Weigh In: Senate Passes Ban on Late Term Abortion
 

http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews...ion.c3978.html

This bill does not include a clause to allow it only when the woman's health is at risk - Clinton vetoed previous attempts at this bill because there was no allowance for the mother's health. What does everyone think about this? (these types of abortions are performed after the 3rd month of pregnancy)


EDITED to say - please don't turn this into a bashing thread, we all know who is pro choice and pro life - this was mainly to see even if the pro choicer's agreed with this ban or not.

Re: Weigh In: Senate Passes Ban on Late Term Abortion
 

I believe that this will be challenged. I believe that this ban (I hope) will be found to be unconstitutional.

It makes no sense to pass such a bill that wouldn't have a clause that allows the procedure if the mother's life is at risk. It's like saying the mother has to give her life in order to save the life of the fetus/baby and I think that this is very hypocritical.

People are already calling it a "historical vote" or a "historical day" but there is much a battle to still be had.

I think they should have considered the health of the mother.

As a devout catholic, I'm pleased with this ban, but on the other hand as a future health professional I'm slightly torn too.........other than that I'm not going to touch this topic with a 100 foot pole nor read this post again for the sake of me not getting pissed off at anyone.

I don't think the Supreme Court will uphold it. If you're a strict interpretationist then it's totally Constitutional. The SC walks a fine line between interpreting existing law and writing new law. They'll most likely strike this one down.

My guess as to why would be that it doesn't take into consideration the health risks the mother might be facing.

Re: Re: Weigh In: Senate Passes Ban on Late Term Abortion
 

Co-sign.

Although I am very pro-choice, I don't think women should be having abortions that late in the game unless there is a medical reason such as the health of the mother, etc. However, I think this bill was just a step in the anti-abortionist's attempts to illegalize abortion altogether.

Re: Re: Weigh In: Senate Passes Ban on Late Term Abortion
 

Ditto. I don't see this one making it past the Supreme Court.

I think its a matter of rationalization.

Pro-lifers want to chip away at abortion.

I am pro-choice. I am not sure that killing a fetus earlier in a pregnancy somehow makes it better, nor does killing it later make it worse.

Re: Re: Re: Weigh In: Senate Passes Ban on Late Term Abortion
 

I agree!!!

Unless there is a medical reason for abortion, I feel that abortion isn't a very good choice. This is my opinion of course. Since this bill isn't taking the mother's health into consideration, this bill shouldn't have passed in any law-making entity. Why should a mother give up her life during labor or pregnancy? It's a shame that the government is taking away a mother's life in order to save a baby. Personally, if I was pregnant and knew I was going to die during the labor, I would abort the baby because I think every child should have his or her mother. Having a mother is or should be a natural part of life. What would one do without their mom? Since abortion is looked at as murder to some, then, wouldn't allowing the mother, who is going to die during the pregnancy, murder as well? Either way, in that situation, somebody's going to die. If one sees abortion as murder, then, it only makes sense to look at allowing the mother to die as murder too.

I'm sorta torn when it comes to abortion...but in this situation I'm all pro-choice. My family knew a woman who had 5 children. She had a terrible time with the pregnancy and when it came down to it, the doctors told her she would die if she had the baby. She chose to go through with the birth, and yes she did die. I remember my mom remarking that she would have done the same thing. But yet, I still feel it should be the choice of the mother/father. She had 4 normal, healthy children by this time and if she had chosen to abort the baby it's not as if she was practicing unplanned parenthood. But it was her moral choice and it was left at that.

if a woman is gonna die from giving birth, she should take it like a (wo)man.

So, um what you're saying is that no matter the situation...the person should die like a man? Suck it up?

If we should, why do we have modern medicine?

yes

i think that banning late term abortions is a good decision b/c we learned in a class the procedure involved, and i dont agree with it. however, the health of the mother is also important, and i agree with a lot of you, it should be taken into consideration.

Tell you what, Champ. This isn't a good thread for plays on words or humor. I'm not sure which one yours is, but it'll rub a lot of folks the wrong way.

Might want to back off on this one, or let us know what your real feeling is.

As to mine, there should at least be consideration for the mother's health/survival.

um, i am serious. i said in a previous thread, any mother who wanted an abortion should be given the death penalty.

and this is my opinion

thx for lookin out though, bro :cool:

Okay, although I am Pro-Life, I also try to be fair. I did not read what either Planned Parenthood or the Pro-Life people have on this topic, I read the actual wording that the Senate bill includes: Partial Birth Abortions

This states several times that this procedure is not used when the life of the mother is in jeopardy - which is why I wanted to read the text. In every case of abortion for the concern of the life of the mother that I've ever heard of, it has been within the first trimester - which is not when partial birth abortions happen.

For those of you who have NOT read Pro-Life literature, or have spoken to someone very knowledgable on the topic, very few Pro-Life doctors would refuse an abortion on the grounds of the life of the mother (ie: tubal pregnancy, cancer). That's a scare tactic used by Pro-Abortion Advocates which doesn't ring true in real life situations.

Obviously, I find this a victory for a more humane United States.

I think abortions are good. This one more move by the Radical Relgious Right to impose their views on everyone.

Re: Re: Re: Weigh In: Senate Passes Ban on Late Term Abortion
 

This case won't make it through the Supreme Court. States have proposed similar laws, but were struck down by the Court if they didn't take the woman's health into account. I can't imagine why this would be different.

Very, very few abortions are "partial birth" and those that are have a variety of reasons behind them. The three most common are threats to the woman's health that are not identified until late in the pregnancy, fetal abnormalities that are (often) not identified until late in the pregnancy, and denial that she is pregnant/inability to deal with the pregnancy. Many times, young girls, those who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest, those who don't have correct information about pregnancy ("you can't get pregnant your first time"/"pulling out is an effective method of birth control" etc. myths), or simply those who aren't emotionally or financially ready to deal with the possibility that they're pregnant will deny it or just don't know that they're pregnant. This kind of situation can lead to fetal abnormalities or complications with the pregnancy -- i.e., the girl who thinks she isn't pregnant because she only had sex once and she used a condom so she keeps on partying like a rock star and the baby develops deformities because of her alcohol consumption.

I'm not so worried that this bill is outlawing D&X abortions, but more worried because I've heard the language of the bill will make it easy to chip away at more and more abortion rights. The fact that there is nothing about the woman's health taken into account is also somewhat frightening.

Of course these are cases that you've heard of. Hundreds of thousand exist and I think you can acknowledge that. I can also pretty much assume that you haven't heard about the details on every single case ( I highly doubt just about anyone would).

It is not always easy to tell if a woman's life might be at risk and there are instances when they find out the health of the mother could be at stake if she gives birth while she has passed her first trimester.

Either way, the situation could present itself at any given time.


Say that this bill sticks, I guarantee you we will begin to see many more "illegal abortions" that threaten the safety of many involved. (Much like the controversy of such abortions which were on the rise prior to the Roe v. Wade ruling.)

I think abortions should be manditory. There are way too many people in the world. We need to take control of our population. You should only be allowed to breed if it can be genetically proven that you're children won't screw up society for the rest of us.

:o

If this bill passes - I hope to God it doesn't - I can definatley see underground abortion clinics. Just like Prohibition in the 20's but instead of speakeasy's, there will be medical clinics.

You can't legalize morality. What is right for you, isn't right for someone else. I would see this bill being passed as nothing more than republican agenda.

All that aside - I DO however believe this procedure is barbaric and it honestly turned my stomach when I learned about it in school. It is very rarely used, but it some rare cases it is the mother's ONLY option.

Some other things to think about:

~There is a triple screen blood test done between 15 and 19 weeks that tests for birth defects such as down's sydrome. It is a positive/negative test and if there is a postive reading, then an amniocentisis is done to find out the exact defect. Lets say you find out after an amnio that your baby has down's syndrome. You and your spouse already have 3 children and were planning on closing up shop when this pregnancy popped up. You are finacially strapped and feel you could not care for a down's baby adequately. Would you continue the pregnancy?


~You find out at your 5th month (18-22 week) ultrasound that your baby's brain has not developed at all and the child you are carrying will be stillborn. Would you continue the pregnancy?


I ask because just like there are rare cases - these are REAL life situations. These are real cases that every pregnant woman fears. It is easy for the proponants of this bill to be gung-ho about an anti-abortion victory - but they need to come speak to the couples that have struggled with miscarriages and infertily for 10 years, finally get pregnant and find out their baby will be stillborn. Then I would like them to say what is more humane. A late term abortion, or forcing a mother to carry a fetus to birth and then put them through the agony and grief of losing a child all over again.

I am 1000% pro choice and I can see how a ban is a good idea. HOWEVER, and I am quick to say, HOWEVER, the issue for some pro-choice folks is the "give them an inch, they'll take a yard." They don't want to have this be a law because then it will make the NEXT law, whatever that may be, easier to pass. And then the next thing you know, Roe v Wade is overturned. Which is a huge fear of many people and some people think is very very close to happening.

So, I can see their point in not wanting this to be passed.

OP,

To me, your comment is scary.

It's not much of a jump in my mind from "Ethnic Clensing" and "Master Races."

How would you decide who will screw up society and how? Who would make the decision? Using what criteria?

I don't want to see us go anywhere close to there.

I disagree with this bill because even if it did include a line about 'mother's health' they would probably try to tack on all sorts of regulations etc.

As much as I disagree with third-term elective abortion - the decision for a D&X abortion should be made between a doctor and the woman. They know the situation best and what level of risk the woman is willing to have.

I agree. I don't think anybody thinks D&X abortions are pretty. But neither is any other kind of abortion. We shouldn't ban them on the basis of how ugly they are. Illegal abortions certainly aren't any prettier than D&X abortions, and that's what we're looking at if this bill goes through.

I think what a lot of people fail to acknowledge or don't know is that when there is a clause that the woman's health must be taken into account, it does not just mean the woman's physical health, but her emotional health too. If the woman is going to be emotionally unable to care for a baby with down's syndome, for example, that would be a legitimate reason for an abortion. Or if she's a college student who would have a nervous breakdown if forced to carry a baby to full term (like me! haha), that would probably also be legitimate.

The problem that too many pro-lifers don't want to acknowledge is that this bill isn't going to cut down on the number of abortions one bit. People will either just have them earlier or they will have them illegally.

What does D&X stand for?

To clarify something in the first post, partial birth abortions are not performed after the 3rd month, they are performed after the 2nd Trimester- which is not 3 months.
Abortion breaks down like this:
1-12 weeks (you actually cannot get an ABORTION until at least 6 weeks but there are pills like RU486 you can take). this is the FIRST trimester and usually is D&C. A D&C Is the same procedure they use on women who have endometriosis and other complications. It is a common procedure used for OTHER THAN ABORTION purposes.
12-24 weeks- there are about 3 forms of abortions used... if the fetus is still early (more like 12 weeks than 15) they can still use D&C. Usually they use a mixture of giving the woman meds to make her dialate, then having her come back and do a D&C this causes a "miscarriag/abortion" type deal.
There is another method I don't really remember but is relatively new.
for 24-40 weeks there is partial birth abortions. Not many doctors will perform these, even at "abortion clinics". They are not pleasant and doctors have both moral and medical reasons for not usually performing these.

I am a prochoice advocate, but at the same time unless there is a HUGE problem with the baby or the mother's life is in danger, I don't think partial birth abortions are okay. My own opinion. But I don't want them "banned" because I know there are times when a woman would try to have a "back alley" abortion and that is too risky... keeping them legal keeps women and babies safe. Imagine a woman going for an illegal partial birth abortion, the woman gets severely injured and the baby is born alive with HUGE defects because of it? I don't want that happening either!

I have known 3 people in my life that had abortions, and it wasn't easy for any of them, and their reasons all differed... one of them I helped her research everything from adoption to abortion before she made her choice (this was years ago).

As for the religious side, leave that to the woman and God because none of us know how they reconcile (if they do) that. But I don't think it is any of my damn business.

it should be D&C Dilation and curtilage.

I also know there is a relatively new "medical abortion" as opposed to surgical abortion. You insert a pill vaginally on the first day at the clinic and then 24 hours laster insert four more I think and that starts heaving bleeding and you pass blood in the privacy of your own home. Sounds a bit more civilized that surgery but I guess there are pros and cons of both.

Dilation and extraction. It's the medical name for "partial-birth abortion."

ilovemyglo is taking about dilation and curettage (D&C), which is one of the more common first trimester types of abortion. Dilation and evacuation (D&E) is common during the second trimester, along with a couple other types. D&X abortions, or what are commonly known as partial birth abortions, generally take place during late second trimester or into the third trimester.

yes I agree that all types of abortions are barbaric

thank you for clearing up the different types of abortions though sugar and spice. I'll be honest, I tried not to pay attention to that part of my mother and baby education in Nursing school.


The difference between late term and partial birth abortions are like Sarah said. I posted about this topic because I thought the senate had passed a bill to ban late term abortions done after the 5 month. Then I read it was any abortion after 3 months of pregnancy. Maybe the media are reporting it using both terms?

I am 100% pro-choice. However, I don't agree with late-term abortion unless there are extreme cases (the mother's health deteriorates or the fetus is found to have defects). Although I may not agree with late-term abortions unless there are some good reasons behind it, that doesn't mean there should be a law preventing it. Women will have abortions no matter what. I fear that this will start the whole back-alley abortions again.
I really hope that the Supreme Court does not vote in favor of this bill.

Delt Alum ,

If you put your seat up on chairs at movie theatres, and some one else sits down in that chair, and you still don't move your feet, then you shouldn't be allowed to have kids. Rude people suck.

Well, OK. I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. Seems to me that rudeness is a learned trait, not something you have from birth.

Dumb kids can come from brilliant parents and brilliant kids from dumb parents.

And many "gifted" kids have huge problems.

I still don't know how you would decide who should or shouldn't be parents.

I know about that gifted thing :(

upon further reflection....
some sort of licence to procreate.
use testing to see who would be abusive, etc., but this is getting off topic.

Well, the process is already somewhat in play for adoption. There is an extreme screening process for whether parents are emotionally/financially/sometimes even morally able to care for a child. For some reason, we don't have that screening process for people who just want to have kids and randomly get pregnant.

Not that I'm for it, but I'm just playing devil's advocate. ;)

I think we tried sterilization here around the turn of the century (ideas and thinking precusor to the Genome project if I'm not mistaken). Then Hitler took the same premise for his superior race idea. We sterilized mainly handicapped and mentally ill people though - a few thousand I think.