Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

But even that, which is more thorough, misses some of the issues. There are people who think it should be legal through the third trimester with heavy restrictions, or legal with heavy restrictions (beyond rape, incest and saving the mother's life). It's just such a complex issue that it's impossible to break it down into any sort of accurate poll.

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!

[tri deezy]

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.

[sdeason1]

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by tri deezy

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?

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.

Originally Posted by sdeason1

So if the fetus goes to term and becomes a vegetable as it were, is that right?

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by tri deezy

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.

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?

[SWTXBelle]

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

[tri deezy]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

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.

[tri deezy]

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by tri deezy

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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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!

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

For those of you who say you are anti-abortion in the sense that you would never have one, or feel it is immoral, but say you are pro-legal abortion, what is the rationale?

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

[SWTXBelle]

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.

[texas*princess]

article on Salon.com

Susan Hill, President of the National Women's Health Foundation, who knew Dr. Tiller for over two decades and referred girls and women to his clinic, said in a phone interview, "We always sent the really tragic cases to Tiller." Those included women diagnosed with cancer who needed abortions to qualify for chemotherapy, women who learned late in their pregnancies that their wanted babies had fatal illnesses, and rape victims so young they didn't realize they were pregnant for months. "We sent him 11-year-olds, 12-year-olds who were way too far along for anybody [else] to see," said Hill. "Eleven-year-olds don't tell anybody. Sometimes they don't even know they've had a period."

Since the news of Dr. Tiller's murder broke, personal narratives from people who used his services have been appearing around the Web. A commenter at the blog Balloon Juice told the story of finding out in the eighth month of his wife's pregnancy that she was carrying conjoined twins. "Conjoined twins alone is not what was so difficult but the way they were joined meant that at best only one child would survive the surgery to separate them and the survivor would more than likely live a brief and painful life filled with surgery and organ transplants." They chose to terminate the much-wanted pregnancy, rather than bring a child into the world only to suffer and die. "The nightmare of our decision and the aftermath was only made bearable by the warmth and compassion of Dr. Tiller and his remarkable staff." A commenter on Metafilter tells a similar story: "My wife and I spent a week in Dr. Tiller's care after we learned our 21 week fetus had a severe defect incompatible with life. The laws in our state prevented us from ending the pregnancy there, and Dr. Tiller was one of maybe three choices in the whole nation at that gestational age." He went on to share his memories of Dr. Tiller. "I remember him firmly stating that he regarded the abortion debate in the US to be about the control of women's sexuality and reproduction. I remember he spent over six hours in one-on-one care with my wife when there was concern she had an infection. We're talking about a physician here. Six hours.... The walls of the clinic reception and waiting room are literally covered with letters from patients thanking him. Some were heartbreaking -- obviously young and/or poorly educated people thanking Dr. Tiller for being there when they had no other options, explaining their family, church, etc. had abandoned them."

Links to older stories are also spreading on social media and blogs. A 2001 article originally published in Glamour relates the experience of Gloria Gonzalez, who learned that the twins she was carrying were gravely ill and threatening her own health. "As a Christian and a married woman who desperately wanted a child, I'd never given much thought to abortion. Like many others, I assumed that only women with unwanted pregnancies had the procedure." Yet after she and her husband consulted with several doctors and their pastor, "We knew what we had to do. Letting the girls die on their own didn't seem like an option, because we believed they were suffering while endangering my own health." The Web site A Heartbreaking Choice, which compiles stories from women who have chosen to terminate wanted pregnancies, has a section devoted to "Kansas Stories," from women who traveled to Wichita after receiving catastrophic diagnoses too late in their pregnancies to obtain legal abortions in their own states. The stories are painfully similar: A couple is thrilled to be expecting a baby, only to see a doctor's face turn grim during a routine ultrasound. Something is terribly wrong. And whatever the specific diagnosis is, the prognosis is essentially the same: If your baby lives, it will suffer constantly and die young.

The trauma of receiving such a diagnosis is only compounded by the difficulty of obtaining a late-term abortion. Writes one woman, "The reality is that finding a doctor to do this procedure in the late second or third trimester is almost impossible. For me, the reality was that at the most painful time of my life I had to travel out of state, stay in a hotel room and face hostile protesters in order to carry out this most personal of choices." Another writes, "I had to fly to Kansas to have the procedure done. It was a five-day out patient procedure that cost us almost $9,000 after all was said and done. I am hurt and angry at the state of Maryland for taking away my right to allow my daughter to die in peace ... I was appalled that Maryland did not have a quality-of-life addendum to the late-term termination law." Susan Hill says enduring the expense and stress of travel is the only option for most women who need late abortions in the U.S. "The restrictions under the Bush administration made it impossible for most states to allow abortions past 16 weeks. All the southern states are restricted tremendously. A few places in New York, if it was medically necessary, could possibly do it, but the paperwork was unbelievable, and there was no time left. That's why they referred people to Tiller. And for that he lost his life. "