Here’s the thread. I also submitted a duplicate thread here.
I hope it’s obvious that I was not suggesting women should not have the right to vote. As a conservative/libertarian, I staunchly support every person’s right to vote regardless of gender, ethnicity, etc. It was strictly an intellectual inquiry. But it today’s world, even doing that will get you in trouble with the PC crowd. :rolleyes:
Well, I guess I’ll just have to let people make up their own minds on that one. Gotta say, it doesn’t look too great from where I’m sitting.
And I couldn’t care less. Like I said, a mere utterance on the subject is enough to raise the ire the PC crowd. Such is life in the 21st century…
Plop that sentence into a 2nd amendment argument and see what you think. At some point, a person’s freedom to act has to be restricted because of the potential for abuse. There is the potential for significant abuse with this procedure.
Before the 3rd trimester, when the fetus is pretty much non-viable, I don’t care if you have an abortion, or how it’s done. When the fetus becomes viable, I’m not particularly interested in allowing it to be destroyed for a woman’s convenience. “Health reasons” are OK, as long as that doesn’t mean “avoid a completely commonplace procedure like a caesarian, or natural childbirth.” If a woman who wants the baby could have a live birth, why should any other option be considered?
Okay. No guns. No cars. No rich foods. No alcohol. No addictive drugs available from phramacies. No babysitters. No SDMB. No computers. No credit cards.
All of these things hold the potential for abuse and must be stopped.
I believe at drawing the line where the useful purpose ends and the abuse begins. I don’t believe in slippery slope theories. I am opposed to late term abortions except when it is used to protect the health or the life of the mother. That is exactly where the line should be in my thinking.
I understand that there are other feminists that believe that there should be no law regarding abortions. That is their right. I just respectfully disagree and acknowledge that I may be wrong.
Opponents of gun control laws fear a slippery slope.
Pro-choice advocates fear a slippery slope.
Those who are against the use of marijuana for medical purposes fear a slippery slope.
If she wants the baby and the doctor feels that having the baby would in some way damage her health or endanger her life, then the physician should inform her of the risks and possibilities and she should make the decision. One thing that she might want to consider are the children that are at home that might be left motherless. That’s just one example of why another option should be considered.
I truly cannot imagine a woman going through nine months of pregnancy and being casual about such a decision. In sixty years I have not known any woman who has had this procedure done. I have known women who continued to talk wistfully about their stillborn children fifty years after giving birth. Some of you don’t understand. You just don’t.
It’s not that they don’t understand, Zoe. It’s that they won’t understand. They don’t WANT to understand.
Truth Seeker those giant shouty bits of yours are embarrassingly and obviously wrong. Even without the icky skull crushing bit, a six-and-a-half month fetus and a nine month baby are rather different in skull size. And a vaginal delivery is safer than a caesar, which is the only real option by that stage (yes, yes, apart from having the baby, or dying, whichever.)
Apart from the hydrocephaly and anencephaly, I’ve also heard of late term abortions (3rd trimester) being done because the mother has some type of cancer - with no treatment, she dies. With treatment, the baby dies. And then you have a dead baby inside you, what fun… now what?
So OK, this is the pit and rational argument isn’t the strong point. But how about adding up the possiblities and seeing where you get?
500 hydrocephalics
?? anencephalics
?? cancer cases
?? diabetes and heart disease where continual fetal development will severely damage if not kill the mother
?? other major illnesses where the treatment is so toxic that the fetus can’t live
?? plain old unexplained fetal deaths
?? road accidents that kill the baby or perforate the uterus or whatever else makes the pregnancy no longer viable
?? criminal beatings/shootings/stabbings with the same effect
?? mentally defective rape victims who had no clue they were pregnant
Then take your 3000, and subtract these, and you will get some number which is the total of all other good but highly obscure medical reasons, plus the very few real whackos. I would suggest that the whackos, while sadly not non-existent, will make up a very, very small number.
Cajela
You’re a wonder, you are. During this long, drawn out debate, hundreds of doctors and ethicists have run around in circles tryng to justify PBAs on healthy fetuses and they couldn’t come up with any decent reasons for them. Where have you been for the last year?
In point of fact, you’re not making a lick of sense. The “shouty bits” included the qualification “normal fetus.” I think we can assume that a dead fetus is not a “normal fetus.” So your examples where the fetus is already dead are irrelevant.
You also, apparently, don’t really understand how PBAs are conducted. First, it is not an emergency procedure. Rather, it takes two to three days to dilate the cervix. Second, there simply is no real physical risk to the mother in completing the extraction of a normal fetus without damaging it. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Therefore, all your scenarios completely miss the point. While it may be necessary to terminate a pregancy late in the third trimester in order to protect the mother’s health, it is not necessary to destroy the fetus in order to do so. It is true that the fetus will be premature and may not survive, but that is no justification for destroying it outright.
The real issue, once again, is that terminating the pregancy without doing a PBA will result in an actual live baby. That’s the real – and only – rationale for performing a PBA on a normal fetus. All the rest is, apparently, just so much smoke.
I’m, not quite understanding your point. The fact that historically (in the US at least) the large majority of the PBAs performed have been used mainly as last ditch, late term birth control is not in dispute, and has been confirmed by the direct testimony of the PBA service providers. Are you saying you have concrete evidence this is not the case, and the majority of PBAs in the US are performed for “good medical reasons”, or are you just guessing?