Debate: Partial Birth Abortion...

[Lewisc]

Originally posted by DopeyRN
I am not going to read any of the other posts...what I say might be a repeat. I have been an OB/GYN nurse since 1980. There is NO indication for partial birth abortion...babies are viable in the last 3 months. There is NO maternal condition that needs the baby murdered instead of delivered.

The thing I have always found interesting...Lacie Peterson's son Colin was "murdered" and the father is on trial for murder. So the only conclusion I can come to is if you WANT the baby it is a baby, and if you DON'T want the baby it is a specimen. Makes me want to vomit.

Sorry you want to post without bothering to read first. An example was posted. The mother had cancer. Treatment couldn't start while the mother was pregnant. Waiting for the mother to deliver would signifcantly reduce her survival odds.

Someone else posted that almost all abortions are preformed in the first trimester. Is that your experience?

 

[poohandwendy]

Why don't we work on those issues before we worry about other people's wombs? Why is it that those who are so opposed to abortion are rarely interested in the child once its been born?

Please do not paint with such a broad brush. A great many of us ARE very concerned with the welfare of the children after they are born. We don't have to adopt them to be concerned and volunteer to help them.

It is like people who want to save the environment...do they have to ride a bicycle to work to have a valid opinon?

 

[katerkat]

Originally posted by snoopy
I gave an example of a late term abortion earlier on this thread -- a woman that I knew was diagnosed with cancer at 20 weeks. Had she continued her pregnancy and waited to receive treatment, the liklihood was very great she would die. Instead, she chose to abort the baby at 23 weeks, and gave herself a chance to live. The doctors who performed this abortion made a moral choice to put the well being of the mother before the unborn child.

But why couldn't she had just given birth and let the baby die naturally? I guess that's what I don't understand.

 

[poohandwendy]

Originally posted by snoopy
I gave an example of a late term abortion earlier on this thread -- a woman that I knew was diagnosed with cancer at 20 weeks. Had she continued her pregnancy and waited to receive treatment, the liklihood was very great she would die. Instead, she chose to abort the baby at 23 weeks, and gave herself a chance to live. The doctors who performed this abortion made a moral choice to put the well being of the mother before the unborn child.

But the baby didn't need to be killed to save her life, only delivered. Many, many babies survive at 23 wks gestation.

 

[princesstommi]

Originally posted by snoopy
I gave an example of a late term abortion earlier on this thread -- a woman that I knew was diagnosed with cancer at 20 weeks. Had she continued her pregnancy and waited to receive treatment, the liklihood was very great she would die. Instead, she chose to abort the baby at 23 weeks, and gave herself a chance to live. The doctors who performed this abortion made a moral choice to put the well being of the mother before the unborn child.

And this was most definitely a healthy, viable fetus that was aborted?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I promise. I'm really trying to understand. I cannot imagine any situation where a healthy viable fetus would be aborted instead of birthed and taken care of by any means possible. If it does, I'm completely against that. As much against that as the pro-lifers.

But I still don't think I agree with legislating/banning a procedure that may very well be needed and necessary in some cases. I don't think it is as much caring for the welfare of the fetus as it is a political move by the right-wing. But that's one opinion that I'm sure I will have to agree to disagree with some folks about. And I'm okay with that.

 

[MHopkins2]

Originally posted by katerkat
But why couldn't she had just given birth and let the baby die naturally? I guess that's what I don't understand.

Just to bring this full circle, I think that route is less humane.

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by snoopy
Why don't we work on those issues before we worry about other people's wombs?

This is the shift of topic that I simply don't understand. I really could care less about your womb/ovaries/etc. The abortion issue is not about with whom, how often, or what type of sex you can have. It is a fundamental question of one being's right to life vs. another's. If the mothers life is not in jeopardy, and the child can be scientifically proven to be a living human organism, then the fact of it's dependence on it's mother (how many new borns can survive without adult aid), and it's location in utero are irrelevant. A woman is free to do whatever she wishes within her own sphere of rights. This freedom is only curtailed when her sphere infringes upon the sphere of another. The clasic example being: my right to swing my fist ends at the point where my fist strikes your face. The only thing to be debated really is when the child/fetus becomes a human life. The only constructive way to debate this is scientifically. Trying to rationalize murder based on the need to curtail population growth leads to genocide.

 

[MHopkins2]

What about cases of conjoined twins, where the docs operate knowing that one twin will die?

 

[mep319]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
First of all the world is all not as civilized as the USA is. Do you consider it more humane to have tons of starving, unwanted babies out there in the world? It's easy to act all moral and outraged, and to slap a scarlet letter on any woman's chest who is pro-choice, isn't it?

What solutions do you have for women's issues in third world countries, not just our own?

One reason why I rarely participate in this type of debate, is because we usually end up with a bunch of men who are giving us holier than thou rhetoric, but refuse to offer any sensible solutions to the problems on a larger scale.

Bingo! I ageree!
But our country isn't all that civilized. We are the only "civilized" country that still uses the death penalty. We also have the highest violent crime rate of any "civilized" country. We have a long was to go to be "civilized." Back to the PBA...I just find it difficult to believe that a doctor who has gone to school to save the lives of many would abort a healthy fetus at such a late term just b/c a mother doesn't want it. I also find it difficult to believe that any women would choose to do so late in preganacy due to a chance of heart. Maybe to save her life or to save her child the agony of an "almost life." Just MHO.

 

[goofy4tink]

Originally posted by MHopkins2
What about cases of conjoined twins, where the docs operate knowing that one twin will die?

Hmmmm...interesting thought. Talk about some poor surgeon having to play God. Glad I'll never be in that position.

As to the previous post regarding just letting the baby die a natural death....can you imagine how horrifying this must be to a mother? Knowing that her 'treatment' is killing her unborn child? Another situation I'm glad I'll never be in.

 

[katerkat]

Originally posted by goofy4tink
As to the previous post regarding just letting the baby die a natural death....can you imagine how horrifying this must be to a mother? Knowing that her 'treatment' is killing her unborn child? Another situation I'm glad I'll never be in.

Actually, I meant delivering the baby at 23 weeks or whatever before her treatments start - just not doing it as a partial birth abortion. However, no matter what the woman did, her treatments would result in the death of the baby, unfortunately.

 

[mep319]

Originally posted by Fizban257
This is the shift of topic that I simply don't understand. I really could care less about your womb/ovaries/etc. The abortion issue is not about with whom, how often, or what type of sex you can have. It is a fundamental question of one being's right to life vs. another's. If the mothers life is not in jeopardy, and the child can be scientifically proven to be a living human organism, then the fact of it's dependence on it's mother (how many new borns can survive without adult aid), and it's location in utero are irrelevant. A woman is free to do whatever she wishes within her own sphere of rights. This freedom is only curtailed when her sphere infringes upon the sphere of another. The clasic example being: my right to swing my fist ends at the point where my fist strikes your face. The only thing to be debated really is when the child/fetus becomes a human life. The only constructive way to debate this is scientifically. Trying to rationalize murder based on the need to curtail population growth leads to genocide.

Very good points and well said. But the fact of the matter is that we do not know where human life begins. In your mind or in your religion it may be at the point of conception. For another it may be when it is a viable fetus outside the womb. For antother not until it is birthed. I personally believe it is at the second stage I mentioned but with science and medicine that changes almost daily. I' m not sure I'm comfortable with our government making a decision as to when that time is. I find that to be a personal, moral judgement....and I'm not willing to tell someone else where her belief in life should be. With out some kind of cold, hard SCIENCTIFIC facts I just can't go there.

But why couldn't she had just given birth and let the baby die naturally? I guess that's what I don't understand.

Read the original post again...it was to save her life. The mother needed chemo and had cancer. It wasn't an abortion b/c their was a problem with the pregnancy.

 

[MHopkins2]

(99%) OT - katerkat, I get cognitive dissonance every time there's an abortion thread. I see your name and assume you're on my team, and get surprised every time. LOL - you'd think I would have learned by now!

AmyA used to do the same thing to me when it was an Affirmative Action thread. I am such a dorkess!!

 

[katerkat]

Originally posted by MHopkins2
(99%) OT - katerkat, I get cognitive dissonance every time there's an abortion thread. I see your name and assume you're on my team, and get surprised every time. LOL - you'd think I would have learned by now!

AmyA used to do the same thing to me when it was an Affirmative Action thread. I am such a dorkess!!

I know - but you're supposed to be the one on my side! Actually, I'm sure *technically* as a Libertarian I should be in support of the woman's right to choose, her own body and all that, but I just can't get past that, to me, it's the killing of an innocent, different person.

 

[DopeyRN]

23 weeks is not "late term". If she waited 3 weeks to start treatment for her cancer, why not wait 1-2 more? Just a thought. (My heart goes out to her and her family...I hope she is doing well)

Lewsc, I do not work in a hospital that performs abortions. Have I ever seen a pregnancy terminated...a few times...usually in the early 2nd trimester, for a non viable fetus (anacephalic (no brain), missing organs, etc). It has to go before an ethics board before it can be done. We are strictly in the business of saving and promoting life.

 

[Divamomto3]

Originally posted by MHopkins2
Good gravy, no. So I take it you'd be in favor of me having an abortion?

i just can't imagine that anyone who ever had a baby move inside them...and you can feel it clearly by 20 weeks for sure...it's obviously ALIVE and not some cell division...could truthfully say that it would be humane and not painful for someone to stick a metal instrument into a skull and suck the brains out. Notice they don't pull the baby down head first....then you'd hear it scream. Keep the head jammed up in the birth canal where it can't take a breath or a scream and we can all sleep well tonight falsely believing that there is no pain involved.


I am not talking about abortions performed in the first trimester. (I don't believe in those either for myself, but I can understand the need for a safe medical choice there...I am a health care professional.) I am talking about LATE TERM, PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTIONS.

 

[Divamomto3]

Originally posted by poohandwendy
If it is humane for a fetus, why on earth would it not be humane for a dog or DR inmate?

And I also love how we say "fetus" when talking about abortions....like that's another species. How about miniature human being? Small adults? Babies?

 

[Divamomto3]

Originally posted by DopeyRN
I am not going to read any of the other posts...what I say might be a repeat. I have been an OB/GYN nurse since 1980. There is NO indication for partial birth abortion...babies are viable in the last 3 months. There is NO maternal condition that needs the baby murdered instead of delivered.

The thing I have always found interesting...Lacie Peterson's son Colin was "murdered" and the father is on trial for murder. So the only conclusion I can come to is if you WANT the baby it is a baby, and if you DON'T want the baby it is a specimen. Makes me want to vomit.

Amen DopeyRN! from one old RN to another!

 

[RachelEllen]

Originally posted by Fizban257
The abortion issue is not about with whom, how often, or what type of sex you can have. It is a fundamental question of one being's right to life vs. another's. If the mothers life is not in jeopardy, and the child can be scientifically proven to be a living human organism, then the fact of it's dependence on it's mother (how many new borns can survive without adult aid), and it's location in utero are irrelevant. A woman is free to do whatever she wishes within her own sphere of rights. This freedom is only curtailed when her sphere infringes upon the sphere of another. The clasic example being: my right to swing my fist ends at the point where my fist strikes your face. The only thing to be debated really is when the child/fetus becomes a human life. The only constructive way to debate this is scientifically.

I agree with you halfway. I don't like the arguments based on how the fetus 'got there' (rape, incest abortions are ok, ones where she 'deserves what she got' aren't)

But I would disagree that the fetus's dependance on the mother is irrelevent.

Let me back up. I have a tough time discussing 'partial birth' abortion because the information about it is 90% political 10% medical. I've been to medical school, I've been through resident, I'm specializing in neonatal medicine. I have never seen a third trimester abortion. I have never heard anyone recommended for a third trimester abortion. I have seen a few, few cases of 2nd trimester abortions, all for uniformly lethal fetal anomolies. So I have to conclude that whatever this procedure is, it is rare. And I can't find any good data on how many are performed, and why.

That being said, as a human being, your rights extend to what is done to your body, regardless. Let's assume that the fetus at 8 weeks of age is a full human being. I'd say that it's irrelevent. If I do not want another human being connected to me as life support, that's my right.

Let's say you were to find out tomarrow that there was a 3 month old baby that would die if you did not donate part of your liver. You are the only possible donor. The operation is pretty low risk for you, involving some discomfort and inconvienance only. I think it would be a great thing for you to donate. But should the law force you to?

It seems like the same thing to me. The mother's sphere of rights is not infringing on the fetus, the fetus's rights are infringing on the mothers. Abortion isn't about killing, at its fundemenal level, it is about separation. The mother has the right to separate her from the fetus at any point, unconditionally.

Now as to procedures which kill a fetus that could be viable outside the uterus. I'd certainly be against those.

Rachel

 

[goofy4tink]

Originally posted by katerkat
Actually, I meant delivering the baby at 23 weeks or whatever before her treatments start - just not doing it as a partial birth abortion. However, no matter what the woman did, her treatments would result in the death of the baby, unfortunately.

Yes, I understood that. Someone else had asked why she didn't start the treatments and just wait for the baby to be born. At least, I believe that's what they were saying. What horrified me was the thought of your poor friend, going thru life saving treatments, knowing her child would die but having to wait for nature to take it's course and start labor in order to deliver the baby. I totally agree with you. Well, I think I do. I'm starting to get cross-eyed and can't seem to remember who is saying what anymore.