Abortion

[DallasApple]

What if the decision doesn't take into consideration what is best for the newborn? Would you just shrug at that?

That's my guess because in this entire debate I don't think that has been mentioned until now.Its only been about her individual right to her bodily security.

 

[Koldo]

Then you should ask the fetus and see what they have to say in the matter.
Once we have their informed opinion, it can also be taken into account....
If they remain silent then the woman's ownership of her own body takes precedent over some random person on the internets personal struggles with ethics.

In other words, people have to be able to speak before we have to take into consideration what is the best for them.

:clap :clap :clap

 

[DallasApple]

Then you should ask the fetus and see what they have to say in the matter.
Once we have their informed opinion, it can also be taken into account....

No what we should do is use our common sense..And assume most fetuses wouldn't "choose" to be born if they had a say with severe disabilities that caused them pain and suffering including life long if it was avoidable.But then again that involves some amount of empathizing.

 

[McBell]

In other words, people have to be able to speak before we have to take into consideration what is the best for them.

:clap :clap :clap

Nice strawman.

Care to actually address my post in context of the post it was in reply to or are you content with your credibility taking yet another hit?

 

[DallasApple]

In other words, people have to be able to speak before we have to take into consideration what is the best for them.

Not "people" viable fetuses that we created then purposely delivered early.Hmm...wonder what happens though when the fetus once born is now a person the minute its born? Should we "ask it" if it wants us to help it breath so it wont die?Should be ask it if it wants to be fed so it wont die? I guess we will wait until it gives us an opinion before they are taken into account.It would be silly to make assumptions.

 

[Koldo]

Nice strawman.

Care to actually address my post in context of the post it was in reply to or are you content with your credibility taking yet another hit?

I replied it as i saw fit.

Please do elaborate how it is a strawman. Take into consideration the context.

 

[Willamena]

Nice strawman.

Care to actually address my post in context of the post it was in reply to or are you content with your credibility taking yet another hit?

The context of the post it was a reply to was about newborns.

 

[DallasApple]

But what you're saying is that she should not have the RIGHT to seek a doctor out. And you are also saying that a doctor should not have the RIGHT to perform such a procedure.

I never once said that.(she had no right to seek a doctor out) I think you are a little "jumpy"...And the doctor does have the right to perform "such a procedure " just not FOR ANY reason..HE as a doctor has an obligation to consider the viable fetus even if YOU don't think you do.The doctor has to consider both.JUST like a doctor might refuse to prescribe you certain drugs it you are pregnant.Even if it means you suffer.Its UNETHICAL.My DIL as a matter of fact had just started a 2 year shot treatment regimine for her allergies.When she got pregnant they "took her off of it"..it posed an extreme risk to the fetus including severe birth defects and death in utero.It would have been unethical if she had said "I don't care I want my allergy shots because I suffer bad from my allergies" for them to have agreed to keep prescribing it because its "her body".

This isn't rocket science.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

What if the decision doesn't take into consideration what is best for the newborn? Would you just shrug at that?

I don't shrug at it. But I consider the woman's well being as the patient first and then the newborn. In all cases, she is the primary patient. In prenatal care, obstetricians consider the blood pressure, blood sugar level, and the health of the reproductive organs first before they check on the developing fetus. They know that the woman's health determines the health of the developing fetus so they're measures go to her first.

They're not "shrugging" at the fetus. But they understand that the woman who is carrying the fetus in her uterus takes precendence. They check the gestational age of the fetus as well as use imaging to determine how the fetus is growing and if there are any detectable anomalies, but there's all kinds of tests run on the pregnant woman to determine how SHE is doing first.

Funny how that happens. And this kind of patient care and attention is present throughout the entire pregnancy. Once the child is born, THEN a pediatrician comes in to oversee the health of the baby (or in this case, an entire NICU staff).

Actually, if there is any shrugging involved, I find your position to be shrugging at the woman and her intentions to be decisive in her own reproductive health care. Before viability? Abort away. After viability? She better be an incubator or she's a bad bad person.

At least that is how I see your position. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[McBell]

This isn't rocket science.

I agree.
Appears to mainly be emotional rants, assumptions, and poorly thought out claims.

 

[McBell]

The context of the post it was a reply to was about newborns.

Please present a link where doctors induce labor in woman for newborns.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I never once said that.(she had no right to seek a doctor out) I think you are a little "jumpy"

I beg your pardon. You did in fact say that she should have no right. You would keep it illegal. I quote:

Its not because of my experience with preterm newborn.But yes I would keep it as it is ..illegal.

...And the doctor does have the right to perform "such a procedure " just not FOR ANY reason..HE as a doctor has an obligation to consider the viable fetus even if YOU don't think you do.The doctor has to consider both.JUST like a doctor might refuse to prescribe you certain drugs it you are pregnant.Even if it means you suffer.Its UNETHICAL.My DIL as a matter of fact had just started a 2 year shot treatment regimine for her allergies.When she got pregnant they "took her off of it"..it posed an extreme risk to the fetus including severe birth defects and death in utero.It would have been unethical if she had said "I don't care I want my allergy shots because I suffer bad from my allergies" for them to have agreed to keep prescribing it because its "her body".

This isn't rocket science.

Exactly. Doctors do in fact induce labor early with all this in mind. The cut off gestational age for elective surgical abortion is currently under debate from state to state because of this exact same argument you're presenting. But just like pro-life supporters who only advocate abortion when a woman's life is in danger or she's a victim of rape, you present that a woman should not be offered a choice to not be pregnant post-viability and deem her to be selfish (which, again, is the exact same word you and I both hear when it comes to elective abortion).

We had a thread not too long ago that debated whether or not 20-week cut off was reasonable for elective abortion. It's unconstitutional according to Roe vs Wade, as it should be. But states find a way to enact the legislation anyway at the cost of women and teen girls in those states. All because if a female elects to have an abortion at 21 weeks, even though the fetus has a chance of survival, the chances are little to none, but she's still branded as a selfish, evil woman.

Now, I'm hearing the exact same thing from you, Dallas, concerning a woman who decisively determines the state of her reproductive health, her uterus, her hormones, her blood pressure, her entire body for the sake of your appeals to emotion. I just showed you earlier in the thread that you would make such procedures illegal, after I asked you to clarify your position a couple of times, and you clearly said so.

Care to explain the discrepancy?

 

[DallasApple]

I don't shrug at it. But I consider the woman's well being as the patient first and then the newborn. In all cases, she is the primary patient. In prenatal care, obstetricians consider the blood pressure, blood sugar level, and the health of the reproductive organs first before they check on the developing fetus. They know that the woman's health determines the health of the developing fetus so they're measures go to her first.

Who ever said they didn't?

They're not "shrugging" at the fetus. But they understand that the woman who is carrying the fetus in her uterus takes precendence. They check the gestational age of the fetus as well as use imaging to determine how the fetus is growing and if there are any detectable anomalies, but there's all kinds of tests run on the pregnant woman to determine how SHE is doing first.

And?

If both are doing well her saying "I just don't want to be pregnant" I do not believe a doctor with decent ethics would agree to being involved .

 

[DallasApple]

Exactly. Doctors do in fact induce labor early with all this in mind.

Have you even read my posts? I said NOT because she just decides she doesn't wan't to be pregnant anymore..YOU challenged me on that..

 

[DallasApple]

Now, I'm hearing the exact same thing from you, Dallas, concerning a woman who decisively determines the state of her reproductive health, her uterus, her hormones, her blood pressure, her entire body for the sake of your appeals to emotion. I just showed you earlier in the thread that you would make such procedures illegal, after I asked you to clarify your position a couple of times, and you clearly said so.

Now you are FLAT out lying about what I have said.Flat out lying.

 

[Koldo]

I don't shrug at it. But I consider the woman's well being as the patient first and then the newborn. In all cases, she is the primary patient. In prenatal care, obstetricians consider the blood pressure, blood sugar level, and the health of the reproductive organs first before they check on the developing fetus. They know that the woman's health determines the health of the developing fetus so they're measures go to her first.

They're not "shrugging" at the fetus. But they understand that the woman who is carrying the fetus in her uterus takes precendence. They check the gestational age of the fetus as well as use imaging to determine how the fetus is growing and if there are any detectable anomalies, but there's all kinds of tests run on the pregnant woman to determine how SHE is doing first.

Funny how that happens. And this kind of patient care and attention is present throughout the entire pregnancy. Once the child is born, THEN a pediatrician comes in to oversee the health of the baby (or in this case, an entire NICU staff).

I have already said that i have no qualms if the induced labor is done because of a medical condition that puts the woman at a considerable health risk.

So, please, do not speak about this situation as if it were about the physical health of the newborn being put over the mother's.

What we are talking about is the health of the newborn versus the mother's right to her body.

If you willing accept a medical decision where the health of the newborn is not going to be taken into consideration, you are effectively shrugging off at it.

Actually, if there is any shrugging involved, I find your position to be shrugging at the woman and her intentions to be decisive in her own reproductive health care. Before viability? Abort away. After viability? She better be an incubator or she's a bad bad person.

At least that is how I see your position. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am doing that when they effectively cause serious consequences to their own babies.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Who ever said they didn't?

And?

My understanding is that it doesn't matter what her desire for her reproductive health and bodily security is, the developing fetus takes precedence. I saw a lot of comparisons to her desire to take control of her reproductive health as comparable to putting a baby in the middle of a road, which is a ridiculous comparison.

If both are doing well her saying "I just don't want to be pregnant" I do not believe a doctor with decent ethics would agree to being involved .

You don't have to think a doctor has decent ethics. Have whatever opinion you want, D. You can choose whatever doctor you want to match with your personal ethics. It's not your place to legislate, however. It's a decision that rests between the woman, her doctor, and whatever team of medical staff is involved as well.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Have you even read my posts? I said NOT because she just decides she doesn't wan't to be pregnant anymore..YOU challenged me on that..

Now you are FLAT out lying about what I have said.Flat out lying.

Oh brother....

Explain the quote, then. Why did you say you want it to be illegal?

 

[DallasApple]

Here is what you said and what I said that started the debate..NO WHERE did I say under no circumstances inducement of early labor should not be a woman's right..As the argument insued you NEVER mentioned consideration of the fetus that would be born.At no point uttil 50 posts later..

Quote YOU:
It all depends on whether or not a woman wishes to be a mother. If she wishes to terminate the pregnancy but wants to gain custody of the newborn, then of course she ought to carry the burden of the cost out of pocket if she can or through insurance. If, by any chance, that induced labor is made part of legislation, and the woman does not wish to be a mother of the newborn (if the newborn survives), I don't believe the women should carry the financial burden of the procedure and the NICU staffing and maintenance costs.

Who should be responsible for the cost burden is a good question, and one I don't have an answer for yet. My reasoning for the woman not carrying the burden herself is I'm under the assumption that induced labor for a fetus post-viability is a part of legislation, and is imposed for the purpose of allowing a fetus a realistic chance of survival outside of the uterus while respecting a woman's right to decide whether or not she is pregnant.


QUOTE ME:I will however totally disagree with this.Respectfully.After viability with the exception of needing to induce labor because of risks to mothers life you have made your "choice" after 24 weeks have passed.But most NON quack doctors will medically advise induced labor if the mother is at high risk continuing the pregnancy..but I don't call that "abortion".Some women develop dangerous condition due to the pregnancy and I am all for what I call 'early delivery"/...If that's what you mean ?Of course..But just "deciding" you don't want to be pregnant anymore after 24 weeks?Inducing labor and having at that point a human being that is struggling to survive and at risk of not just death but surviving with severe handicaps AND someone else picks up the tab for the extensive care for 3 months?No...at some point we as women have to bare a "burden" that is beyond our rights to our own body.We have committed to (at some point) continuing in a pregnancy and cant just "change our minds" and everyone else pays for it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I have already said that i have no qualms if the induced labor is done because of a medical condition that puts the woman at a considerable health risk.

So, please, do not speak about this situation as if it were about the physical health of the newborn being put over the mother's.

What we are talking about is the health of the newborn versus the mother's right to her body.

If you willing accept a medical decision where the health of the newborn is not going to be taken into consideration, you are effectively shrugging off at it.

I'm saying this should be a decision that rests between a woman and her doctor to determine best how/when to induce labor to end a pregnancy.

I am doing that when they effectively cause serious consequences to their own babies.

Just like pro-lifers who say a woman is killing her baby when she aborts.

Dang, this just doesn't stop.