I’m pregnant now and at some point in the third trimester it is likely I could get very sick and require early delivery of my baby. I mark every week as a milestone closer and closer to viability. Once I hit viability (technically 24 weeks is considered the point where it becomes a preemie and not a miscarriage if the baby is born early) every week after that betters the baby’s chances once it is born.
I understand earlier abortions like tubal pregnancies where the mother’s life is in danger and the fetus (or whatever you want to call it at that point) can’t survive. But once you get to the third trimester where the baby could survive (may need a little help from the NICU but that’s why they’ve developed all this stuff!) Why not give the baby a chance? If it is an unwanted pregnancy there’s someone out there who would adopt the baby.
Dilation and extraction is chosen over extremely early C-section because it’s a)less invasive and has much shorter recovery time and b)less likely to stick the taxpayers with a very expensive, unwanted premie to take care of. Sure, somebody will adopt the kid…if it’s a healthy white baby. If it’s a minority baby, or if it has birth defects, its odds of adoption go way down. And who’s gonna pay for the NICU stay? The birth mother? The adoptive parents? My tax dollars?
Sometimes people don’t realize they’re pregnant for a few months. One of my best friends in college had a lot of gyno issues and was nearly 4 months along when she went in for her annual pelvic. It’s uncommon, but it does happen. Sometimes they don’t pick up on devastating birth defects till late in pregnancy. Sometimes women don’t have access to abortion services until later in pregnancy. In other words, sometimes shit happens.
Should someone have to have major abdominal surgery because shit happens, when a fairly simple outpatient procedure will accomplish the same thing?
CrazyCatLady, There’s a difference between your friend discovering she’s pregnant at 4 months and someone at 7+ months along running into complications. That’s what I don’t understand…
I’m trying to grasp why if a woman is brought in pregnant with some kind of complication… I will use severe previously undiagnosed eeclampsia… and the baby must come out now or the mother will die… why not try to deliver the baby?
My problem is with the assertion that an abortion this late in the pregnancy is “medically necessary” for the health of the mother, as opposed to someone who does not want their baby or has some kind of horrible defect diagnosed late term.
Well… not for no reason. But an eight month pregnant woman with a healthy fetus can demand an abortion because the continued pregnancy would be damaging to her mental, emotional, or social health. In otherwords, at any time, simply because she doesn’t want it.
Er, you understand I was referring to one of dem born infants, right? Da kind what has already been outside for a bit?
If you did, in fact, already understand that, then say no more. No need to clarify where you stand. I will accept the fact that we will forever be on opposite sides of the great philosophical divide.
I did. I do feel that requiring mothers to involuntarily give up whatever is needed to care for infants before they can care for themselves physically is ickier than the prospect of babies starving. Let us then agree to disagree on this issue.
I do indeed agree. But I’m fascinated by this line of thought, despite what I said earlier. Can you shed any light on why a baby “involuntarily” starving to death is more palatable to you? What price does a woman pay, exactly, in giving up the freedom to focus on herself while her child starves?
Again, I am fascinated by the thought processes of those who feel that anything that compromises a woman’s right to live in a manner that may directly lead to another’s death, should she choose to do so, is immoral (or at least ickier than any alternative).
Well, Robert, sometimes that is part of growing up and being a responsible adult. Life can be icky. What matters is how we deal with it. Instead of advocating responsibility for one’s actions, you stand by the “disposible method” if it’s inconvenient for the mothers. Just how far are you willing to follow that philosophy?
Are you serious? That’s the reason? As far as the medical bills, that should be the responsibility of the birth parents. Long term payments could be arranged.
Why would she go into massive debt for something she doesn’t want, and in fact is trying to get rid of? She wanted to have an abortion, remember? It’s everyone else who is squawking about her having a C-section instead.
But that’s the point, don’t you see? If they can’t make abortion illegal, they will try to make it as inconvenient, expensive and dangerous as possible.
Okay, how about this? The mother has already got the baby to the point of birth during an extraction. The only thing preventing a live birth, as far as I can see, is the doctor holding the baby’s head in the mother while he destroys the child’s brain. Why not just continue with the birth? No c-section required.
There goes the “Making the Mother Undergo Major Surgery” arguement. Now what?
And ** Tanookie**, I really hope all goes well for you and your baby.
Well, now you’ve got an unwanted premie on someone’s hands. The mother clearly has no intentions of taking care of it or its huge medical bills, so we can either let it die of neglect, or someone else can step in and shoulder the burden. If there are birth defects or other factors that make adoption unlikely, who takes care of the baby you’ve insisted be brought into the world? Who loves it and takes care of it and pays for its stay in the NICU?
Is anyone aware of a health condition (or condition’s) that only become a threat to the mother’s life during late term abortions? If someone is going to have an abortion is there really any good reason for a woman to wait until the fetus is identifiably human with a central nervous system?
Well, there are things like eclampsia, which often doesn’t show up until the last trimester.
More common are conditions which will kill the fetus, but aren’t detected till 7 or 8 months. Specifically, I’m thinking about hydrocephalus or anencephaly. With these conditions, the baby has absolutely zero chance of survival if carried to term and delivered. In that case, I have no problems whatsoever with making the ending of the pregnancy as non-traumatic as possible for the woman.
I guess, technically, an anencephalic fetus doesn’t have a CNS, since the brain is a fairly essential part of the nervous system.
I’m not too concerned about conditions which will kill the fetus for purposes of this debate. Obviously if the baby has a zero chance of survival then an abortion (no matter how early or late) isn’t going to make much of a net difference to the baby.
With regard to Eclampsia what is the frequency of it among late term pregnancies? When it does occur with late term pregnancies what is the usual breakdown in the severity of the complications? (i.e. 50% trivial effects, 25% moderate, 15% potentially highly damaging effects, 10% severe problems… etc.). What is the overall likelihood that a pregnant woman will experience a life threatening Eclampsia condition late in the pregnancy?
Grim beaker… when I went for my last ultrasound (15 weeks pregnant at that time) the baby inside me was identifiably human and had a brain and spinal cord… you could see it… as well as arms and legs and ears and I watched it swallow some amniotic fluid… The fetus becomes “identifiably human with a CNS” well before third trimester and reasonable viability.
I totally agree with crazycatlady’s last post… those defects mean zero chance for baby to survive and I have no problem with whatever means the mother wants to use to end that pregnancy.
But I can’t see aborting in the third trimester for eclampsia as the sole reason… If you are pregnant and wanted the baby and developed eclampsia then deliver the baby early and give it a chance. Presumably your insurance or you would handle paying for the nicu stay.
I do agree that there are necessary abortions. I was molested by my father for a long time. If he had gotten me pregnant there was no way I should have been forced to carry that baby. The mentally and physically handicapped woman in florida (I’m too lazy right now to look for a cite) who was raped and who may die from carrying the baby to term deserves an abortion.
Any woman who finds herself pregnant and who deems they cannot or will not carry a child to term shouldn’t be forced to either but you need to be responsible for your body! I cannot see being in the third trimester and not having a clue that something is amiss… I have a very irregular cycle and can go 6 months with no bleeding and not have that be unusual but I check every month to make sure it is just a skip and not pregnancy!
Some good reading there for anyone who is interested…
Also any pregnancy site can give you lots of medical information and personal stories.
I had it with my daughter and will have it again with this baby. We were lucky with my daughter that they knew I would be getting it so all my symptoms were monitored and treated immediately.
The largest problem is when preeclampsia becomes eclampsia… at this point the mother has severe high blood pressure and is having siezures. The kidneys are also overstressed and may fail.
I’m afraid I couldn’t really find the kind of statistical breakdown you were looking for grimbeaker but while most sites indicate that death from this condition in the united states is pretty rare it is a huge problem in less “developed” countries. However I doubt those women are relevant to this abortion debate.