I think late term abortions SHOULD be illegal

does that make me a bad democrat?

I know there are, and will be certain cases where it is not so, but I really think that once it begins causing the potential child pain, it is too late.

edited to add that there are exceptions, such as when the mothers life is at danger.

I think however, that at the 5 month point, if the mother decides she can't handle it, it is really too late.

n/t

:pals:

He's young with a lot to learn. If we attack him he will not be open to learning from us. Give the kid a chance to let his opinions evolve.

Redsox don't let'em get you down.

I agree with you, and I responded that way.
He is young with a lot to learn, and so am I. Even when one is no longer young, there is still so much to learn.
There is always something new out there.

he posted that a medical procedure SHOULD BE BANNED. He made NO indication that he was EXPLORING his thoughts in the matter. He authoritatively posted what he felt was the issue. He did not ASK for input he gave it.

While I certainly don't want anyone to miss the opportunity to learn..perhaps getting your ass handed to you on a public forum for posting an opinon on a subject which often devolves into flames is a good learning experience too.

Did you not expect to get that question?

I have a friend who recently had to abort a very wanted child due to severe birth defects and her own health being threatened if she continued the pregnancy.

Until you know the facts about the procedure you need to keep your opinions to yourself.

Late-Term Abortion Saved These Women's Lives
Run Date: 10/28/04
By Molly M. Ginty
WeNews correspondent
As the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act enters the campaign-season debate, three women who have had third-trimester abortions are fighting to preserve access to a procedure that may have saved their lives.


(WOMENSENEWS)--Tammy Watts sat and seethed.

Perched on the edge of her couch in Queen Creek, Ariz., she could barely contain her frustration as she watched the last two presidential debates.

When President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry discussed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, Watts clenched her fists.

When Bush used the term "partial-birth abortion" and called it a "brutal practice," she buried her head in her hands.

Unlike many American voters, Watts knows that "partial-birth abortion" does not exist. Coined by anti-choice activists, this term cannot be found in any medical dictionary. Its imprecision, according to defenders of choice, could target a whole host of procedures.

In political forums like the presidential debates, this catchphrase has worked its way into usage and is widely assumed to mean late-term abortions, that is, those occuring in the last three months. Though Bush calls these procedures "brutal," they maybe necessary to save the lives of women such as Watts, whose pregnancy entailed a rare complication.

"This ban threatens the lives of women who need emergency procedures," says Watts. "It's also so vaguely-worded that it could be used to outlaw any type of abortion."

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2046/context/archive

I was just commenting that the poster obviously doesn't understand that most late term abortions are a medically necessary procedure to save the life of the mother and unless one has a medical degree one really shouldn't make these decisions.

also I see he is all of 15 years old. and male.

why do I even bother? :eyes:

#2 Putting the state between a woman/ her doctor and her health is wrong. #3 Most physicians will not perform the procedure BUT FOR the woman's health.

The retort "Where did you get your medical degree?" is clearly a strawman, NSMA.

:eyes:

that they were used FOR the life of the mother. He CLEARLY does not know at what month an abortion is considered late term. The post was apportionate to the level of knowledge lacking in the OP.

NOT CLEARLY a STRAWMAN but your posts sound a bit authoritarian..along the lines of "I say it's a strawman so it is"..that's called appeal to authority.

All the rolling eyes smilies in the world won't grant you that authority.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

to ad hominem. Textbook. :)

Just because you fail to accept it as such doesn't mean I didn't.

Ball back to you, NSMA.

;)

Where did you prove it was a strawman? Really...show me. I'm all eyes.

i.e. "can you name the beatle that never made it?"
"no, do you?"

"oh shit... I don't know either.{"

:)

Again, you did not prove your point. A strawman, by definition, is a weak argument easily refuted.

Since the OP had to go edit his post for NOT INCLUDING the life of the mother and since the OP does not know WHEN exactly a late term abortion begins, the OP would be FAR more likely to be the one engaging in a strawman than the person who questions his medical knowledge when making an assertion as to WHAT MEDICAL procedures should be legal and which should be outlawed.

Therefore, in spite of the fact that the OP may dogpile on me along with you, neither ONE of you proved your point.

BTW..you offered nothing as well. IF you have some facts to refute my assertions, then by all means, explain your reasoning. I will be most happy to either concede the point or rebut it. But frankly, the one liners being proferred by the three of you are making this string look like Monty Python's argument clinic.

How odd.

the person who questioned the medical expertise of the OP, who started a thread favoring outlawing a medical procedure. I then responded. In an open forum, people respond. Any questions? Or did you think I was somehow inappropriate to point out that questioning the medical expertise of someone favoring outlawing a medical procedure was not, in fact, a strawman?

Thank you for clearing that up.

PS-- It WAS a straw man, no matter how much you rant and rave that it wasn't.

:hi:

PS-- It WAS a straw man, no matter how much you rant and rave that it wasn't.

All the sabre rattling "because I say so" does not make it so. I've already explained my reasoning. Questioning the medical expertise of someone calling for the banning of a medical procedure, makes the poster's knowledge relevant.

Feel FREE to prove that it isn't.

I'll be here. :D

I do not... I have not posted in GD since the election, but figured it was a little more laid back than this.

to take my word. But look it up AFTER you've looked up the definition and occasions of late term abortions. The latter would be more imminent to me.

Perhaps some of that wit would be better served in viewing the post for its merits.

I'll decide where and when I wish to use my wit unless you want to jockey for a law about that too.

illegal." Pardon me, the term "jockeying" in that context meant vying for your position.

I don't believe there is a legal apparatus in this planet that could pass and enforce a law over your wit, NSMA! :yourock:

There's not a oneliner so far that's smacked me down.

:D

One woman...one working brain...three males :D

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. "

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made)."


http://mindprod.com/jgloss/adhominem.html

If you bring up a person's lack of medical degree, isn't that an attack against the qualifications of the person, rather than against the argument? Hence, an ad hominem attack.:think:

Questioning the medical knowledge of a person calling for the outlawing of a medical procedure is indeed relevant.

and he DOES have a medical degree.

I feel his gun policies leave some to be desired.

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

would you abort me?

I thought you didn't believe in late term abortions.

tsk. tsk.

I think you misread my earlier post as saying Dean was too anti gun for my tastes.
He is not.
I am extremely anti gun.

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

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

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

I live in friggin massachusetts and am left of anyone I know. I'm just squimish in this regard.

if you believe in an authoritarian state being able to force its citizens to continue a doomed pregnancy until a spontaneous abortion occurs. Since in most instances in which late term abortions are carried out, that is what would happen if the woman doesn't die before Mother Nature takes care of the issue.

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

glad that you've hopefully changed your mind on this issue.

Not to beat a dead horse, but also remember that there is a difference between life and health in legal terms, too.

changed my mind is a false statement.

I thought it was a given that if the mothers (fine, Health) was in danger, it was a go.

Do you still think late term abortions should be illegal even after hearing that they comprise about 1% of all abortions and are performed for medical reasons? Or are you just saying that you believed they should be legal all along, but didn't understand the issue? I think and hope it's the latter.

Lol looks like I turned out to the left of ALL of you.
My naivity made me believe that if the womans health was an issue it was a GIVEN that the operation should be performed.
I just don't think it is reasonable to have an abortion at no risk when you just don't want to have the child.

Abortions should be rare, and I hope that they decrease in frequency because they do put a lot of strain on the woman, they are just another operation that one has to go through (with general, if I am not mistaken, so risky to an extent) and I think it is a horrible form of birth control. But I believe a woman has a right to chose... and that there are cases where a woman should chose abortion.

When it's the mother's life at stake oh well, late-term abortion is illegal?

Or do you mean to have exceptions to such a law?

but if the mother says at, say, 5 months "fuck it... too much work" I don't think that ought to be legal.

without medical complications, except for the home mutilation abortions women do themselves out of desperation.

I haven't and never will, being a fella and all, so I can't speak for what it is like to be pregnant or what it would be like to have to decide to terminate a pregnancy. But even still, I really doubt that the majority of women who choose an abortion come to that conclusion by saying "fuck it... too much work".

ultimately the State has little power to actually prevent a woman from terminating a pregnancy if she has determined that that is what she must do. Do you make it a crime to have an abortion? Is every woman that faces the sadness and loss of a miscarriage going to be investigated to make sure she didn't so it on purpose? Are we going to have women flinging themselves down the stairs? We may have women seeking out unsafe alternatives when left to deal with the problem under the cloak of criminality. And one thing is for sure, the wealthy will still have access to the procedure. You may very well be right morally and even legally, but practically it still wouldn't work. So my position ultimately is to leave it up to a woman and a doctor and keep it as safe as possible.

are as rare as being struck by lightning.

passes through *'s mind.

But I won't throw myself bodily between a woman and her doctor trying to make a difficult decision like this, and no one else should either.

If it's going to kill the mother, you still want her to die? Or if the child is going to be a vegetable for it's short life? That's the problem with the world today, so much diversity of situation, and so little room for useless black and white declarations.

When they pass a law banning opinions, then you will be in danger, but until then how is anyone but the woman in question's opinion relevant.

has no chance of surviving should be illegal to terminate?

Virtually all late term abortions are performed for medical reasons. Women don't carry a child for half a year only to decide that they don't want it.

I think we leave it like it is, between a family and their doctors.

I don't like abortion, but I dislike the alternative (illegal abortion) more.

there are dems who believe that way, and there is no problem with that in my book. - From a solid Democrat

That said, I don't think advocating tighter restrictions on earlier abortions makes us bad liberals.

oops... and after reading some of the responses, I'd like to add that:

I would of course only support restrictions on abortions after 4.5 months if they contained allowances for the health / life of the mother, of course.

late term or third term abortions are illegal in most states. It is not an elective, unless the life of the mother is in danger. For pete's sake, stop this propaganda and do some research.

Late term abortion will not be done by any doctor unless the health of the mother is a concern. Third trimester abortion comprises about one percent of all abortions.

Women are not running around deciding to abort in the third trimester on a selfish whim and doctors are not performing these late term abortions on the whim of their patient.

Jeesuz

:hi:

trimester.

I may have this mixed up, but that is the impression I got.

but I very well could be wrong.

I know that I was in a clinic with a woman who just started her fourth month and she was borderline, but they finally started to do it. I'll have to read up on it.

Any kid who doesn't have to come to this shithole that Bush is making of this planet is lucky in my book.

edit: here is a good link on it with stats and laws from different states. One interesting trivia note, one state passed a parental notification law and the rate of abortion for post first trimester abortions shot up nineteen percent.

http://www.ppct.org/facts/research/ab_research.shtml

"Between 1990 and 1997, the number of abortions in the United States fell from 1,429,577 to 1,186,039 (CDC, 2000). The CDC estimates that 55 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2000)".

Abortions went down under Clinton... they go up under Bush and in ANY area that passes 'absintinence only' plans.

Idiots...

But abortion laws vary by state. At one time Kansas would actually allow abortions for medical reasons in the 3rd trimester- not sure if that's still the case, though. But I knew a lady who was carrying twins, one died in utero, her doctor said selective abortion best chance at having success with 2d fetus, and Kansas was the closest state to us to allow them since she was 27 weeks. Kansas! :)

Just how hypocritical ARE these people, anyway?!

:crazy:

That's where that AG is going after women's abortion records. I wrote a piece on it and got the Kansas statistics. They have every law imaginable and still have late term abortions.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=426

Anything after 20 weeks is considered late term, as far as I understand. Fewer than 1% are after 20 weeks. The whole argument is ridiculous and we ought to call them therapeutic abortions like civilized countries do. Even countries that outlaw abortion altogether allow therapeutic abortions, even late term. It's a non-issue.

Scientific, not Rovian.

If you check http://www.drtiller.com, you'll see that he does two kinds of abortion care:

* second-trimester elective abortion up until the point of viability, and you have to be referred by your physician
* second- and third-trimester abortion for serious fetal abnormality (and probably life or health of the mother, but it doesn't say that)

Dr. Tiller seems to be both the go-to guy for tricky abortions and the lightning rod for pro-lie criticism. He's been shot at least once by fundies.

who have so very little life experience should stay the fuck out of my reproductive rights. Especially teenage boys who will never be forced to make that kind of decision.

Otherwise, have a good day. :hi:

of late term abortions... just ask if I can still consider myself a good democrat.

sorry, you need to have a few more life experiences before you formulate your opinions on this...I;m not saying this because you're young, only because you are coming from an Ivory Tower-esque perspective.

No, because you can not become pregnant. It's not sexist to concede that a male homo sapien can not become pregnant- just medical and scientific fact.


You do understand that less than 1% of abortions are performed in the 3rd trimester, right? And you do know that the anti-choicers/women haters have *never* produced any proof that there are *any* elective abortions in the 3rd trimester, right? And you do understand that the anti-choicers/women haters use medically incorrect terminology to make the law as vague as possible so that they can try to criminalize more procedures, right? And you do understand that late term abortions are already illegal in most states, right? And you do understand that 2d trimester abortions are heavily regulated already, right? :eyes:


And your age shows in your comment that a woman would just all of a sudden decide in the 5th month of her pregnancy that she just wants to terminate the pregnancy on a whim.

While existing, I believe, allows you to have an opinion, if you can't possibly be in the situation then your opinion is pretty close to worthless. I can let the people who are affected fight this one out and let them know which side I support, but using your opinion as a reason to limit others in their choices (Which you can never make.) is as close to wrong as there is in politics.

a truly reasoned and mature perspective from a young man who is wise beyond his years :hug:

:yourock:


:7

Much appreciated. And I'm sure the women in your life do and will appreciate your sentiments as well. :hi:


"but using your opinion as a reason to limit others in their choices (Which you can never make.) is as close to wrong as there is in politics"

I couldn't have said it better myself!

considered a personal attack these days.

Hang in there!

But just as I don't think a 15 or 16 year old has the judgment, knowledge and awareness of life to subject her/him to the death penalty or be treated as an adult for criminal law purposes, neither do I think s/he has the judgment, knowledge and awareness of life to determine my reproductive rights. I am a 32 year old, intelligent, rational adult and can make those decisions myself, thank you very much.

And I understand that I can still learn much from *my* elders. It has nothing to do with intimidation.

subject. There is something to be said for wisdom being acquired over time.

I agree with you in one respect though. Ignorance is not necessarily a function of age, but a function of information.

There is a vast difference in starting a thread to learn more about a topic,
and by starting a thread to stir the shit pot.
It's all in the language used; questioning versus declarative statement.
Women are getting very fed up with males,
and white males in particular, trying to say what they can
and cannot do with their own bodies, hence the flames.

These abortion threads can be quite informative, though.
I hope you do learn from them. Every male needs to know abortion facts, too,
and a 'good' Dem aims for truth and justice, imo.

Thanks!

Crisis, the life of the mother is usually in danger for this procedure. Most all abortions are done within the first few weeks of pregnancy...No woman carries a fetus to near term only to say...I change my mind...Abort. Those that carry the fetus to that point wanted the child. It was due to a medical problem that this procedure is needed.

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

"...the state has to force the woman to have the child - whether she wants to or not."

No government should be given that kind of power over its citizens. I wonder how you envision enforcing such a law. I hope thinking through the implications of your belief gets you to the point where it gets me - sick.

I wish I has phrased it like you had... much less inflammatory than I had intended.

here's a few




from me to you! :grr::mad:

I can only wonder what you would think if it were not rare.

"the state" is not trying to force her, the fundies are.

However, if you are equating fundies with "the state" then I would say to it/them, that as long as there are wards of "the state" languising in foster homes, then "the state" needs to get its own shit together before it forces women to pop out more children.

Because, you know "the state" isn't gonna stop there. Why, "the state", being fundies, might just hunt down the father/transgressor party to the abortion, and lop off thine testicles in the name of the lord.
So don't push it where "the state" is concerned.

Ah, another man who thinks he has a say over my body. Would you agree that the government has the right to force you to undergo a surgery to make a bone marrow donation to save the life of another? Same thing, just as close an analogy as can be applied to your gender.


I can't believe supposed progressives would ever want to give the government that much authority over the individual. But be careful- once you give them that authority you've also conversely given them the authority to force women to have an abortion.

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

if you are so freaking concerned about the "weak" go fucking volunteer in a pediatric AIDS unit, or a homeless shelter for battered mothers!

that will never do, it takes work and real compassion.

shit stirring on the internet is more fun and gratifying for folks like this.

maybe we had a chance to help this young man understand the serious implications of this issue...I partially blame myself for not being more tolerant...I just get SOOO angry at some of the older established people on this board who should know better but stir up a shit storm anyway....that comment about the state forcing a woman to carry a fetus and deliver it "whether she wants to or not" was just SCARY :scared:

the state is coming for the "life inside".

good plot for a horror movie, actually.

inside of me, can I be so concerned about the life of another that I force you to undergo a surgical procedure to donate bone marrow? I'm sure there are quite a few already born alive children at St. Jude's who would appreciate the donation and the chance at their life.

So when will you be signing up for that surgical procedure? I'm sure you will consent to being forced to undergo a surgical procedure against your will but which is less risky than delivery if it means saving the "life" of another, right? :eyes:

to abort. Is that what you want?

many times, but have never gotten an answer. Couldn't be a reason that they refuse to address that issue, could there? :o

:hi:

The question makes NO FUCKING SENSE....

At the root of the abortion debate is the ideology concerning how much and what control the government should have over its citizens. The abortion issue simply only involves women.

But once a state has the authority to force a woman to continue a pregnancy, it also has the authority to force her to terminate. Once the state has the authority to force an individual to pray, it has the authority to prevent her/him from same. Once the state ...

I think you get the idea.

Government control of the individual isn't exactly something the "freest and bestest country on earth" should aspire to.

well, I think the state should force YOU to have a vasectomy/tubal so that you will never EVER be able to be in the personal position of making that choice! SICKENING.

that is supposed to be full of emotion and passion, but the bottom line is that the State CAN'T force a woman to have a child- unless you plan to round up the pregnant women and put them all under 24 hour surveillance, which I would hope you aren't advocating. No, the bottom line is ultimately if a woman makes that choice she will do what she has to do. Now the question is, should she make that choice openly with the help of doctors and trained professionals or alone in the backroom of a tattoo parlor in Juarez? Right or wrong, there are practical considerations when it comes to enforcing the power of the State.

or just an ignorant comment from an "adult."

it is STILL an ignorant comment.

JetCityLiberal

The state cannot force a woman to have a child, no more than the state could force you to get a vasectomy.

Childbirth isn't a cakewalk, thank you very much.

That then changes the flavor of all the posts in this thread to make it appear that you are being treated unfairly by the "babykiller crowd" when perhaps had you done your own investigation prior to starting this thread, you would realize the ONLY time these procedures are performed by most doctors IS the life of the mother.

Furthermore, what right do YOU have to get between a woman and her doctor?

It's not as if they're trying to pull a fast one... right?

but it takes the first string of comments completely out of context to the initial communication, thereby making it appear people were being unfair with a reasonable position.

it was an attempt to get later people to not waste their time.

I'm not looking for people to pity me.

Makes no difference. Until he is the one who can become pregnant, be discriminated against at work because of the pregnancy, be sick (for up to 9 months, 24/7) of the pregnancy, experience the multitude of changes to the body, and go through the *risky* delivery process, HE HAS NO SAY. When he can become pregnant, he can decide.

Before we actually talk about making "rove" concepts illegal?

you probably don't know any women who have had medically dangerous pregnancies. Unfortunately I do. It is a heartbreaking decision for a woman to abort a child at that last stage. These children are always WANTED children.

I hope you never have to make this decision.

"Dude- you are too young to understand what you are talking about"

Good grief!

:eyes:

But since I can't name her, I get accused of being a liar.

That's always nice to hear from fellow Dems.

and who called you a liar?

It stung, though.

And I know you weren't asking me, silly. It's an open forum. :P

Man, those puppies are popping out of your keyboard like mushrooms ater a spring rain.

Lovely analogy, CL.

I'm so glad I came back in here today. :)

:)

you could be 60 years old and still have a completely unbased, ignorant, and naive opinion like this!

just questioning myself.

can't you see that your priorities are seriously out of whack?

Because if you really felt this way it would take priority over any desire to be or be seen as a "good democrat" (whatever that is). You wouldn't even be asking this question.

and DON'T tell me to calm down! For you this is a political issue, for me it is a deeply personal issue that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with a young man who has never (and hopefully WON'T)impregnate a girl without meaning to bear and raise a child. Don't EVER tell me to calm down on something that affects my health, and perhaps even my LIFE.

Gotta be patronizing too, I see. :eyes:

I think that if the OP didn't have a few "cheerleader" goading him on we could have commuinicated with him better.....***sigh****

to cloak their need for control in. Several on this thread meet the criterion.

abortion.

state-mandated removal of your testicles? :eyes:
what you call "policy" I call "governmental control over my body" semantic are fun, eh?

one was better.

I am awaiting a well-reasoned counter-argument to the one I have proffered...perhaps you could tell me where my logic has failed? After all your testicles hold thousands upon thousands of potential lives in them and according to you we need governmental oversight of ALL potential life, right?..perhaps a better analogy would be a law restricting your masturbatory habits...even that one has Biblical merit :)

masturbation = abortion

masturbation when you only have 5 sperm cells to use that will never replenish = late term (i think this definition is seriously fucked up)

even a late term one...never mind, I really don't see where you're going with this :shrug:

600 times in one thread.

but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You know everything!!! You are such a smart little democrat.

we should all bow down to your supreme wisdom, right?

my post was a question about my values as a democrat.

There is a lot of information on this thread about the procedure you want to make illegal. It doesn't seem that you are willing to learn more about it. I ask you again...do you know ANY woman who has had a late term abortion?

I'm truly curious...and for all I know you do. And maybe it really disturbed you. I can understand that.

But you seem to be drawing your opinion out of that the right wingers want you to believe instead of what the facts are.

I too am very passionate about the issue because as I have said several times (sorry to keep repeating myself) but a good friend went thru this recently. She didn't suddenly decide she didn't want her child. She had tried and tried to have one and after many months of fertility treatments and several miscarraiges she was finally doing OK. Until the 5th month when she got horribly sick and the doctors gave her the bad news about her child. She and her husband agonized over the decision. It was and is painful to me.

late.

For medical reasons, it's fine... otherwise, it is unnacceptable past a certain point.

bodies.

Your statement that "I think late term abortions SHOULD be illegal... does that make me a bad democrat?" is a red herring.

If I were a doctor, I'd assist any woman to have an abortion, without question.

All you discuss is the times when the *life* of the mother is at stake. There are distinct legal differences between life and health, but since you are so wise in your old age, I don't guess I have to explain those differences to you, right?

"this is my policy on late term abortion" thread. It was a general question.

so that you don't buy into phony right wing BS issues. There's quite a bit of very good information concerning late term abortions and abortions in general on this thread. Hopefully you will read it an come to understand the issue better.

I phrased my op somewhat poorly... late term abortion was not what I understood it to be, I thought it was a given that if the health was affected or the baby was going to die that it would be done.
I read a poem by Sylvia Plath regarding pregnancy, and she did not want the baby because she was tired of pregnancy... and that should not be reason for abortion after a certain point.

In case you didn't already know. She needed help with more than an unwanted pregnancy, never got it and committed suicide.

Thank you for looking at the issue rather than listening to the right wing talking points. I'm sure after you've done some research on it, you'll agree that it is a heartbreaking decision in which the state has no business. Cheers. :)

by a controlling, uncaring male.

Post partum depression was not even in the diagnostic manual when that poor woman took her life.

Furthermore, I have to question your compassion of women at all if you could pass judgement on Sylvia PLath without understanding the anguish of her life.

While I don't think people should be carded according to their age at the door of GD..if you are going to debate with adults...specifically those of us that were OLD enough to remember when even the life or HEALTH of the mother did not sanction abortion, then be prepared for the flames.

so don't use her comments as an example of what the average woman would do.

She was a great poet but a very tragic human being and she ended her own life much too soon.

Don't confuse a poem about feelings with the reality of medical intervention.

Please, don't put the burden on others to read your mind.

or so say doctors. I was told they don't use anesthetic for circumcisions because babies don't feel pain.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0892819839/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-6531383-9900040#reader-page

Click to page 3 or 4 to read...

Dr. Frederick Leboyer

DemEx

Late term abortions are illegal, unless the mothers life is in danger or some other medical reason, but you must know that, since a bunch of people posted that in your thread already.

Also, I doubt any woman with half a brain cell would go get an abortion, if she's visible showing, just for the hell of it.

Of course it should be up to the woman, but if it we're a choice between the woman's life or the child's It maybe a very difficult decision for someone to make...

who should be able to make the decision to let things continue as they are or pull the plug? Should it be the family? Should it be the government?

Late term abortions happen over 98% of the time because the *wanted* child has some sort of terminal or horrifically dehabilitating illness/defect.

I had a D&X procedure (referred to by the RW as partial birth abortion) in 1995. I very much wanted the child I carried, but he had several neural tube defects. The worst of those was anencephaly. I went to several doctors trying to find a different diagnosis than what I was given. It wasn't meant to be.

By the time I finally agreed to terminate the pregnancy, my son had already died and infection had set in. It was one of the most miserable times in my life. Not only had I lost my son, but I had to walk by right to life protestors who proclaimed me a murderer.

So, according to you, based upon your own personal beliefs, I shouldn't have had the right to make that decision. In the case of late term abortions, the mother is the life support system. Only the family -- not the government -- should have the say on whether the plug is pulled.

Now, I'm sure someone out there is saying, "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER 2 PERCENT?!?!" It goes to privacy. The families in these situations are already hurting more than you (or most anyone) can imagine. They should not have to take their case before some board for approval.

"Well, the doctor says there is only a 70% chance that your son/daughter will be vegetable, we think you should take that risk."

"We realize this child might die before term, but we think you should carry him/her as far as possible anyway, despite any dangers to your own health or future reproduction opportunities."

Really stop for a moment and think about what you are proposing.

that you lost the child that you wanted. That is one of the most painful things that can happen to a woman.

I wish that more men (as some fortunately DO) could understand, that pregnancy is a LOT more than just popping out a kid. There is so much more to it than that, whether you want to keep the child, can't keep the child, or have to make the decision of not wanting the child.

I wish that more men could understand, that women don't use abortions as birth control. (Ok, there might be a very small number of women who do, and I disagree, but it is within their rights.)

:hug:

Those protestors are MESSED up, too.

I'm so glad you are healthy now, and I hope you didn't have any lasting effects from the infection.

:nuke:

Oh...no.

and I do believe the procedure is a phantom one, in that it's not used in the way you mean.

It's used primarily in cases where the child has a condition that has enlarged its head. It is not a survivable condition, so making the mother go through caecerian birth to produce a child who isn't going to live would seem cruel. The partial birth procedure is the only way to get said baby through the birth canal.

Logically, if a woman has carried the child nearly to term, do you really think she's having this procedure because she's changed her mind. At that point, I should think most mothers want the baby, but the baby isn't viable.

It's when the baby IS viable that I would have a problem with the procedure. But I have yet to see satisfactory data as to how often that does or does not happen. If the baby could survive outside the womb, then I believe the abortion is too late. That's where my line is, anyway.

Can someone prove to me that abortions are ever legally performed within weeks of the due date to a perfectly viable fetus? I mean, when does the thing become a living separate entity -- just after birth and not before? How about 5 minutes before birth?

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

Myth: If we just pass these "partial-birth" bans, we won't have to worry about access to first and second trimester abortions.
Fact: Abortion procedure bans passed in 28 states are so vaguely worded that they could ban abortions throughout pregnancy, even in the first trimester. Proponents of these bans admit they intend to limit or eliminate access to all abortions.

Myth: These bans are necessary to reduce the number of third trimester abortions.
Fact: States already restrict abortions late in pregnancy, permitting them only in certain rare cases. The real goal of these bans is to restrict access to all abortions -- even in the first trimester. When Wisconsin's abortion procedure ban went into effect, every women's clinic in the state stopped providing abortion services.

Myth: "Partial-Birth" is a medical term which describes a particular abortion procedure.
Fact: You will not find the term "partial-birth" in any medical dictionary because it was made up by anti-abortion advocates. It is a political term used to convince the overwhelmingly pro-choice public to support anti-abortion legislation. As defined in state ballot measures and legislation, the term could apply to any procedure, at any stage of pregnancy.

Myth: Even doctors support abortion procedure bans.
Fact: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) describes abortion procedure bans as "... inappropriate, ill-advised and dangerous." The American Medical Women's Association also opposes such bans.

Myth: Banning so-called "partial-birth" bans doesn't violate a woman's constitutional right to choose abortion.
Fact: Abortion procedure bans are clearly unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that abortion is a protected right prior to viability and that women's health must be protected after viability. Abortion procedure bans would outlaw abortion at any stage of pregnancy and lack exceptions even if continued pregnancy threatens serious adverse consequences to a woman's physical health.

Myth: Late-term abortions have gotten out-of-control.
Fact: Only four one-hundredths of one percent of legal abortions are performed during the third trimester. Over 95 percent of all abortions are performed during the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Myth: If late-term abortions are so rare, it doesn't really matter if we ban them.
Fact: Most late-term procedures involve wanted pregnancies that go tragically wrong when the woman's life or health is endangered or the fetus develops abnormalities incompatible with life. These women deserve protection, even though their situations are rare.

Myth: The "partial-birth" abortion procedure is unnecessary.
Fact: Medical experts state that the safest method of late pregnancy termination for some women is the intact dilation and extraction (D&X) procedure. Bills that would ban the D&X procedure would place legislators in the unprecedented position of regulating medical decisions and would require doctors to use a less safe method in some cases.

Myth: Late-term abortion bans are necessary to stop abortions that are happening during birth.
Fact: Third trimester abortions can already be banned except to save the life or health of the woman.

Sources include: "A Candidate's Guide to A Winning Message on So-Called 'Partial Birth' Abortion Bans," Fifty plus One, 1998; "The Limitations of U.S. Statistics on Abortion," The Alan Guttmacher Institute, January, 1997

I hope this help to explain the issue a bit more to you. It's very complex and has been exploited to the point of insanity.

if a woman gets 5 months into a pregnancy before she decides to have an abortion, she's got a damn good reason. A pregnancy that makes it to 5 months is a wanted pregnancy.

I don't want legislators deciding when my health is in danger - I want a doctor to help me with that.

no matter how far she is into her pregnancy. The bio-medical ethics of it starts getting really complicated, though, once the fetus reaches some kind of viability.

My personal opinion is that if the fetus is reasonably viable when it is removed, the doctors have to do everything the can for it, medically, to keep it alive.

But, the removal itself is ALWAYS an option for the woman, and she should be able to do it no matter what the effect on the fetus is.

I was tired of not being able to see my feet. And I seriously wanted a new color of nail polish on my toes. I mean, that pink stuff was getting all chipped and nasty looking, ya know? It was getting kinda hard to shave my legs too. So I just ran on down to the clinic and had that little thing aborted. Then I went to the salon and got all prettied up, had lunch with my homegirls, and went back to my place to luxuriate in my new-found freedom. I tell ya, I'd recommend it to anyone!






(This was sarcasm, in case that wasn't blindingly obvious)

I hope that you learn something from this thread. There was once a time where I thought it was wrong, but I was younger and less idealistic.
Do me a favor, and google anencephaly, exancephaly, hydrocephalus, and some other deformities and defects. Maybe looking at the images, you will understand why sometimes, regardless of the potential mom's health, an abortion could, in the very least, be the compassionate thing to do.
I don't think any woman could just up and decide to abort after carrying a baby for several months. Not for the simple reason of "it's too much work."

You aren't a bad Democrat for having this opinion. But, the best course of action would be to, look up the facts, consider other people's point of view, and try to find out... why a woman would want to make that decision. I promise you, that if you don't at least change your opinion, you will at least be able to empathize much more with women who have had to make this decision, and ultimately, any woman who makes the decision.
When a woman decides she can't handle parenthood, she will generally have an abortion during the first trimester, or give birth and give the baby up for adoption.

I promise you, this issue is not as brutal, or ugly, as the Religious Right make it out to be. Once again, whether you change your opinion or not, I hope you are able to learn from this thread and be able to empathize with women.

I think he/she should google Judith Thomson and the violinist. That's what changed things for me- it still took quite awhile, though.

That was wonderful. :thumbsup:

I have given the same response to someone that I knew online, and it sort of changed their perspective, as it changed mine.
It was my SO that had me look at some of those images. It's heartbreaking, that so many of these children are born that way and can only live days, and unfortunately longer. They suffer. And I hate to think that so many of these rabid religious right-wingers want to force all pregnant women to always give birth regardless of the circumstances. It isn't fair to the child, the mother, or the family.

I think however, that at the 5 month point, if the mother decides she can't handle it, it is really too late.

Do you really think this is the way women think? Most women who don't want to be pregnant start thinking abortion the minute they miss their period,not five months later.

Late term abortion is a terrible ordeal as much as having a miscarriage is. It's something that has to be done medically and believe me no one wants it.

And really, I'm not trying to be condescending to you. You are young and there is no changing that fact. I don't think the fact that you are young makes you stupid or incapable of understanding.

What I do think you are lacking is the knowledge of what a pregnancy can do to a woman's body. It isn't some abstract thing that some women go through. It isn't quite like getting a tooth pulled.

My friends and I often say that giving birth is as close to death as we would ever like to get (without actually dying). And that is the end game. In between conception and childbirth isn't exactly a cakewalk.

I do doubt that I can express to you exactly how difficult pregnancy can be. I doubt any woman could ever explain it to any man - regardless of age. It is an awesome experience. But at least reading up on the subject of pregnancy might give you a little more perspective on the whole process.

I'm staunchly pro-choice, but I do not know if I would ever have an abortion personally. I've been pregnant twice and given birth twice. For my second pregnancy (though no fault of my own) I had the great joy (not) of going through a high-risk pregnancy. This meant that I had to visit a perinatologist (high-risk ob) about every two weeks. Because of the condition, I had to have a very long needle stuck into my stomach on practically every visit. I then had to be monitored to ensure that I did not miscarry (an amnio procedure carries a small risk of miscarriage). It was pretty much 7 months of painful torture.

My son came out just fine, but (barring divorce/remarraige) I will never carry another child. If I did happen to get pregnant again, I would have to make a very painful decision about whether or not to endure another difficult pregnancy - one that would potentially cause harm to the child as well as to me.

The state cannot and should not compel me to carry a child if that pregnancy is dangerous to my health. I should not be forced to choose sterilization over potential future children.

Think that is an unlikely scenario? Look at the story of Oregon's former Rep. Elizabeth Furse who in 1961 was pregnant with her third child. She developed the measles during her pregnancy and tests showed that her child had "devestating disabilities and brain damage". Because abortion was illegal except where the mother's life was at risk, she had to go before the hospital panel to plead her case. The hospital decided she could have the abortion, but only if she agreed to be sterilized. She had wanted a large family. Nice choice there, eh?

I do not want to go back to that time. No one should be deciding my reproductive rights, because they cannot control how a pregnancy will affect a woman's body. Pregnancy isn't a cakewalk.

Also, I don't think they should be CRIMINALIZED, just not sanctioned by hospitals, health plans, etc. I have a real problem with criminalizing it, but am in favor of discouraging it.

But I think 1st trimester abortions are more akin to contraception, the fetus is in a very undeveloped state at that point.

I have a weird take on it, since I'm an atheist, but I'm also an adoptee, so I tend to favor adoption when feasible.

But even if I was totally anti-choice, I'd still be a democrat, because I think the GOP's position on abortion is dishonest. They use it over and over as a wedge, but the powerful people in the party really have no intention of ever overturning Roe v. Wade, it's just their way of conning the religion-addled into voting for them, against their own economic interests.

choice.

This has turned into a flamefest.