Under which circumstances should abortion be legal, if at all? (voted, doctor)

[Rhenzanite]

This may be a bit off topic, but I'm curious about something.

I have a genetic disorder that has a 50/50 chance of being given to my child. I have decided not to have children because of this, and me and my fiance have decided to adopt if we want children.

My doctor will not okay a tubal ligation until around 10 years from now, or until I have a child which is out of the question. My insurance covers only birth control pills, no IUDs or other semi-permanent BC. If I were to have an abortion because I got pregnant would I be covered under the 'circumstances' above? It's a disorder that's certainly liveable, albeit not very comfortably.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

I usually defend the liberal side of things, but some of the pro-choice posters here have a noticeably condescending attitude toward those who are pro-life. I know a lot of people are passionate about this topic, but I think your points would be better made if you could refrain from making comments about other posters' character traits, personalities, etc. Try to argue your points rather than make personal attacks.

For me, I'm glad I don't have to make a decision about when life begins. It's too complicated.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by saganista

Not at all. It is simply stating an obvious fact that right-to-lifers do not wish to confront and rarely, if ever, address. In compelling a young woman to bear one child, they plainly limit and preclude her later choice to bear others. Right-to-lifers play exactly the same game that they criticize pro-choicers over -- they play God and kill babies. Would you ask me today to sacrifice two beautiful nieces for one unrealized I don't know what? Are these girls not innocent? Are they not precious? Are they not children of God equally with any others? If you would not make such a demand today, what possible right could you have had for making it a couple of decades earlier? To be blunt about it, who do you people think you are?

You can't kill a baby that has never been conceived. It is very regretful that your sister's first baby was aborted but I'm glad that she was able to have two beautiful daughters and that the abortion procedure did not render her sterile where she could not have given birth to her two daughters.

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

I usually defend the liberal side of things, but some of the pro-choice posters here have a noticeably condescending attitude toward those who are pro-life. I know a lot of people are passionate about this topic, but I think your points would be better made if you could refrain from making comments about other posters' character traits, personalities, etc. Try to argue your points rather than make personal attacks.

For me, I'm glad I don't have to make a decision about when life begins. It's too complicated.

Thank you AUM!

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by JetJockey

This may be a bit off topic, but I'm curious about something.

I have a genetic disorder that has a 50/50 chance of being given to my child. I have decided not to have children because of this, and me and my fiance have decided to adopt if we want children.

My doctor will not okay a tubal ligation until around 10 years from now, or until I have a child which is out of the question. My insurance covers only birth control pills, no IUDs or other semi-permanent BC. If I were to have an abortion because I got pregnant would I be covered under the 'circumstances' above? It's a disorder that's certainly liveable, albeit not very comfortably.

That is a very difficult situation that you and your fiance faces. When I get married, I know that I will face a similar dilemna that you are currently facing. I was born with a genetic condition that caused a lot of difficulties in my life. Instead of being aborted, I was placed for adoption through the state. I was fortunate that my parents adopted me and for the loving support I received from my adoptive mother.

I also knew of a lady who had two children and the second child was born with downs syndrome. When she got pregnant the third time, she was advised to get an abortion for her health's sake and because of genetic factors. Against their advice, she gave birth to a beautiful daughter and both she (now a teenager) and her mother are doing well to this day.

[camping!]

Originally Posted by JetJockey

This may be a bit off topic, but I'm curious about something.

I have a genetic disorder that has a 50/50 chance of being given to my child. I have decided not to have children because of this, and me and my fiance have decided to adopt if we want children.

My doctor will not okay a tubal ligation until around 10 years from now, or until I have a child which is out of the question. My insurance covers only birth control pills, no IUDs or other semi-permanent BC. If I were to have an abortion because I got pregnant would I be covered under the 'circumstances' above? It's a disorder that's certainly liveable, albeit not very comfortably.

How old are you? I ask only because if you are above 21 a doctor should not be able to refuse your request for a tubal. Or rather, he shouldn't. But drs can be compassionate and they can be complete azzhats. Keep looking, I'm sure you will find a dr sypathetic to you and your decision.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

Waiting periods, requirements to view an ultrasound, parental consent being required for minors, and required counseling have all been upheld, in addition to bans on late-term abortions.

Waiting periods have been far more frequently overturned than upheld when challenged. The case of a Tennessee state law decision was interesting, for instance, in that it referenced a survey of women who had been affected by the law. Repondents were not able to identify ANY benefit that accrued from the law at all, but were able to identify multiple significant costs. The law was thrown out as having introduced a burden simply for the sake of introducing a burden.

To my knowledge, no state requires that a woman view the results of an ultrasound. Texas requires that an ultrasound exam be performed at least two hours prior to a procedure and that the results be displayed in a manner in which the patient might see them. About a dozen states have ultrasound provisions, some of which are in laws that would have effect only if Roe were overturned.

Virtually all parental consent laws have been overturned when not including a judicial bypass provision. Right-to-lifers seem either not to understand or not to care that in families where it is feasible, conversation over such an issue already occurs.

Required counseling generally refers to information about gestational age, fetal development, and the nature and risks of the abortion procedure. Some states require that indigent women be informed of state support services available to indigent pregnant women. The primary effect of state counseling laws is to delay and hence increase the costs of abortion decisions and to cause women to seek to obtain them in nearby states instead.

No bans on late-term abortion have stood unless including a life/health of the mother exception. The state may regulate post-viability abortion, but not ban it outright.

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

Ideally, I wish abortion could be a state issue so we could end the fighting over it on a national level.

States cannot violate Constitutional rights. That's why all restrictive state laws fell in 1973 to begin with.

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

Women in the red states would be able to travel to the blue states to have abortions anyway.

So Ohio could restrict free speech on the grounds that those wishing to exercise it could simply travel to Pennsylvania? I don't think that idea will actually hold up in court.

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

As far as extremists, the pro-choicers who support third trimester and late second-trimester abortions being legal other than in the case of medical necessity are extremists to me.

The question is over which is better entitled and qualified to decide whether late-term abortions will occur -- the women and doctors actually involved in those individual situations and circumstances in which the question arises at all, or some bunch of remote and politically-motivated legislators? Doesn't really seem like much of a contest to me.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

I should rephrase - "murder" may not be the best term for causing the death of an 8-week old fetus (though I think it's very, very wrong). I do, however, feel that causing the death of a 24-week old fetus is murder without a doubt.

Abortions at 24 weeks are already heavily regulated. Fewer than 1 abortion in 100 takes place so late in term, and those only when specified conditions are met. A certainty of the demise of the fetus itself is one such reason. How do you construe murder in a case where death occurs regardless of what course of action is followed?

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

I fully understand that a 2 year old and an 8-week old fetus are quite different.

Not according to your earlier reference which sought to equate the two, but I'll take your word for having since cleared up that confusion.

[MsMcQ LV]

Originally Posted by JetJockey

This may be a bit off topic, but I'm curious about something.

I have a genetic disorder that has a 50/50 chance of being given to my child. I have decided not to have children because of this, and me and my fiance have decided to adopt if we want children.

My doctor will not okay a tubal ligation until around 10 years from now, or until I have a child which is out of the question. My insurance covers only birth control pills, no IUDs or other semi-permanent BC. If I were to have an abortion because I got pregnant would I be covered under the 'circumstances' above? It's a disorder that's certainly liveable, albeit not very comfortably.

Back when I was trying to prevent or put off pregnancy, the medical insurance we had would cover only one form of BC - tubal ligation immediately after giving birth or in concert with another surgery, such as an appendectomy. No coverage for BC pills, IUDs or anything else. And doctors who refuse to follow a patient's wishes make my blood boil. I mean, yeah, if the woman doesn't have a well articulated reason for not wanting children in their 20s, tubal ligation is an extreme 'fix'. But, IMO, no doctor should have the right to simply override and ignore the patient's wishes, especially when there's a good reason for those wishes. I'd say find another doctor.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by msconnie73

You can't kill a baby that has never been conceived.

Clearly, my nieces were conceived. Just as clearly, they would not have been had an earlier abortion been prohibited. Call it what you like...the difference between being alive and not being alive remains the same.

We all pick and choose from among the perhaps 20 potential children we might have. We say okay to this one when the time is right, and slam the door on the other one when it isn't. Abortion is merely one among many means that all of us use to enforce those decisions. The alternative is an enslavement of women to a biological imperative. Those chains have been broken in developed societies, but one can travel to other societies and still see it at work. It isn't pretty.

Originally Posted by msconnie73

It is very regretful that your sister's first baby was aborted but I'm glad that she was able to have two beautiful daughters and that the abortion procedure did not render her sterile where she could not have given birth to her two daughters.

The risk of suffering sterility as the result of an abortion is nearly nil. Why do you mention it? From the standpoint of those who know the family, the outcome of all three pregnancies was entirely appropriate. There is regret that the first situation ever did come to arise. But none since that point.