478 replies to this topic

[talbs]

Translation:

 

If abortion is the safest option for the mother and the mother is unwilling to undertake any other options then abortion is the ethical choice.

 

I'm not so sure safety is his top priority so much as a woman being able to terminate a pregnancy whenever she desires.

Edited by talbs, 18 July 2014 - 12:14 PM.

[Waser Lave]

But what's the difference between inducing labor and an abortion when the fetus is viable?

 

Abortion suggests an actual termination of life, inducing labour (especially after the period of viability) would suggest leaving open the option for things like adoption.

 

I'm not so sure safety is his top priority so much as a woman being able to terminate a pregnancy whenever she desires.

 

They go hand in hand in a lot of cases. If a woman isn't willing or capable to carry or raise a child then it's not going to be in the best interests of either the mother or the child to have to carry it to full term.

[Kaddict]

Abortion suggests an actual termination of life, inducing labour (especially after the period of viability) would suggest leaving open the option for things like adoption.

I think what ivysaur was saying, at that late in the term, an abortion ins't really an abortion. It will typically induce labor and you will be left with a normally healthy baby. Is it still ok at that point? (Correct me if I am wrong)

[Ali]

But what's the difference between inducing labor and an abortion when the fetus is viable?

That's what I'm trying to get @Sweeney to answer.

 

I'm not being standoffish, I'm genuinely asking.

Surgical abortion (from what I know) is 2 stage where you stop the heartbeat and then the following day remove the foetus. At 40 weeks, that's going to be likely as traumatic as a birth (if it would even work that late in development - I have no idea) so probably wouldn't come under the category of being a greater risk physically or emotionally than giving birth.

[Kaddict]

Surgical abortion (from what I know) is 2 stage where you stop the heartbeat and then the following day remove the foetus. At 40 weeks, that's going to be likely as traumatic as a birth (if it would even work) so probably wouldn't come under the category of being a greater risk physically or emotionally than giving birth.

But I feel Sweeney spoke of the mental and emotional trauma of having a child. So that would factor in, right? 

[Waser Lave]

I think what ivysaur was saying, at that late in the term, an abortion ins't really an abortion. It will typically induce labor and you will be left with a normally healthy baby. Is it still ok at that point? (Correct me if I am wrong)

 

I don't really know much about abortion at that point because it's illegal and I imagine happens very, very rarely over here but at that point (Ivysaur seems to be talking about close to 40 weeks?) it's probably in the best interests of both just to induce labour and not abort. You'd have to question if the mother is capable of making that decision if she's waited that long.

[Ali]

But I feel Sweeney spoke of the mental and emotional trauma of having a child. So that would factor in, right? 

What do you mean by having? Actually giving birth? I presume (and again, I don't know enough about surgical abortion or the later stages of pregnancy for that matter) that even if you could stop the heartbeat through regular abortion methods, you'd be at a point where the mother would have to give birth to a stillborn child. If that's the case and she's giving birth regardless, there's the viable alternative of adoption because the risk of physical/emotional trauma is likely no greater.

[Waser Lave]

What do you mean by having? Actually giving birth? I presume (and again, I don't know enough about surgical abortion) that even if you could stop the heartbeat through regular abortion methods, you'd be at a point where the mother would have to give birth to a stillborn child. If that's the case and she's giving birth regardless, there's the viable alternative of adoption.

 

Well yeah, you'd have to be talking of either birthing a stillborn child or a caesarean because there's no real alternatives at that point... Either way it's going to be extremely traumatic both physically and emotionally whether it's aborted or induced so it fits with what Sweeney said.

[Kaddict]

What do you mean by having? Actually giving birth? I presume (and again, I don't know enough about surgical abortion or the later stages of pregnancy for that matter) that even if you could stop the heartbeat through regular abortion methods, you'd be at a point where the mother would have to give birth to a stillborn child. If that's the case and she's giving birth regardless, there's the viable alternative of adoption because the risk of physical/emotional trauma is likely no greater.

Raising a child is demanding. And I think he was taking that into consideration. Otherwise, why in the world would an abortion after 36 weeks help the mother in any way?

[Waser Lave]

Raising a child is demanding. And I think he was taking that into consideration. Otherwise, why in the world would an abortion after 36 weeks help the mother in any way?

 

She wouldn't have to raise it. And if the child is viable and at 36 weeks+ it would give a no to the question of "does pursuing an alternative to abortion represent a greater risk to the mother's health, physically or mentally?" so wouldn't count as ethical as he said.

[Ali]

Raising a child is demanding. And I think he was taking that into consideration. Otherwise, why in the world would an abortion after 36 weeks help the mother in any way?

He definitely was not taking that into consideration. He never said it would, he just said he'd already made his position clear. Which is that if the physical or mental risk of an alternative is greater and the mother isn't prepared to take that risk, then abortion is ethical. Once you get to a late stage, I doubt there are many circumstances where carrying through to the birth and having the child adopted is going to cause greater risk.

[Dan]

We're all speculating on we think was meant, but I don't think it's too much to ask someone to elaborate on opinions considering we're in the debate section and all.

[Waser Lave]

We're all speculating on we think was meant, but I don't think it's too much to ask someone to elaborate on opinions considering we're in the debate section and all.

 

What he said was quite clear though.

[WhiteMage]

How do you define "harm"?

Life-threatening condition.

[Ali]

Life-threatening condition.

So you're disregarding mental health? Or permanent physical damage?

[Kaddict]

He definitely was not taking that into consideration. He never said it would, he just said he'd already made his position clear. Which is that if the physical or mental risk of an alternative is greater and the mother isn't prepared to take that risk, then abortion is ethical. Once you get to a late stage, I doubt there are many circumstances where carrying through to the birth and having the child adopted is going to cause greater risk.

My wife was adopted and although it was a closed adoption, from the little we know of her  mother, it caused her emotional grief and pain to put her up for adoption (wasn't the first kid she put up for adoption). That is a tough decision as well, so whether you put your kid up for adoption or raise it, I don't think anyone can be perfectly unattached, which is why I thought he was taking it into consideration

Edited by Kaddict, 18 July 2014 - 12:51 PM.

[Ali]

My wife was adopted and although it was a closed adoption, from the little we know of her  mother, it caused her emotional grief and pain to put her up for adoption (wasn't the first kid she put up for adoption). That is a tough decision as well, so whether you put your kid up for adoption or raise it, I don't think anyone can be perfectly attached, which is why I thought he was taking it into consideration

Well that's not considering the demands of raising the child which is what you said above....that's considering the emotional consequences of adoption. Which would be weighed up against the trauma of late stage abortion and I expect adoption would win out although I don't know if there have ever been enough studies on this sort of thing for anyone to even categorically make that call. Really we don't know enough about the emotional consequences of abortion at a late stage because it's illegal. *shrugs*

[talbs]

They go hand in hand in a lot of cases. If a woman isn't willing or capable to carry or raise a child then it's not going to be in the best interests of either the mother or the child to have to carry it to full term.

 

Could be true but when I am thinking "safety" I think that having the baby could potentially kill the mother, or the mother and child, etc. more so than I am irresponsible therefore this child will inherently be exposed to unsafe conditions as a result of my negligence both before and after conception.

[Waser Lave]

Could be true but when I am thinking "safety" I think that having the baby could potentially kill the mother, or the mother and child, etc. more so than I am irresponsible therefore this child will inherently be exposed to unsafe conditions as a result of my negligence both before and after conception.

 

That would be a yes to the first question Sweeney raised then so it was considered.

[Sweeney]

@Sweeney, the potential for risk or a genuine perceived risk? Obviously any point of pregnancy and birth is a risk, we just have no idea what will happen. Women go into labour in perfectly healthy circumstances and don't make it. People with no history of mental illness develop awful occurrences of post-natal depression. Do you take it from our current abortion standpoint that there's some pre-existing condition rather than the mother not being able to face the potential for risk?

This is an interesting question. I'd have to go with immediate risk, based on present factors. I'd imagine the potential for post-partum depression in women considering a late-term abortion would be higher than average - just a guess, though - so I'd factor that in. You'd have to look at the inherent risk of surgical intervention vs the inherent risk of natural birth, too. I think that'd qualify as an immediate risk too. Either way, the baby has to come out.

[NapisaurusRex]

Otherwise, why in the world would an abortion after 36 weeks help the mother in any way?

(I'm in the US, for clarification)

A few years ago, a 3rd trimester 'abortion' was illegal in Oklahoma, but legal in Kansas. My aunt's friend waffled about the safety of ultrasounds and delayed having hers until the beginning of the third trimester. When she had the ultrasound, she discovered her child would be born without a large chunk of his head and brain and would die within minutes of the umbilical cord being cut. She chose to have the third trimester induction in Kansas so she could have a photographer and therapist in place, when the same procedure in Oklahoma was considered abortion and illegal.

[Kat]

(I'm in the US, for clarification)

A few years ago, a 3rd trimester 'abortion' was illegal in Oklahoma, but legal in Kansas. My aunt's friend waffled about the safety of ultrasounds and delayed having hers until the beginning of the third trimester. When she had the ultrasound, she discovered her child would be born without a large chunk of his head and brain and would die within minutes of the umbilical cord being cut. She chose to have the third trimester induction in Kansas so she could have a photographer and therapist in place, when the same procedure in Oklahoma was considered abortion and illegal.

 

There are people who think ultrasounds are unsafe??

 

Forgive me, as an imaging tech I find this completely baffling.

I'm sad now, I wish there was more education for patients so they could understand better. Ultrasound is by far one of the safest, if not the safest of all the imaging modalities.

[NapisaurusRex]

There are people who think ultrasounds are unsafe??
 
Forgive me, as an imaging tech I find this completely baffling.
I'm sad now, I wish there was more education for patients so they could understand better. Ultrasound is by far one of the safest, if not the safest of all the imaging modalities.

Yep! Crazy right? My sister-in-law is a huge anti-ultrasound advocate, I'll see if I can find you some of the links she pulls out of no where.

[Kat]

Yep! Crazy right? My sister-in-law is a huge anti-ultrasound advocate, I'll see if I can find you some of the links she pulls out of no where.

 

Omg that makes me so sad/mad at the same time. That's why ultrasounds are done on pregnant women and infants because they literally aren't harmful at all

[WhiteMage]

So you're disregarding mental health? Or permanent physical damage?

Not that I am disregarding mental health but if we're talking about mental health, I don't think a retarded person can decide if she wants an abortion or not (I'm a nurse btw)

I'm also not disregarding permanent physical damage -- this is one of the consequences of life threatening conditions (it's actually broad). However, in my opinion, it's better to save the mother who will have permanent physical damage rather than lose both the mother and baby because of pro life choice.

I mean to say that I am all in for abortion if the situation would just bring harm (death, etc.) to both the mother and baby (like if the mother has an ectopic pregnancy, etc.). 

Edited by WhiteMage, 18 July 2014 - 01:59 PM.