Guinastasia and MsRobyn,
You both made a very good case for abortion up until about 7months. After that, why not induce labour?
And yes, I was accusing some women of faking it, from what I understand it was used for earlier term pregnancies when it was illegal.
Its funny you should say that. I once argued that if you have an abortion, you should be required to have a child later on in order to restore the balance of the universe. Its hard to say with a straight face though, much easier to type.
Could someone here with medical knowledge give a scenario where a late term abortion would be necessary to save the life and/or health of the woman, and inducing labor would not?
It took her 8 and a half months to figure that out?
I don’t have one. Unless you want to say that killing a 1 day old child is illegal, so killing a -1 day old child should be too.
In your scenario though, could you not just tell the mother she had an abortion? If the fetus could live, just sedate her and induce labour.
I want abortion to be legal, but for the pro-life camp to agree, we need to make some concessions. So I’m offering up the last two months. I say, if the fetus has even a slim chance of surviving outside of the mother, abortion should be illegal, and if the mother wants to she can induce labour and then just walk away. Would you agree to this, if abortion was made fully legal up until that 7 month point?
How about this for a compromise: every woman gets two “free” abortions on demand over her lifetime. This will only affect the tiny minority of women who have more than two abortions and are apparantly using abortion as a means of birth control.
Of course, you might end up snagging the very rare woman who gets impregnated by rape after she’s had her two, but omelettes and eggs.
There is certainly no way to get everyone to agree on this issue.
Some people think the pill and IUDs should be illegal because they can be ‘abortifacient.’ Others think even new-born children should be able to be killed at will.
At best you might get the radical middle to agree, but even that would be hard.
Interesting theory Bryan. Would a woman be able to purchace unused abortion tickets from say a sterile woman? If in this case the next result is a total of 4 abortions? Would any of the pro-lifers agree to this?
But auta, I don’t want everyone to agree. I want a compromise. I want the pro-lifers to let abortions fly up until a certain age, as long as the pro-choice agree that after a certain age no abortion should be allowed. Is that so hard? Can we not have one side stop killing doctors as long as the other side stops killing babies? Can’t we all just get along?
Nope, I don’t want to say that. If you don’t have an argument to support making abortion illegal at any point in the term, why did you say that keeping abortion legal throughout the term is “too easy to argue against”?
Bullshit. You’re a liar. You don’t just want my opinion…you said
Unless I agree with your philosophical viewpoint, you won’t provide a basis for a medical/biological cite.
What an intellectually dishonest posture to take. :mad:
Well, here is the whole point. I don’t really like abortion, and late term abortion seems at best to be a foolsih choice on the part of the Mother. However, note that all critical word “choice”. If you become pregnant- you make the decision- not me, not the father, not GWB, not the Pope, not SCOTUS, and certainly not this here. Just and only the mother-to-be. No one else (assuming the mother-to-be is mentally competent).
So, if you make the moral choice that arbortion after X weeks is wrong- then it is very simple- don’t have an abortion after x weeks. I certainly agree that if an adoptive parent-wanna-be is on hand- then inducing labor would be a very good choice. However, again, it is a choice for the Mother to make, not the potential adoptive parent wanna-be.
However, “saving the fetus” sneakily? Can you imagine the legal problems that would cause? The ex-mother, who thought it was over, now suddenly gets a child dropped in her lap becuase the adoptive parents don’t want it anymore. The father now being forced to pay 1/3 of his pay every month for a child that both of them agreed to abort?
Of course, the father to be, etc all do have a voice. But that is all- just a voice that the mother-to-be should listen to.
Beagledave- sure a zygote is “alive” in a sense. Just like when your tonsils are removed, they are still living tissue. Cancer tissue is also “alive” when it is excised- should we ban all such operations? When you masturbate- your sperm are “alive” also- then they all die a horrible unfulfilled death- should we ban masturbation? An “egg” in the uterus is “alive” also- then it dies if not fertilized- should we force all women to give up their eggs if they aren’t going to get their eggs fertilized?
Remember- the religious right is also very much in favor of the now born child being “chattel” of the parents. The parents get to decide whether or not to give the child a proper education, what to teach him, what work they can make them do, what medical care the child will or will not get (up to a point) what to feed him, what religion to brainwash him into, etc. Since the Religous right is strongly in favor of the proposition that a child is “property” of his parents- then it is being a bit hypocritcal that the parents can completely ruin a childs life, but a mother-to-be can’t decide to not have that child.
So my concession is- YOU get to decide if & when to have a child, or to abort a fetus. We will not force you to give birth or not give birth- have an abortion or not have one. YOU get to choose. No outside party gets that choice.
What if it kills the mother? “Whoops, no biggie?”
Doctors don’t often predict the future, but if there is a substantial risk or severe harm could happen, there may be reason to have the abortion.
Because the woman could die. Is this not a serious result to you? Your ‘induce labor after seven months’ argument fails to take into account that sometimes giving birth can be a problem. I’m not sure what caused you to decide this simply couldn’t ever happen.
You aren’t connecting the dots. Why did they fake it? Because abortion was illegal. It’s not now. That’s the only reason it would be necessary to fake this kind of thing. Your solution (ban abortion after X point) would be the cause of this problem.
Here’s the other thing I’ve noticed in a few of your posts:
Do you think birth is a walk in the park or something? It’s a MAJOR ordeal whether labor is induced or not, and it requires hospitalization, medical bills, and often other problems.
Oh criminy. We’re supposed to be sharing information to come to informed conclusions. Grow up and cite.
Is that a serious proposal? ‘Let’s not ban abortion, but let’s perform unnecessary surgery on women who displease us as a punishment.’
The pain and suffering? The medical bills? The potential danger? Because you’re asking the government to require people to give birth under certain circumstances?
Here’s the thing, emacknight: it’s a bad compromise. That’s all there is to it. Nobody one either side likes it. Here’s why: you’re asking that most elective abortions be legal, which right-to-life people don’t support. And then you’re asking that potentially medically necessary abortions be banned, even when the life of the mother is at risk, which no pro-choicers will support - and not all right-to-lifers either. You’re asking everyone to accept a solution they will dislike. Some of us - zwaldd quite emphatically illustrates this, though I don’t think you’ve caught his point - refuse to accept legal restrains on abortion because we think it is the mother’s right to decide, and that this right does not leave her on a certain date of the pregnancy or a certain stage of fetal development. The rights of an actual, living human being come first - otherwise I think you do serious harm to the rights of women.
I’ve spent countless threads offering up several cites that point out the difference between organs/tissue and a zygote/embryo/fetus in terms of “a life” or being “alive”.
Since emacknight couldn’t do it, maybe you could?
I’m looking for one, just one, standard medical cite that stipulates that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not biologically alive until heartbeat and brain activity. Is it too much to ask for just one cite?
Maybe because messing with somebodies body and mind like that is one of the most illegal and unethical things you can do? Do you honestly not see the problem here? You have no right to make health decisions for another person. You have no right to drug people, perform surgery on them, or make any health decision on their behalf whatsoever. Not even if they are women. Not even if they are pregnent. Your disregard for basic the basic right a person to decide what happens to the physical realm of their own body is a discredit to your cause. I put you in the same catagory as the man that said if I was suicidal and pregnent I should be tied up for nine months.
I have yet to see persuasive proof that third trimester abortions are regularly performed on completely healthy fetuses for purely elective reasons. It seems to me that this scenerio is a phantom boogeyman the pro-lifers pull out to scare people into joining their camp.
That being said, I think all attempts to ban late term abortions are either “feel good” pieces legislation that won’t really do anything except maybe interefere with the rare woman who actually needs one, or is some attempt for pro-lifers to get their foot in the door for even more intrusive restrictions.
Oy vey, where to start? First off, the sort of compromise proposed is a no-win situation. The pro-fetal-life folks would have to accept abortions, which they are unwilling to do. The pro-abortion-rights folks would have to agree to a period when a woman cannot end a dangerous or doomed pregnancy, something we’re not willing to do. Throw in the constant wrangling over redefining and restricting this that and the other, and you’ve got the exact same mess we have right now.
Also, modern medicine often can’t save them both. A fetus has a shot at 7 months, but it’s not a good shot. A lot of babies born at that stage die, and a lot more have severe long-term health problems. A fetus which is anencephalic, or hydrocephalic, or (like one case I read about) has the brain develop outside the skull has absolutely no chance of survival. If something like this is found at 7 1/2 months, what’s the advantage of making the woman carry to term and give birth?
And who’s going to pay the substantial medical bills incurred by the premie if we just induce labor at 28 weeks? Who’s going to adopt these special needs babies?
Also the suggestion that we drug women, deliver premature infants, and then tell them they had abortions is problematic for a lot of reasons. even sven has handled the morally reprehensible bit, so I’ll stick with the legal issues. For one thing, you’re talking about falsifying medical records, which is and will ever be illegal in a big, big way. Also, there’s the question of the infant’s future. It can’t legally be adopted without the consent of the mother and father (if known), and you can’t get that consent without admitting that no abortion ever took place. And, of course, you run into the money issues already mentioned.
msu 78, I’m all for your plan. Two abortions and I can finally get sterilized! Woohoo! In your face, every doctor I’ve ever had! (I jest, but only a little. It does seem incongruous that someone who truly wants to be sterilized can’t get the procedure done, but people advocate it out of hand for those whose actions they disagree with.)
autz, we finally agree on something that has to do with abortion. Finding a middle ground that satisfies everyone is pretty much impossible, and finding something that satisfies the majority is still damn hard. Since we’re all agreeing on that at least, I’ll start the campfire and you can lead us in singing “Kumbaya.” 
emacknight, have you NEVER watched an episode of ER?
Sheesh!
Seriously, giving birth isn’t just “a little suffering”. It’s a major even and in the past, a lot of women died doing it. Nowadays, that’s not as common, but it still happens.
Okay, sorry, had a volleyball game, and I come home to find my thread has gone all to hell.
Now, to get back on track, the issue at hand is that pro-lifers refuse to accept abortions for all but a few select reasons, and pro-choicers want abortions right up until the day of delivery no questions asked. I’m asking for a compromise, even just a small one. For this to happen, both sides need to give up something.
I’d like to hear pro-choicers say, “I still see it as the mother’s choice, BUT make the decision a little earlier.”
And I’d like to hear pro-lifers say, “we’ll stop harassing people outside abortion clinics IF you guarantee it will only be abortions within the first few weeks.”
Why is this scenario impossible? Forget the medically necessary abortions for now, that’s a red herring, stick to purely elective standard run of the mill abortions. Is there anything either side is willing to give up in order to get most of their demands?
Now, to clear up one point, I really didn’t mean to suggest drugging women and inducing labour; this was more of a joke that got away. What I could like to suggest is that there is a point where women shouldn’t have an elective abortion. Obviously after about 7months, there is very little difference between and abortion and giving birth.
Guinastasia is right, giving birth is no cake walk, but neither is an abortion. If the two procedures had the same level of “suffering” could you tell me why we’d choose abortion?
Marley23 , you said, “a woman could die giving birth” but couldn’t she also die having the abortion? In either case that fetus is coming out.
** Even Sven**, you said, “You have no right to make health decisions for another person. You have no right to drug people, perform surgery on them, or make any health decision on their behalf whatsoever.” You’re right that I don’t, but others do. Parents make decisions like that all the time for their children, as do spouses for their significant other. In cases of mental deficit the state can make medical decisions. So if a woman came in at 8months and said, “I want an abortion,” she could be declared her mentally incompetent allowing next of kin to decide what ever they want. If you don’t like that scenario, put the mother in a coma. Now her husband would have to decide between her life and the baby’s. So yeah, it was a bad joke, went too far, but its not entirely impossible.
I went thru abortion. Why? I was afraid!!! of what ???being able to take care of that child and the social stigma of being pregnant.
Did I crave the sexual enjoyment? No, hell NO!!! I wanted a loving relationship. Men on the other hand, don’t think they have any responsibility if a women gets pregnant, but just remember it takes two. and I am sad and hurt and I have a lot of guilt, because I took away the right of my unborn child to have life and to know GOD. I wonder what happiness would they have brought me? but, I am just a women and who has to support the child??? the man??? HELL NO!!! you guys just are not responsible r u??? and u want your selfish orgasm, but dare the female get pregnant! Can a women make the money it takes to support this beautiful new life??? No, not by herself.
GOD said a man is more responsible! HE told the man he was to work and care for the female and child. I have mixed emotions about a women who’s life is endangered… For me I will take the risk, I understand the tremendous stress on some women, so that would be my only exception. David said to GOD, you knew me in my mother’s womb. Although, it is considered a lesser sin, than a full term child, abortion is still wrong!!! If u want truth then go to the BIBLE, it will clear it all up for everyone!!! If I could go back and do it all over, I would keep my child and say to HELL, with fear of parents opinions, and irresponsible males, and social alienation. Let me give this beautiful wonder, a new human life a chance for choice toward GOD to chose!!!.
If I sound upset or angry, well, then I am. Anger is not a bad emotion, if used properly.
Worst. Rant. Ever, manimal.