Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Curious about oppinions on this third trimester abortion situation from a med student


gbear

What do you think of the new site?  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think of the new site?

    • Amazing
      30
    • Cool
      24
    • Could be better
      5
    • A letdown
      5

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

  • 9 months later...

A few years later, as Congress is about to mandate it to be illegal to have a late term abortion in Washington DC, I thought back to the article I linked in the original post. Then I read http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-true-picture-of-the-women-who-face-late-term-abortion/2012/07/27/gJQAxSCjEX_story.html?fb_ref=sm_btn_fb

It brough back the "why."

Some times, I think we need to look at the things people do which we find most horrible. Before we condemn them or their deeds, we should probably look to see what makes them act. Would we act so differently in the same situations? Does their act seem so calous as we once thought? I remember another editorial written by a nurse when the doctor who performed late term abortions was gunned down. It painted the same picture, of families forced to choose whether to carry a baby to term despite it having no chance to live. Some times there is no "good" choice to be made, only degrees of pain and suffering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, carrying the baby to term has inherent risks. It might be a small chance, but every full-term pregnancy and birth can potentially go wrong, and put the mother's life in danger. For example, abruptio placenta can occur, especially in the 3rd trimester, which puts the mother at risk for life-threatening coagulopathy or myometrial rupture. I dont even want to get into the risks associated with the actual birthing process.

Second, even if the risk to the mother is not significant, carrying 20 more weeks means she also has to gamble with her likelihood of smooth pregnancies and healthy children in the future. For example,the later into a pregnancy you go, the higher the risk of developing gestational diabetes, and having gestational diabetes in previous pregnanices or having a previous still-birth increases risk of developing gestational diabetes in future ones. It isnt life-threatening for the mother, but it is linked to miscarriages and birth defects. In other words, it is more likely for this fetus to cause complications in future pregnancies and lower the mother's chances of having healthy children in the future, than it is for the fetus to become a healthy child himself. Not so cut and dry anymore, is it?

Second, to carry a child for another 20 weeks, will still require a lot of healthcare and visits to the doctors office, in order to deal with the health issues and potential complications associated with all pregnancies. If there's no chance for the child to survive, who should pay for that? Insurance? Why should they be on the hook for a fetus that has no chance? The parents who dont want to carry it to term? Thats just not fair. I think those who are adamantly opposed to any late-term abortion that is not medically necessary for maternal survival (as in this case), should be the ones forced to cough up the money for prenatal care for this woman. I bet they wont be so adamant after that.

Third, dont forget about the heavy psychological toll this takes on mothers. Everybody asking them, "when is it due", "is it gonna be a boy or a girl,", and the poor mother has to explain each time, "no no this child has no chance to survive." Multiply that by 20 times a day, and that becomes a huge emotional issue for the mother. You cant just overlook that; there is something inherently cruel about asking someone to deliver a baby that has no chance at survival.

btw, I am an adamant pro-lifer on a personal level, even in cases of rape...but this is a medical issue. A fetus that cannot and will never be able to survive outside its mother's womb is not a life, it is only a medical complication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Third, dont forget about the heavy psychological toll this takes on mothers. Everybody asking them, "when is it due", "is it gonna be a boy or a girl,", and the poor mother has to explain each time, "no no this child has no chance to survive." Multiply that by 20 times a day, and that becomes a huge emotional issue for the mother.

btw, I am an adamant pro-lifer on a personal level, even in cases of rape...but this is a medical issue. A fetus that cannot and will never be able to survive outside its mother's womb is not a life, it is only a medical complication.

Would the same be true for a pregnant woman who has to reply, "This is actually my rapist's child that the state says I must carry to term."??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty much against it unless the baby present a clear and present danger to the mother. I know thats not a popular opinion, but I stand firm that all individuals (even unborn baby individuals) all have identical rights all the way up to the point where those rights present harm to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world is rarely crystal clear nor are the decisions we are confronted with. And though, it's easy to tell others what to do or how to live... it's often different when you have to wear their shoes. That's why I stay away from judging or worse, ruling on my judgements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would the same be true for a pregnant woman who has to reply, "This is actually my rapist's child that the state says I must carry to term."??

it is only half the rapist's, which doesn't make it better or a choice w/o it's own psychological toll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is only half the rapist's, which doesn't make it better or a choice w/o it's own psychological toll

Many legislators are trying to take the "choice" out of it.

And an unwanted pregnancy is of a different order. In those cases, the woman "did the deed" willingly that caused the pregnancy. If it wasn't willing, especially a crime committed by a stranger (sometimes a very violent one), would that not constitute the "choice" being a valid one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still come back to the late term question and the examples in the articles (the one I just posted and the original post). It's sad to me that these are the ones most hated when the those having them are most often having them for reasons with which I sympathize. everyone gets caught up in x weeks = viability. I used to as well. It's just those who carry a baby for that long and end up with an abortion are doing so because the baby isn't viable. When the baby's diagnosis is a death sentence, why pay more in dollars for medical expenses and in emotional toll on all involved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still come back to the late term question and the examples in the articles (the one I just posted and the original post). It's sad to me that these are the ones most hated when the those having them are most often having them for reasons with which I sympathize. everyone gets caught up in x weeks = viability. I used to as well. It's just those who carry a baby for that long and end up with an abortion are doing so because the baby isn't viable. When the baby's diagnosis is a death sentence, why pay more in dollars for medical expenses and in emotional toll on all involved?

I totally agree with your point. (However, I am pro-choice.) Not crazy about late-term abortions as "choice"...more often than not, I think either the mother's or fetus's health IS at risk if this decision has to be made at that late of a time.

No one I know is "for" abortion at all. It's being "for" the right to choose that many women (me included) will fight for. I will never in a million years vote for anyone who has Roe v. Wade on the chopping block. Never. But that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would the same be true for a pregnant woman who has to reply, "This is actually my rapist's child that the state says I must carry to term."??

Edit: twa said it more succinctly than Im capable of.

Someone with a pro-life position that makes exception for rape needs to explain to me exactly [why the definition AND value of life is determined by the circumstances surrounding conception

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is only half the rapist's, which doesn't make it better or a choice w/o it's own psychological toll

Wow. There's just nothing you won't say to try to force your agenda, is there?

It's half the rapist's? Clever the way we've come to the conclusion that being raped was not only her choice, but that her "vote" counted as much as the rapists, huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. There's just nothing you won't say to try to force your agenda, is there?

It's half the rapist's? Clever the way we've come to the conclusion that being raped was not only her choice, but that her "vote" counted as much as the rapists, huh?

My 'agenda' is to recognize the value of a individual life that had no part of the harm done

killing a child for his father's crime should not be automatic.

it is a topic my wife and I have discussed a great deal,one where she believes the carrying of the rapist child to term would be too much to bear and adding more suffering and harm.

I see it as her child....and of worth(not that I would get a vote)

the morning after pill should largely eliminate the issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 'agenda' is to recognize the value of a individual life that had no part of the harm done

And if, in order to do that, you have to claim that rape victims bear the same responsibility for their condition, as their rapist does, (and that, in fact, they must bear 100% of the burden, because of their 50% responsibility), then hey, your cause is so High and Righteous that things like reality don't apply to you. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years later, as Congress is about to mandate it to be illegal to have a late term abortion in Washington DC, I thought back to the article I linked in the original post. Then I read http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-true-picture-of-the-women-who-face-late-term-abortion/2012/07/27/gJQAxSCjEX_story.html?fb_ref=sm_btn_fb

It brough back the "why."

Some times, I think we need to look at the things people do which we find most horrible. Before we condemn them or their deeds, we should probably look to see what makes them act. Would we act so differently in the same situations? Does their act seem so calous as we once thought? I remember another editorial written by a nurse when the doctor who performed late term abortions was gunned down. It painted the same picture, of families forced to choose whether to carry a baby to term despite it having no chance to live. Some times there is no "good" choice to be made, only degrees of pain and suffering.

Tests and such are sometimes wrong. We were told our first-born would have severe spinal and other birth defects, and were encouraged to abort her. Luckily for her, we were against that decision, and carried her to term. She was, and still is, quite healthy, with no birth defects whatsoever. I'm quite grateful for the advances of modern medicine, but it's still not foolproof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are very few things in life i am sure of, but one is that those against abortion and those who are 'for' it will never understand each others side.

Why?

Understanding does not mean agreeing.

add

in a number of ways I am pro-choice,I just find the inconsistency and limits intriguing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world is rarely crystal clear nor are the decisions we are confronted with. And though, it's easy to tell others what to do or how to live... it's often different when you have to wear their shoes. That's why I stay away from judging or worse, ruling on my judgements.

So you're an anarchist? I'm confused by this statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

Understanding does not mean agreeing.

add

in a number of ways I am pro-choice,I just find the inconsistency and limits intriguing.

I think both sides can easily understand each other I just think that they disagree on key points and place more/less value on others. The result is that neither finds the other side's argument compelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

Understanding does not mean agreeing.

add

in a number of ways I am pro-choice,I just find the inconsistency and limits intriguing.

i'm just not sure that someone who sees a fetus as a life can fathom supporting ones right to end that life in the name of a choice, while someone who is pro choice cant fathom being told they dont have that choice.

there are disagreements about things like musical tastes and even politics, and people can generally have some understanding when it comes to differing opinions, but when it comes to abortion, the 2 sides tend to look at each others views like the other side has 2 heads. there just seems to be very little common ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...