I agree. There's not even an option for cases where the child will die either in utero or soon after birth, like in the case of anenocephaly, which is often diagnosed pretty late in the pregnancy (don't Google it, please!), or even one of the trisomies where the baby may not make it an hour after birth.

The way I see it is, and I think most people agree: like much of life itself, there are too many shades of grey. I know I'm pro-life for myself, but pro-choice for the other 6.1 billion people on this planet. Does that make me a hypocrite? I hope not!

Potter's Syndrome and Anecephaly were two of the big ones I was thinking of when I wrote my post about non-viable babies. There's another I learned about in biology class in which the embryo fails to turn into a fetus and becomes like a type of parasitic tumor that can kill the mother. What about that? Some would even argue that it would be wrong to terminate that pregnancy.

There has to be cases where a fetus needs and has to be terminated for the health of the parent and the fetus. So if the fetus goes to term and becomes a vegetable as it were, is that right? Dr. Tiller I am sure was a caring person and only did what he thought was best, not for the money. It is sad that a deminted person took it upon himself to slay him and in a church to boot. Being in the world of drugs, the options are very scary according to the ads of what can happen? Are the cures correct enough to offset the cures and cause further problems and even death.

Beyond gross. Is it similar or the same as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu

I know of lesser reasons to terminate a pregnancy, but I definitely see nothing wrong with aborting a tumor that is "alive," but is basically nothingness.

No, it isn't right.

However, many disagree with me. It's fine to disagree and for people to choose whatever works for them and is within legal boundaries. That's what pro-choice means to me. :)

You're thinking of a molar pregnancy. These can actually be cancerous. This would be caught in early pregnancy, though, since it makes the mother really sick. Another common reason for first trimester abortions is ectopic pregnancies. These are "viable" pregnancies that are routinely terminated to save the life of the mother. Would anyone say that those pregnancies should be saved?

Are ectopic considered viable? I've always understood them to be nonviable because the growing fetus will rupture the fallopian tube.

And while there is a small minority of pro-lifers who might argue that yes, the pregnancy should continue if the mother's life is at risk, the vast majority (including all that I know) would accept that as a legitimate reason for aborting before viability.

The vast majority of ectopic pregnancies will not survive to term. However, nothing is actually wrong with the fetus itself that we know of. There have been many ectopics that have survived to term, some within the fallopian tubes, some in the abdominal cavity. Not all ectopics are in the fallopian tubes, though, most are.

No, not fetus in fetu. That's not necessarily fatal and that's when the fetus becomes a parasite to its living twin. The twin can survive with the non-viable twin inside them for years and years if it doesn't disrupt their vital organs or take up too much of their blood supply. There have been a few documentaries about fetus in fetu. Pretty creepy stuff.

I saw an incredible documentary about a set of triplets. The incredible part was that the boy triplet was an ectopic pregnancy that they didn't know about until they delivered the other two babies. Somehow his embryo had attached to the outside of another organ below her uterus (must have been bowels, but I just can't remember). Since it wasn't in the fallopian tube, the fetus was able to survive without rupturing the tube and killing the mother. The amazing thing about his survival was that it suggested that a fetus doesn't need female organs to survive and that there is a possibility with the right technology that someday, a male could carry an implanted fetus to term. Obviously a lot of medical complexities, and we're not anywhere near that just yet, but just a little something to think about.

The problem they can't overcome, however, is the damage done by placental attachment to intra-abdominal organs. The endometrial lining is meant to accept the placenta (though there are cases where the placenta extends to the muscle of the uterus and can't be dislodged after delivery requiring an emergency hysterectomy.) Most people who successfully deliver an intra-abdominal ectopic have to have bowel resection...sometimes they die from hemorrhage.

No, it doesn't. It means you recognize that while YOU may not wish to make that choice, other people should have the opportunity to do so.

I don't know if I would ever be able to have an abortion, but I definitely think I should be able to have that option if the situation arises.

What I find hypocritical is being against abortion, but in support of the death penalty.

I see what you mean on the basis of human life.

The difference is that an unborn child hasn't done anything and is considered an innocent life. On the other hand, a person given the death penalty has been found by the legal system to have done something.

what someone else does with their body isn't my responsibility. who am i to dictate what they do?

It's not what you want to do to YOUR body - it's what you want to do to the unborn BABY'S that raises the question. Were it merely a case of doing something to your body - like piercing, or plastic surgery - no one, not even self-proclaimed pro-lifers, would care.

I don't like tattoos, but have no reason to prevent you from getting one. That analogy doesn't translate into a discussion about abortion, because there is a third party involved. If a woman has an abortion, her right to HER body infringes on the right of another - hence the term "right to life". As to the question of "Who am I to dictate . . .", well, you do it all the time through the laws of your country. We dictate how fast you can drive your car, when you can drink, at what age you can get a tattoo, when you can sign a contract . . . who are we to dictate? We are citizens who don't wish to live in anarchy.

Where will the women go now?
 

article on Salon.com