth.

But, but, but, doctors by your own admission won't perform it if the woman is healthy and so too is the fetus. This is a very weird position to be taking, if you ask me. This is why I specifically asked about doctors, because I didn't want to get into a debate about "womens rights."

Unfortunately that's what the whole debate turned in to.

[sandnsea]

147. Women's right to medical privacy

You do believe in medical privacy, don't you???

[joshcryer]

154. Sure.

I don't believe in doctors being without review, though.

[sandnsea]

157. They aren't reviewed by the government

Never have been. This is the first time we've put any medical procedure in the hands of the government.

[joshcryer]

160. I don't think government should be involved.

But I don't see a problem with releasing anonymous data.

[sandnsea]

168. They are

And it's still not good enough for you. And who are they releasing it to? The government. Any more, and you've got government in people's medical records.

[Bridget Burke]

180. Flamebait attracts flames.

And why do you find it necessary to put quotations around "women's rights"?

[Totally Committed]

195. I resent my responses, both "verbal" and "emotional", to your OP being referred to as "flames"....

What your OP said, was that you were "Pro-Choice", but went on to limit support for WHICH choice. I found it disingenuous and self-delusional to say you supported a woman's right to choose, provided she made a choice you agreed with. Being a male compounded my anger and frustration. Your lack of recognition of this within yourself even to this point in the thread makes me even angrier.

You didn't want to get into a debate about "Women's Rights"? What the hell do you think the right to choose is part of? It would not have devolved into that, at least on my part, had you not seen fit to make a value judgement about which choice is right and which is wrong, in your opinion.

Stop kidding yourself... you are not pro-choice, you are just another guy with an opinion about what women should and should not be able to do with their own reporductive systems.

TC

[joshcryer]

196. If everyone here is ADMITTING that doctors WON'T do the procedure...

...to perfectly healthy women with a healthy fetus then they do NOT have the choice.

Duh?

[sandnsea]

145. You've got statistics and court testimony

and medical diagnoses and personal accounts. If you can't deduce that 200 out of 10,000 abortions were due to these medical complications - then it's because you just don't want to.

[joshcryer]

150. I can accept that.

Sure I can accept that.

[Kool Kitty]

118. You find the answers you have been given "unlikely".

What is the answer you'd like?

[Solon]

131. After reading this thread, I must say that you are an embarrasment to stoners everywhere...

and apparently you are on the wrong forum. Why not do the reasonable thing and go over to free republic or something?

[joshcryer]

132. Why not substantiate your position rather than spout gibberish?

At least the other flames here are somewhat substnatiated.

[Solon]

134. Well, how about the amount of times you lied about the Kansas report?

Seriously, get a grip here. To be frank, there should be NO laws governing ANY medical procedure outside of safety and labor rules.

[joshcryer]

138. I didn't lie, the terminiology that is in that report could mean anything.

The key is 'viable.' Why so many 'viable's in the report? Sandesa says that this court testimony explains what they mean by viable, I don't see it quite yet.

I didn't lie, I simply chose to intrepret the report exactly as it was written. And I find viable pregnancies to have very few scenarios where they can damage the female even with complications. Perhaps I'm ill informed. I'm doing the research, but all I get are flames.

BTW, what I find interesting in this thread is this unrelenting faith toward the medical system, especially when it comes to natal care. The fact that C-sections account for more than a quarter of delievery methods in this country suggests that our health system is not really focused on healthy reproductive science, but rather making the most money as possible.

Oh, haven't had a toke in years. But I support you stoners and pro-choice people anyway. :)

[Solon]

153. First, viable could mean anything...

Even if the fetuses were removed safely and still alive, the chances of them surviving decreases depending on how early they were taken out during the pregnancy. In some cases, the fetus may be technically viable, with medical help, however, their chances of surviving to breathe on their own is usually small, especially when as young as 20 weeks. In addition to this, the idea that women, that late in term, would just decide to terminate the pregnancy is exceedingly rare, and those that do have to go through such a decision basically treat it as any other death in the family. To say that they were flippant shows just how ignorant you are about when conditions like this occur.

You aren't interpreting shit, you are skewing the report to support your position, and that's just horrendous. To say you are pro-choice is disingenuous, to be frank, you do us no favors, so leave.

[joshcryer]

159. You can happily put me on ignore if you don't like my line of questioning.

DU can be so rabid sometimes. :)

Anyway, I interpret viable to mean that the fetus has no defects beyond that of a normally developing fetus at that stage (with of course the complications that go along with being that early).

If 'viable' means that the fetus can come out with its head on backwards and heart in its kidney or something then the whole argument is instantly moot.

[Solon]

163. The complications mean the fetus isn't viable at all, in many cases...

I'm not talking about defects, I'm talking about surviving in an incubator, which, in most cases, is a low percentage for very early premature infants. The fetuses in that report WERE viable, I don't dispute that, since it was stated by the doctors, however, that doesn't mean they would have survived outside the womb, and they definitely wouldn't have survived if the woman had additional complications that could, further along, endanger the pregnancy.

[joshcryer]

165. Yeah, viable doesn't mean it's going to live, just that it can live.

But why would they assign viable to fetuses which do have defects and are outside of the realm of known survivors?

[Solon]

170. Because, legally speaking, if they are capable of ONE breath...

They are a born infant and accorded all rights as any other human being. The fact that they may not survive much longer than that breath is irrelevant to the law.

[sandnsea]

175. *YOU* interepret???

Who do you think you are that you get to interpret medicine for the entirety of the medical community???

You cannot replace your beliefs for science. It just doesn't work that way.

[Bridget Burke]

181. I don't care that you aren't a "stoner"....

Although I wonder at your choice of avatar.

But I notice that you distance yourself from "you stoners and pro-choice people."

[Solon]

187. This guy is WAY to uptight to be a stoner...

I mean, even the pot leaf is beginning to wilt in embarrassment at this "ambassador".

By the way, just to clear things up, I'm NOT a stoner, but I'm friends with some ;), haven't had a toke in a couple of years, but the OP may end up driving me to smoke. :smoke:

[joshcryer]

203. How can you say I distance myself, when I said in that very sentence that I supported them?

I don't get this line of reasoning.

[Bridget Burke]

235. You aren't one of "them"--those who are pro-choice. In my case, it's "us."

And all your posts in this thread illustrate your viewpoint quite clearly.

[joshcryer]

238. Thanks for dredging up a thread that should've died.

Even though I gave you that really nice PM explaining my position more clearly. Since you did that without responding and basically being quite rude with the matter, I will repost my opinion beneath this. :)

[Crowdance]

136. In the good old DU days, someone would post a recipe right about now

with the understanding that it's so much more satisfying to feed ourselves something delicious than to feed the rightwingers. Send 'em away hungry....

I'm dreaming about Vegan Cupcakes right now, myself....

[joshcryer]

146. Please don't call me a right-winger.

I don't get the ignorance being displayed in this thread. Just because I don't outright BELIEVE something without seeing the data, I must be some horrible horrible creature.

I'm not a fucking drone. I'm not following some right wing line about abortions. Yet that's wat it turned in to because you people are obsessed with attacking even a semblance of what might look wrong to you. Oh boo fucking hoo. I asked a question and I barely have an answer.

Right now it looks like "no doctors won't perform an abortion on a healthy woman and fetus at 20 or so weeks."

Yet it took how many responses for people to get this across? How many? It's fucking ridiculous.

[ProudDad]

156. No, you appear on this thread

with your presumption of women's and doctor's GUILT when it concerns late term abortions and then you demand that we prove their innocence.

Sorry, don't work that way. You find authoritative proof of their guilt and we might grant you the point.

But, until then, the rational among us operate in a time honored manner of presumption of innocence. Until proven otherwise, the decision between a woman and her doctor is presumed innocent of the kind of disgusting spin you seem to be trying to apply to it.

[joshcryer]

161. Bah, everyone is guilty in capitalism from my point of view.

The sad part is I'm more radical than the lot of you. ;)

[Solon]

158. Probably because you were being an ass in your OP...

You have asked, we have answered, and you still spout this bullshit.

[joshcryer]

162. I was being an ass?

The first 15 or so responses were calling me everything from sexist to "shut the fuck up" and I was being an ass?

The sad part is my answer was a resounding yes. I was just compelled to argue the converse further for my own curiosity. I'm still not sure I have a conclusive answer here. I've done plenty of research, and can post my browser history to prove it. The key is that mostly this has been a flamefest. Whatever happened to reasoned debate? Oh, I forgot, this is DU.

[Solon]

164. You lied about facts in evidence...

The behavior of other posters doesn't interest me, the fact is that you started the OP for the flamefest, and its best to admit it now, and get it over with, the pizza delivery is almost here.

[joshcryer]

167. I didn't, I wanted a geniune answer.

Now I might admit that I let it continue because of the irrational and hateful responses, but if I were to do that... I might get banned. ;)

[Solon]

171. The response is simple...

It doesn't happen, at least among licensed practitioners, simply because it violates the Hippocratic Oath and in addition, all Planned Parenthood and other clinics and hospitals the perform abortions, have policies against aborting fetuses after 20 weeks or so, unless medically necessary. In fact, those women who are more likely to abort fetuses that late in term are usually teenagers in states with parental consent/inform laws. They throw themselves down stairs, take noxious toxins, and go to back alley practitioners to abort their fetuses when legal options are few or non-existent. The fact that some die in the process is the reason why I oppose those type of laws too.

[joshcryer]

169. BTW, my final response since this will probably get locked: EU's abortion rules.

Someone asked for them so here they are: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

12 weeks. Most of Europe. And we think we have it bad!

[Solon]

172. Actually, the average would be about 20 weeks...

Some of the nation's have varying laws, I read that some have it at 12 weeks, unless the woman can prove "distress" of any sort, after that, it has to be physical conditions. In other places, those under the age of majority(17 or below) can have abortions passed the "on request" limit. Etc. Granted, I think some of the laws, like 5 day waiting limits, are stupid, but I also think the Netherlands has the right idea, funding the abortions through the public health system.

[joshcryer]

202. That site suggests the 'normal' gestational period is 12 weeks for the vast majority...

...of EU countries. The US has 20-22 weeks set as the gestational period, before other mitigating circumstances can be used as a factor. Two whole extra months.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

173. I don't know.

I do know that I would absolutely have no respect for a woman who aborted a baby at that stage unless it was endangering her health. I think it is an atrocity. I know and understand that not all agree with me on this, therefore I am pro-choice all the way. But I reserve the right to feel disgusted at women who choose this route.

[babylonsister]

174. That's 5 months, and I agree, it's an abomination for

any healthy woman to decide to do this. I think they are few if not nil.
That's not happening, nor is it the point of what the SCOTUS did.
Who knew we had new doctors?
:eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=276896&mesg_id=276896

[avrdream]

176. I'm an OBGYN.

I am an American and was fully trained in America but am practicing in Australia until we get a better government back home.

To answer one question: What medical conditions are so bad that termination (late, mid, early, whatever) is necessary to save the mom's life? I've seen 3 such conditions: severe preeclampsia where cerebral hemorrhage occurred; severe cardiac conditions that preclude any labor; and, the most common one: a woman who receives a diagnosis of malignancy during pregnancy and who MUST begin her therapy (radiation, chemo, surgery) before the pregnancy ends or she will die.

It doesn't matter when it comes to a woman's right to choose but I have seen these 3 conditions about 20 times in my 15 years in practice and have generally worked at high risk hospitals. The numbers are probably higher because most of the places I worked tried to discourage the OBGYNs from performing any sort of abortion.

I hope this helps a bit.

[babylonsister]

183. Welcome to DU!

And thank you for your explanation. I do realize there are circumstances where this procedure is a must for conditions such as you name, but for healthy women with healthy babies, it's not something most people would decide to do just because they've changed their minds.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

190. I figured the number

for elective abortions that late must pretty much be near zero. The SCOTUS decision was an abomination, I agree.

[mrgorth]

184. Partly because of the vitriol exhibited,

and I'll say completely unwarranted, in this thread I am asking the mods for a "pro-life democrats" group...and I'm not even what would be considered pro-life. However, I think an area is needed to discuss these questions without being verbally assaulted. Thank you.

[flaminbats]

216. outlawing abortion isn't "prolife"..

I think there should be a debate on what kinds of standards should be followed by doctors and patients for 2nd or 3rd trimester abortions. Nobody is going to wait for months to have an abortion, unless there is a good reason. Having an abortion should be between a woman and her doctor. making laws outlawing all late term abortions would be like imposing requirements on doctors to not allow chemotherapy, even if the patient is likely to die anyway!

We all want to make the best of our lives. Doctors and patients always weigh the factors when making a medical decision, and these are choices people will have to live with until they die.

those who wish to impose their standards on how late an abortion should take place, if abortions should take place, or what would justify a late term abortion should certainly make their voices heard. But calling themselves prolife only implies those who are faced with making these difficult decisions are murderers. Murder and abortion are two separate things. IMO calling abortion murder is like calling unsuccessful surgery for a heart problem or denial of life saving medications because a person is too poor to pay..murder!

we distort the meaning of words like life and murder when we misuse these words only to make a point. I agree this is an important debate, and we have a "choice" forum to discuss how much choice should or shouldn't be allowed with abortion. Favoring more or less restrictions on abortion doesn't make a person pro-life or pro-death, it simply reflects on why people might make different decisions in such a tough situation.

I support universal healthcare and more funding for stem cell research, but I could state that anyone who didn't agree with me on these issues are murderers. Murderers because they don't think the poor or disabled should get the same kind of healthcare as those who are rich or employed. Murderers because they don't support cures with stem cell research for diabetes, which ultimately leads to kidney failure or blindness. I want a debate on the issue of healthcare reform and on ending the war in Iraq, but it would be dishonest and misleading to call that forum prolife just because others may not support the same stance on these issues that I do. The same is true when debating the use of capital punishment for convicted killers, favoring or opposing capital punishment doesn't make a person pro-life or a murderer.

The laws that govern violence and murder should never be used to start a witch hunt or another red scare!

[mrgorth]

217. As I said...

I don't even consider myself "pro-life". You make good points. I would like your points and those of the OP to take place somewhere without all the anger and hate. There should be a placed where people who do have such concerns can discuss them without feeling like pariahs. That's all.

[sinkingfeeling]

185. Read this and the reference material. The USA has a higher percentage of 2nd.

trimester abortions because of much higher rates for teenagers. In part, you can lay some blame for the delays on 'parental consent' laws.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/331/5/324



Which Women Tend to Need Second Trimester Abortion Services?

http://www.naralva.org/s05factsheets/200408262.shtml
Only 12% of women who have abortions are in their second trimester (12-24 weeks) of pregnancy. Who are these women usually?


Adolescents. Teens, when they have abortions, are more likely to have later abortions because they often delay in recognizing pregnancy or are fearful about seeking help. Nearly 1/3 of all second trimester abortions are obtained by teenagers.
Low-income Women. It is oftentimes more difficult for low-income women to get the money, paid leave from work, and transportation necessary to obtain an abortion immediately. Low-income women are also more likely to have high-risk pregnancies.
Health Complications. A pregnancy may worsen a health condition or threaten the life of the woman, in which case a woman may choose to have an abortion. A woman may decide to terminate a pregnancy when there are severe fetal abnormalities that would cause her to give birth to a child who will die in infancy or have severe disabilities. A common prenatal diagnostic test, amniocentesis, is not available until the 15th or 16th week of pregnancy.

I'm truly sorry that you have no empathy for women. Suppose at 18 to 19 weeks into a pregnancy, your _______ (sister, wife, mother, girlfriend) was told by her doctor that her pre-existing condition (heart, kidney, blood, lungs) was getting progressively worse as a result of the pregnancy. Would you want her to continue the pregnancy?

You seem to make light of all the medical conditions people have posted here. I do hope you realize that pregnancy and child birth do take women's lives. Check out the stats:

According to Women's International Network News figures, the number of maternal deaths worldwide per 100,000 live births is 430, with a sharp division between developing countries, where the maternal mortality ratio is estimated to be 480, and developed countries, where the ratio is 27. These ratios can be translated into women's lifetime risk of dying from pregnancy/pregnancy-related reasons: 1 chance in 48 in the third world contrasted with 1 in 1,800 in developed countries. The highest maternal mortality levels are found in eastern and western Africa; Mozambique's maternal mortality ratio is among the highest in the world at 1,500. The lowest levels occur in northern Europe.

Maternal mortality is the result of any number of complications that beset pregnant women worldwide. The most common direct causes of maternal death are severe bleeding (25%), infection (15%), unsafe abortion (13%), eclampsia (pregnancyinduced hypertension, often accompanied by seizures, 12%), and obstructed labor (8%)

http://www.deathreference.com/Me-Nu/Mortality-Childbirth.html

Indeed, saving mother's lives is one of the foremost goals in health care worldwide. In its Millennium Declaration, the United Nations and its 189 members targeted a reduction in maternal mortality of 75 percent between 1990 and 2015. Sub-Saharan Africa, where the chance of dying in childbirth is as high as 1 in 16 over a woman's lifetime (compared with 1 in 3,800 in the developed world), has made no headway in increasing women's access to the skilled emergency obstetric care the United Nations says is necessary.

In eastern Burma, where Nana's 14-year-old patient died, the maternal mortality rate is one of the highest in the world, with 1,000-1,200 deaths per 100,000 deliveries (compared with about 12 per 100,000 in the United States), according to data compiled by the Global Health Access Program, a Los Angeles nonprofit group. One-third of the women there who die succumb to postpartum hemorrhage.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/04/CMGPOIP80O1.DTL

[flying_wahini]

188. OK, I'm going to jump in here with a real life story that happened

to my family.
My sister in law became ill at about 16 weeks gestation with kidney failure.
She was seriously ill. It became apparent after tests that she was
carrying a hydatiform mole and well as her baby. This is a very rare condition and
had impaired the baby's growth and development. This molar tissue had grown quite large
and was the same size as the baby and also had spread outside of
her uterus and was causing bleeding in her lungs and in her abdomen.
She and my brother wanted this baby very much.
She tried to tough it out and lasted about 4 more weeks. Her skin turned brown and
her urine output was less than 3 oz. a day. Because the Dr.s (she had several)
felt that the baby would not survive a full term pregnancy; because the molar tissue
was crushing the baby and sapping off nutrients and circulation.
The decision was made to terminate the pregnancy. She was induced and delivered
a small little girl. She only lived a few minutes.

My sister in law would be dead if she had not terminated the pregnancy.
Questions?

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clark2008]

194. Maybe this was answered, but I got through the first 20 posts

and didn't see it: it depends on the state.

States set viability rules and aborting a healthy fetus after whatever week of viability your state has set makes aborting illegal.

In Tennessee, it's 20 or 21 weeks (not sure).

In New York it's 21 or 22 weeks - something like that.

I just have a vague memory on the exact week count, but that's how it works.

[JetCityLiberal]

197. You "cannot reconcile it"

Tough shit it is NONE of your business. It is a woman's body and her choice.

You think women have abortions for fun????

Sounds like typical judgemental right wing bs to me, "I'm pro choice butt, butt, butt...." Butt out.

[ddbaj]

198. This thread disgusts me.

As a man, I find it sick that anyone would want to tell a woman what to do with her own body. If she wants, for any reason, to have an abortion at any time, she has an absolute right to do so. What right do I or the government have to tell her "You can control your own body and medical decisions, but only until X weeks into the pregnancy"?

[JetCityLiberal]

199. Completely agree

All about control, the 'life' excuse is just that, an excuse to control a woman.

Great post. This thread disgusts me as well...

[joshcryer]

201. You haven't read the thread. You're making baseless generalizations.

...but thanks for the comentary.

[renie408]

219. I am a woman. Is it OK for me to say that other women shouldn't have abortions 'at any time'?

I am pro choice, but not pro choice without any restrictions whatsoever. I have had an elective abortion, two miscarriages, a C-section and a VBAC. I think I run the pregnancy gamut. If the unborn child is viable outside the womb, I think there would have to be some kind of hefty mitigating circumstance such as the health of the mother. I understand needing to choose abortion over carrying to term. I do not agree with being able to terminate a pregnancy at any point.

[joshcryer]

200. Everyone is saying they don't have the choice...

...unless their health is in danger in which case they don't have a choice to keep the fetus either.

[JetCityLiberal]

205. I have read this entire thread

and it is disgusting...this is flame bait right wing crap. Period.

[joshcryer]

206. You will be unable to remotely substnatiate that position.

Thankfully for me.

[JetCityLiberal]

208. Hey spew all the right wing crap you want

it is still flame bait bullshit. It is NONE of your business, never will be and nothing you have posted shows me you are pro choice. You and boys like you are pro control women. Period.

You keep telling yourself you are pro choice, maybe someday you really will be.

[joshcryer]

209. Maybe if you could show at any point where I actually held those positions...

...we'd be getting somewhere.

[JetCityLiberal]

210. The entire thread

is flame bait. The 'viable' talking points are right wing bs.

This thread is still disgusting.

[joshcryer]

211. Viablity is a legitimate concern by the very admissions of many people flaming me here.

Indeed, I got my answer. Now I still get flames and the thread cannot die. Oh well.

[JetCityLiberal]

212. Well josh

as a guy it will NEVER be any of your business. PERIOD.

Viability my ass...flame bait. PERIOD.

[joshcryer]

213. This is about doctors.

If a doctor won't give a viable healthy fetus and mother an abortion it's not my fault. It's the fault of a doctor with a conscious. Sorry if that bothers you.

[avrdream]

218. Josh, no wonder people here are questioning your motives.

You originally asked about the circumstances under which a healthy fetus should be aborted. You asked for a doctor's viewpoint on this. Not only have you received an OBGYN's viewpoint on this but you have received other quite relevant responses.

So far, all good, right?

But then your latest response says: "It's the fault of a doctor with a conscious."

HUH?

I am assuming you wanted to use the word conscience. So, a doctor with a conscience is at fault if he or she decides not to perform a termination?

Not only is this confusing but it implies fault in our (doctors) decision-making, one way or another. As a doctor, I can tell you that medical knowledge plays the largest part in my decisions. If we stick to the facts, our conscience takes care of itself.

You have gone from asking a "simple" question to the start of flaming, without making yourself clear.

[joshcryer]

230. Yes.

I don't get what's so confusing about it.

The problem is that I remember reading back when this whole partial birth abortion thing came into effect that some abortion providers, and their lobby, does indeed inact abortions on viable healthy fetuses and mothers. Now, the overwhelming opinion in this thread is that it's not true, and I've been trying to figure it out ever since.

[avrdream]

232. A sensible reply

Josh,
As you know, I'm in the field but I haven't heard of any doctors doing these late abortions just for the heck of it. My experience has been that this type of termination is typically done for the reasons I said above OR because there is a major anomaly in the fetus.
Does that help you?

[joshcryer]

233. Yes it does.

If you look at the history of this thread and the way the discussion was progressing, I was proposing the converse and looking for answers. The very idea that I would propose the converse seems to me to suggest that some people would rather accuse and flame rather than get to the nitty gritty of the matter.

Any controversial point I have made in the thread was directly in RESPONSE to the flames.

[joshcryer]

234. BTW, if you were wondering, the NCAP had no "anomaly" requirements for late term abortions...

...10 years ago. I have no idea if NCAP or its affiliates have changed this policy, as I cannot find anything about it lately. If you know anyone in the NCAP I'd wonder what they'd say about performing abortions at that stage on healthy fetuses/mothers.

[Bridget Burke]

236. Find the source.

Post a link.

[joshcryer]

240. A link to the NCAP claiming that "risk" wasn't an issue WRT abortion:

"In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20NYT%20lied.pdf

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20activists%20lied.pdf

I am posting this publicly as to get others opinion on the matter, since you clearly were unable to give a proper response (indeed, all you did was flame me in the post above). I still am trying to ascertain whether or not this is the case.

If you think that I am some evil person I don't care. My goal here is to figure out if, as I suspect in the American medical system, there exist parts of the abortion lobby that push for abortions at this late of the stage merely for profit making. If a young woman can't get an abortion at 10 weeks, it's fine and dandy, just save up the money until 20 weeks and pow, we'll give you your abortion. This sort of thing is why I would wholeheartedly support a state sponsered abortion system like some European countries have.

If you go to quite a few abortion clinic websites they do not seem to have a health exception for late term abortions. They advertize it as just some other procedure.

BTW, what I find shocking within these abortion threads (of which there are quite a few lately) is the dismissal of viablity, even though Roe v. Wade explicitly notes that viablity is an issue. Roe v. Wade is very powerful, but only if it is accepted as a whole, rather than picked apart with the pieces that you like.

[renie408]

221. Then white people should not form opinions on issues of segregation.

I HATE that 'men shouldn't ever say anything about abortion' thing. Unless they are supporting it, of course. Then they can say whatever they want. We are all human beings. This is a complex issue and I do not think the 'hands off abortion' attitude works any better than the 'life begins at the thought of sex' argument. There really IS some middle ground there, you know. You can believe in a woman's right to choose and in the right of a viable, healthy baby to be allowed their shot in the world. The key here is VIABILITY. If a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb without seriously exotic measures and it would not effect the health of the mother, why should she have an abortion? Because it is 'her body'? I dunno. I just don't know. I am a woman. I have felt a baby move. I have felt a baby stop moving, too. I have had an abortion at ten weeks because I was alone and scared and earning $195 a week. I have two kids. An abortion on a viable baby just feels wrong.

[renie408]

220. I am trying to understand. Are you saying that this is a totally black and white issue?

That either you are pro-abortion at any stage of pregnancy or you are anti-abortion? That attitude will get Roe v. Wade repealed in a hot minute.

[Tejanocrat]

207. Often it depends on the mother's health. A mother diagnosed with advanced leukemia may very well

need a late term abortion because her life saving treatment would kill the fetus and her refusal to accept treatment would kill her and the fetus. In this circumstance, a d & x procedure (focus grouped in order to be renamed a "partial birth abortion" to fool assholes who don't know jackshit about medical care) is medically indicated.

Or at least is was last week.

[renie408]

222. I am really trying to understand this.

Ok, did the Supreme Court decision say that women with serious medical complications would no longer be allowed to have late term abortions even if it meant they might die if they continued the pregnancy?

It seems to me like people here are so completely polarized on this subject. Part are saying there should be NO restrictions on abortion whatsoever. That whatever a woman wants to to with her body is her business. What if a pregnant woman wants to be a crack addict? Or drinks like a fish? Do we say, "Well, it's her body." And if we say, "No, if a woman chooses to carry a child, then she should at least stay away from things that she knows will endanger the life of that child." What if the woman who wants to drink gets to her seventh month and is carrying a healthy child, but decides, "Eh. I want to drink like a fish. Screw this." And wants a late term abortion? Do we still say, "It's her body."

I don't think any woman in her right mind would get that far down the road and decide that an expensive and painful medical procedure is the way to go. But do we as a society help to draw lines about what is acceptable or not? I usually say that if something isn't hurting anyone else, it is your business. But if the baby is viable outside of the mother, then a late term abortion IS hurting someone else.

I wish this issue were as black and white for me as it is for everybody else on here.

[Tejanocrat]

229. There are two types of constitutional challenges: unconstitutional per se and unconstitutional as

applied.

The ban on d & x procedures which made no exception for the mother's health was challenged as unconstitutional per se because it has long been the law in America (and most free countries) that there should be no such pre-viability prohibitions on abortion which do not make an exception for circumstances where the mother's health is at risk.

The court rejected this argument and grossly undermined long standing precedent.

The court has not ruled out the possibility that a women with serious medical complications might challenge the ban on d & x procedures as unconstitutional as applied to her specifically. This is not much of an opening because it would require a late-term but pre-viability pregnant woman from a state which follows the new law and passes a shitty overbearing anti-choice law who has been diagnosed with a specific medical condition where a d & x procedure was medically indicated (like if she was diagnosed with leukemia) to decide that - at this time of great medical need - she would choose to challenge an unjust law instead of just going to a blue state which hasn't passed such bullshit laws.

What this does, in effect, is invite a checkerboard patters of tolerant versus intolerant states. The rights of a woman over her own uterus and her own health should not be so lightly torn from the woman and her doctor and simply tossed into the hands of various state legislatures.

[TankLV]

227. What an assinine fucking strawman to post...

SURE you're pro-choice...

WE know otherwise...

[Colobo]

239. I'm personally tired of all these abortion threads

People have strong opinions about it they won't change because of what some stranger says on a message board.