Observation on Abortion Debats

[jwoodie]

"Better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted." This lofty premise has been corrupted in the abortion debate, where thousands of late term abortions are defended on the basis that there might be a few legitimate cases among them.

Seriously, does anyone agree with this practice?

 

[whitehall]

It's a medical practice that political proponents don't even want to regulate. Didn't Gosnell's horror house indicate that the procedures in abortion clinics need to be investigated and some should be shut down? Doesn't society have the responsibility to investigate the impact abortions might have on the mental and physical health of some women? Is it possible that some babies are slaughtered outside the womb when they are "accidentally" born? If anybody ever saw the horror show of a typical partial birth abortion the whole industry would be shut down. The abortion nazis would rather keep the holocaust wholesale killing of the unborn a secret.

 

[Katzndogz]

The abortion game changed when medical science advanced enough to know at what stage of development a fetus gained nerve receptors.

 

[PaulS1950]

What exactly is a "late term abortion"?
The only legal abortions that I am aware of can only be performed in the first trimester.
Later than that the life or mental well being of the mother has to be at risk to abort the fetus.

 

[jwoodie]

A late term abortion is one performed after the normal point of fetal viability outside the womb (i.e., a fully formed baby). This is what the Texas legislator wanted to preserve with her filibuster. Pro Choice people don't like to talk or think about this issue.

 

[mamooth]

Pro-life people like to make up very strange stories about pro-choice people.

If the Texas bill had only been about time, it would have passed easily. Maybe the pro-lifers here can explain why Texas Republicans won't simply submit a bill banning abortion at 20 weeks. After all, it would pass easily.

They submitted a bill that would effectively ban almost all abortions by shutting down almost all clinics, and they're lying to everyone's faces about being motivated by "concern for women". And all the pro-lifers support and back the big lie, because any lie is justified for TheCause.

And before you disagree, make sure you can explain why Texas won't simply submit a 20-weeks bill without the impossible-to-satisfy clinic restrictions.

Of course, pro-lifers created Gosnell. The liberals tried to shut him down for years, but the conservative media wouldn't pay any attention. By closing all the clinics in Texas, they'll cause a dozen Gosnells to pop up. Which is fine with them. Most pro-lifers are happy to ignore back alley chop shops, since they approve of abortion so long as it's degrading and dangerous and properly punishes the women that they define as insufficiently pure.

 

[PaulS1950]

When exactly are "late term abortions" legal under the present laws?

 

[Coyote]

"Better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted." This lofty premise has been corrupted in the abortion debate, where thousands of late term abortions are defended on the basis that there might be a few legitimate cases among them.

Seriously, does anyone agree with this practice?

Actually, I disagree with your overall premise here: where thousands of late term abortions are defended on the basis that there might be a few legitimate cases among them

Late term abortions are rare. According to CDC, something like 92% were performed at ≤13 weeks' gestation. Only 7% were performed at 14--20 weeks' gestation, and 1% were performed at ≥21 weeks' gestation.

Given that extremely small number and the fact that late term abortions are severely restricted by law, I think it's reasonable to assume that the majority are legitimate.

 

[PaulS1950]

Can anyone tell me the circumstances under which late term abortions are legal?

 

[Coyote]

I think it varies by state but it's almost always if the mother's health is at risk or severe fetal deformaties.

 

[PaulS1950]

Ok, thanks.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"Better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted." This lofty premise has been corrupted in the abortion debate, where thousands of late term abortions are defended on the basis that there might be a few legitimate cases among them.

Seriously, does anyone agree with this practice?

3rd trimester abortions are highly regulated. Why would anyone who spent years of study and hundreds of thousands of dollars obtaining a medical degree put it all on the line simply because someone "changed their mind" about being pregnant.

The REALITY is that 3rd trimester abortions are ONLY performed because of health issues. The majority of women who have them actually want to have a child. They usually go on to have a subsequent successful pregnancy.

Banning all 3rd trimester abortions means that you are putting the lives of mothers who already have other children to care for at risk. Why must she be forced to carry a fetus that is either dying or has no chance of post birth survival?

How do you explain to a 6 year old that their mommy had to die because she wasn't allowed to have an operation that would have saved her life?

 

[PaulS1950]

I was under the impression that any abortion past the first trimester was done only when the life of the mother or child was in jeopardy. It seems I was correct. Even then it is the mother's choice. If the baby has a good chance of survival, she can opt to save the baby instead of herself. My daughter had a "C" section delivery at 26 weeks due to health problems and the baby "Mike" lived. He is a fighter and still doesn't know how to quit. The woman that shared her hospital room had the same process performed to save her baby at 27 weeks and the baby died. Both mothers were OK. The other woman has given birth to a healthy baby since then but my daughter can't have any more children without risking her own life and that of the baby. She has adopted two children since then and foster parents as well.

Granted neither of these were abortions but one had the same result. Only the mother will suffer the consequences so she must be the one to make the decision. No one else is capable of making the decision for her.

A full term baby is in the womb for 38 weeks. The first trimester is only 13 weeks.

 

[Leweman]

If we made abortion illegal women would continue to get them anyway. If you make guns illegal they will disappear forever, doing harm to no one ever again. Easy debate.

 

[dilloduck]

I was under the impression that any abortion past the first trimester was done only when the life of the mother or child was in jeopardy. It seems I was correct. Even then it is the mother's choice. If the baby has a good chance of survival, she can opt to save the baby instead of herself. My daughter had a "C" section delivery at 26 weeks due to health problems and the baby "Mike" lived. He is a fighter and still doesn't know how to quit. The woman that shared her hospital room had the same process performed to save her baby at 27 weeks and the baby died. Both mothers were OK. The other woman has given birth to a healthy baby since then but my daughter can't have any more children without risking her own life and that of the baby. She has adopted two children since then and foster parents as well.

Granted neither of these were abortions but one had the same result. Only the mother will suffer the consequences so she must be the one to make the decision. No one else is capable of making the decision for her.

I think proponents of the bill feel as if they are assisting the fetus to have a choice. I don't see anywhere anything that indicates that they would put the mothers life at risk in doing so.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If we made abortion illegal women would continue to get them anyway. If you make guns illegal they will disappear forever, doing harm to no one ever again. Easy debate.

Emotion and religion are bad reasons for writing laws. The majority should never legislate to impose morality on individuals. However the majority does have the right to impose reasonable restrictions that ensure the safety of the innocent.

 

[PaulS1950]

As a minister I do some family counseling. I use a graph that is a rectangle with a diagonal line drawn from the lower left corner to the upper right corner. On the left is a scale showing the child's ability to make decisions for themselves and at the bottom is a scale that shows the child's ability to pay for mistakes they might make. There is no scale for age although it is assumed that the upper right corner is the same as whatever legal responsibility is for the state.

Children aren't born with the ability to make decisions and they certainly can't make decisions that affect the well-being of their mother before birth. No one can make a better decision for a woman who is having difficulty with a pregnancy than the woman who is living it. No doctor can decide how much pain meds are required to relieve a patient's pain. All they are taught is the "normal" dosage and it may be a lot more than is necessary or in some cases not enough. Anyone who thinks they have the wisdom to choose whether or not another person should have an abortion is deluding themselves or has a "god" complex. The laws that are now in place restrict the period of time in which a mother can have an abortion and most clinics go out of their way to ensure that the consequences to the mother are understood and that she is making the best decision for herself. Beyond that time frame a doctor is involved in the process and that doctor is weighing the choices and assisting the mother in the decision. Passing legislation that restricts the choices for the doctor and mother will not make for better decisions. It is like saying that we must keep a person on life support - no matter the odds for recovery until they reach the "normal" age of death. That way they will live a "full" life and those who are paying for it have no choice but to continue paying to force their family member to be kept "alive".

The current law accepts that until birth the baby has no rights beyond what the mother provides. The founding fathers of this country defined our rights as beginning at birth and the law reflects that.

 

[dilloduck]

As a minister I do some family counseling. I use a graph that is a rectangle with a diagonal line drawn from the lower left corner to the upper right corner. On the left is a scale showing the child's ability to make decisions for themselves and at the bottom is a scale that shows the child's ability to pay for mistakes they might make. There is no scale for age although it is assumed that the upper right corner is the same as whatever legal responsibility is for the state.

Children aren't born with the ability to make decisions and they certainly can't make decisions that affect the well-being of their mother before birth. No one can make a better decision for a woman who is having difficulty with a pregnancy than the woman who is living it. No doctor can decide how much pain meds are required to relieve a patient's pain. All they are taught is the "normal" dosage and it may be a lot more than is necessary or in some cases not enough. Anyone who thinks they have the wisdom to choose whether or not another person should have an abortion is deluding themselves or has a "god" complex. The laws that are now in place restrict the period of time in which a mother can have an abortion and most clinics go out of their way to ensure that the consequences to the mother are understood and that she is making the best decision for herself. Beyond that time frame a doctor is involved in the process and that doctor is weighing the choices and assisting the mother in the decision. Passing legislation that restricts the choices for the doctor and mother will not make for better decisions. It is like saying that we must keep a person on life support - no matter the odds for recovery until they reach the "normal" age of death. That way they will live a "full" life and those who are paying for it have no choice but to continue paying to force their family member to be kept "alive".

The current law accepts that until birth the baby has no rights beyond what the mother provides. The founding fathers of this country defined our rights as beginning at birth and the law reflects that.

That's fine and dandy yet is remains the right of citizens to challenge the current law. They are exercising that right and there claim is that a fetus should have the right to be born barring health complications or rape cases. When life starts and when a fetus has rights will never be a scientific fact--It will be a legal decision.

 

[FA_Q2]

I was under the impression that any abortion past the first trimester was done only when the life of the mother or child was in jeopardy. It seems I was correct. Even then it is the mother's choice. If the baby has a good chance of survival, she can opt to save the baby instead of herself. My daughter had a "C" section delivery at 26 weeks due to health problems and the baby "Mike" lived. He is a fighter and still doesn't know how to quit. The woman that shared her hospital room had the same process performed to save her baby at 27 weeks and the baby died. Both mothers were OK. The other woman has given birth to a healthy baby since then but my daughter can't have any more children without risking her own life and that of the baby. She has adopted two children since then and foster parents as well.

Granted neither of these were abortions but one had the same result. Only the mother will suffer the consequences so she must be the one to make the decision. No one else is capable of making the decision for her.

A full term baby is in the womb for 38 weeks. The first trimester is only 13 weeks.

No, it does not ‘seem’ you were correct. As a matter of fact, you are wrong.

Most states have enacted laws that do as you say but that is a state issue and not universal. There are 9 states that do not limit abortions in that manner.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf
41 states have legal restrictions on late term abortions. Those restrictions require (as per Roe) that there are stipulations for the health of the mother and baby. Should either be in danger than a ban on that abortion would be unconstitutional. The life of the mother is NOT an issue with the abortion debate as that has never been in question. The question is whether or not we should legally allow a potential mother to kill her unborn child at a whim regardless of the gestational period. Most people are pretty clear on this; the answer is a no. While banning abortion is not really an option or popular, putting gestational limits is not only the popular position but it is also quite proper.

 

[PaulS1950]

In the chart within your link any state that allows abortions beyond the first trimester do so when the life and or health of the mother is in jeopardy or there are abnormalities in the fetus.

I saw no states listed that allowed abortions beyond the first trimester that did not require the mother's health to be in question.

Perhaps you could list the states that do so?