Can anything be More Evil---- (administration, job, spend, democrat)

[gentlearts]

Originally Posted by lkb0714

Most of the women who have a third trimester abortion do so because their fetus is not viable. Many of these pregnancies were planned. The decision to end them, traumatic.

But that decision is between the woman and her medical provider. It’s none of your business at all.

This is the crux of it to me. If a woman thinks long and hard, no government entity should interfere.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by katharsis

Sorry, still not clear. What is the difference between delivering early (and preserving the life of the mother and the baby) due to the conditions you listed, and having an abortion? Are you saying that some women would rather outright murder their baby instead of just delivering it "naturally" if doing so would preserve the life of both? (If that is so, I agree that it is beyond horrible unless I am missing something.)

Sorry to be dense, but I just don't "get" it.

I think few would do it, but some. You could imagine a woman who's very angry with her partner, choosing to kill the baby at the end rather than have it.

I can see a woman who never wanted to be pregnant, a meth head, but didn't bother to get an abortion when it was legal in early pregnancy, and doesn't want to "give her baby away", and then develops one of the many serious conditions that happen at the end of a pregnancy, and opting to kill it when she has the chance.

I can see it happening, although it would be rare.

[Grlzrl]

Originally Posted by charolastra00

I had cancer in my 20s which weakened my lungs, kidneys, and heart. I have been told to expect to need bedrest at the end of my pregnancy (unpaid, at the risk of overrunning FMLA and losing my job) and that pregnancy could be risky and cause further strain/damage on already strained organs. I am working to be able to financially afford the ramifications of this, but until I do, I would have an abortion if my birth control fails.

My SIL had pre-eclampsia. She had access to healthcare, time off of work, and a husband who was also able to take time off and support her. She and my niece still almost died in the OR after 4 days of labor in the hospital under close monitoring. The obgyn was very up-front about how close they were to losing her and how risky an additional pregnancy would be. Whoops - she's pregnant again and her faith won't allow her to abort. Risky.

My old boss was on bedrest for 3 months during her last pregnancy. Her husband had to take time off of work to take her to be monitored for her very high blood pressure. She also had hyperemesis through both of her pregnancies and spent much of the first few months with her head over a toilet. Luckily, her employer was understanding and worked with her so she did not lose her job. How many would have kept paying an employee who spent nearly 9 months at diminished or no capacity? She also had a very risky delivery.

You say you were monitored the entire pregnancy. Did you get time off of work to get medical care? How frequently did you go? Recognize that low income women DO NOT HAVE THAT OPTION. That can increase risk of death.

And have you never heard of people dying in childbirth? Sometimes, there's no warning.

Late term abortions are typically in extreme situations. The fetus has some kind of dramatic genetic or physical abnormality, the mother has cancer and needs to get into chemo, or extreme complications develop at 20 or 22 weeks after a healthy pregnancy. Very few doctors perform them and not without careful consideration.

But if you found out you were pregnant, wouldn't you abort much earlier than the day before you delivered?

I have no issue with it when there is genetic problem. Those can be determined very early on now as well. I had amnios around 20 weeks. No need to wait until 39 weeks to abort a CHILD.

[Grlzrl]

Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax

You literally just described an example from your own life, mitigated mainly by the fact that you had the resources to get proper medical care and had an expensive operation to mitigate the risk. Not everyone has that option.

Well, doesn't planned parenthood provide medical 'care' for low income women?

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Yet for some reason, you saw fit to type this: "I can't think of a single case where it was necessary to kill a healthy near term baby to save the mother's life or health ..." If the mother's health is not in danger, the law does not apply. In other words, in your vast experience, you have never encountered a single case that would have caused a healthy pregnancy to be terminated under this law.

I can't think of a single case.

I can read this law, and interpret it to mean the mother's health is in danger, the pregnancy must end, and it legally being interpreted as abortion is legal at that time. Because it doesn't say it's not.

This is a bit like the anchor baby law. The amendment states that a baby born on US soil is a citizen. The authors of the amendment before the amendment was passed said they didn't intend it to cover babies born of people in the country illegally, but they didn't say that. If there's something that can be misinterpreted in a law, that you don't intend to be interpreted that way, you need to say that.

And my guess is, honestly, this will be amended very very quickly as women are on the way to NY right now intending to kill their babies.

[katharsis]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

I think few would do it, but some. You could imagine a woman who's very angry with her partner, choosing to kill the baby at the end rather than have it.

I can see a woman who never wanted to be pregnant, a meth head, but didn't bother to get an abortion when it was legal in early pregnancy, and doesn't want to "give her baby away", and then develops one of the many serious conditions that happen at the end of a pregnancy, and opting to kill it when she has the chance.

I can see it happening, although it would be rare.

Thank you for replying.

I am just shaking my head in disgust at even the thought of that. Imo, such women, if they exist, don't deserve to live.

[Ringo1]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

This allows for abortion, Dane, at the end of a pregnancy if the mother's health is in danger.

My facebook feed is full of labor and delivery nurses rending their hair and clothing over this.

Because they can read this law, and understand it.

There is no clause that says unless delivery of the baby is possible.

Why would a woman carry a baby to term or near term and then suddenly decide to abort it at that late date?

I can't fathom this.

[swilliamsny]

As for pregnancies terminated in the third trimester due to "viability", wouldn't that fall under the umbrella of threat to life? I just have a problem with the mental health thing. To be clear, I don't think this would be an issue with the vast majority of already tiny numbers of pregnancies likely to be terminated this late, but it still rankles.

[Grlzrl]

Originally Posted by Oakformonday

You can't be serious??? Maybe you can go to webmd and type in that question.

Again, no answer.

[lkb0714]

Originally Posted by swilliamsny

I'm pro-choice, with a 'but'. In the third trimester, because the fetus has a decent chance at living outside the woman's body, abortion should only be allowed in life-threatening situations. Not mental health. The woman has had six months to figure out whether she wants to maintain the pregnancy. If she needs to terminate for mental health reasons, it should have been done prior to that last trimester. After six months, the only major difference between 'fetus' and 'baby' is some amniotic fluid and a cervix.

Then don't have an abortion in the third trimester.

Do the rest of us get to decide what medical treatments you get to have regardless of what you and your doctor decide? If not you are a hypocrite.

And the different between a fetus and a baby is personhood. A woman's body is her own to decide what medical procedures it undergoes or not, that cervix and amniotic flood is HER BODY. We get it, women don't deserve body autonomy in your opinion.