Partial birth abortions were never commonplace and in most states were only allowed under extreme circumstances. I believe that was to save the life of the mother. That was the case with all third trimester abortions. I, like MadMax, can't understand using partial birth abortions as birth control, but I can understand it if the mother would die or the baby not yet born would die.
Right, that's why I said let's assume for a minute that it could save the life of the mother. What would you do then? Would you feel comfortable telling a woman she'd have to die?
but that's no longer the case. abortions are performed outside of the first trimester all the time for all sorts of reasons....and very rarely is the LIFE of the mother in jeopardy according to all of the research i've read on the topic.
no..i would not. i would hope there might be some other solution, though, than partially delivering the baby and then jabbing scissors through its skull.
I agree that if the life of the mother isn't in jeopardy I have no problem restricting 3rd trimester abortions. In fact I'm against all abortions unless the mother's life is in jeopardy.
I believe that the ban should go through, and in order to do that, all the Republicans have to do is insert language that approves an exception if the mother's life is in danger. I can't see where that would be a huge issue in most cases and if it would allow the ban to go through, I don't see why the Republicans didn't put that language in in the first place. The last time this ban was overturned for exactly the same reason. You'd think they would learn. As far as what I do not understand, I think the biggest thing is people who feel it necessary to restrict or ban activities that do not harm anyone but the person involved in the activity. I do not understand criminalizing behavior where there is not a victim involved.
I agree with ROCKSS. Maybe the mother should decide at that point. There is no easy answer to that question, though. Besides, how often does this scenario actually take place? I'm not trying to be smart, I really don't know.
The MCAT is not the only thing that gets someone into medical school and there are plenty of applicants out there to fill up all the slots alotted. If you want more doctors we need more spots in medical schools, not a broader range of those accepted.
This is the reason every one needs to make sure their wishes are known while they are in good physical, emotional and mental health. Women should let it be known that her life should be saved at all costs or the baby's life should be saved at all costs prior to any health risk situation arising. I am aware of a few couples at our church who made the conscious decision to go on with the pregnancy and birth of their child even though the mother's health was at risk. These are hard truths that need to be discussed for all health related issues, not just birth.
You're right, it's absolutely no easy question to answer and I wouldn't hope that situation on anyone. I don't know how oftent that scenario takes place, but I don't think that really matters. What's the harm in having an exception in place, unless you want to argue that there would be widespread abuse, which I doubt.
As far as percentages go, though, there are relatively few abortions performed outside the first trimester. Banning partial birth abortions will only stop a very small number of procedures, but those procedures should be banned (again, except when the mother's health is in question).
just went to the ACLU site and here's their stance if I've understood them correctly: Many women find that they must abort a fetus (for health reasons, diabetes, hypertension, gross fetal abnormalities, etc. etc.) late in the pregnancy. Partial-birth abortions represents the safest, most commonly used abortion technique for women needing to abort during/after the 2nd trimester. Therefore banning such abortions represents a danger to maternal health. ------------------- Now your stance is that: Fetuses late in the 2nd Trimester are viable. (Can be expected to live albeit with higher infant mortality rates), and hence should be protected as regular human beings. So basically if the gynecologist induces premature delivery, and finds that the fetus is viable, or MIGHT BE viable, he should be obligated by law not to destroy it. Or are you arguing that premature delivery induced for the sake of abortion should be banned altogether? -------------------- I think the issues here are: 1) How do we distinguish between viable/nonviable fetuses? How viable is "viable"? And do viable fetus have the same rights as born babies? 2) How much should we consider the will/health of the mother who is intent on aborting the fetus? (she might abort it herself, with all the added health risks, to avoid the criminal penalties). ---------------------- I think without resolving these two questions, the issue will always be open to debate and interpretation. I'll admit I'm pro-choice, just to get it out in the open.
I would support that if the word 'health' was replaced by the word 'life' for the reasons in my earlier post.
Lil -- the standard of health of the mother has been so corrupted that it doesn't have to mean anything life-threatening anymore. I've posted congressional testimony of abortion doctors here citing that over and over again, before...not sure if you ever read that. Essentially, it doesn't have to mean she finds out she has diabetes or that there will be some problems with delivery. It can include mental health, as well. I find that disgusting. Yes...I'm saying that if we're going to place protections on the life of the mother who MIGHT survive...then the baby who MIGHT survive is entitled to protections as well. As for the will of the mother...the will of the mother, even in accordance with Roe v. Wade, is legally insignificant past the first trimester.
1) It is very difficult to distinguish. Are you comfortable killing what could very well be a living being just because you couldn't tell the difference and arbitrarily chose that it was not alive? 2) I, and most pro-life people, want to save all lives. If the mother and the child are both equally at risk, the mother would have priority to be saved. In a military medical situations, when two people are badly hurt, and one is almost certain to die, they treat the one with the best chance of survival rather than risk losing both. All efforts are made to save both, but the higher survival probability gets priority.
If the mother's life is hanging precariously in the balance, why take the time to plunge scissors into the baby's brain before removing him/her?
If the only thing standing in the way of this ban is language protecting the mother's health, why not insert the language?
Dude seriously, Mother's life is what you should be saying instead of mother's health, no matter what side of the debate you are on.
