Abortion

[DallasApple]

Here is what I said..


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.

 

[DallasApple]

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

Dang, this just doesn't stop.][/QUOTE]

Two completely different things..Completely..that is why one is called abortion and one is called "induced labor".

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, so that's why I asked if you would make it illegal. And you did state in the affirmative. That's why I said you would restrict her right to find a doctor who would induce labor. There is no falsehood here. But if you care to explain your statement that you would keep it illegal, please do so.

No jumpyness. No falsehood. I'm quoting you, and I determined your position that you would restrict a woman from inducing labor if you could. Care to correct that if it's needed? And again, you're all over the map with emotional rants and accusations that i'm lying, and you still haven't addressed the "sociopathic" and "sick" argument from your posts as being legitimate judgements on my position but took offense at my contention that your position was hostile.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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

Dang, this just doesn't stop.

Two completely different things..Completely..that is why one is called abortion and one is called "induced labor".

But they both are decisions made by a woman wishing to take control of her reproductive health.

 

[Koldo]

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 get that. And i am saying it should not be as simple as that.

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

Dang, this just doesn't stop.

There is a difference.
But whatever.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I get that. And i am saying it should not be as simple as that.

It never is. Just like an abortion close to viability is not simple. But it IS constitutional. At least in some states in the U.S.

There is a difference.
But whatever.

Like I said to Dallas, the similarity is based on a woman being decisive about her reproductive health and her bodily security. Lest anyone forgets, pregnancy is a health risk in and of itself.

 

[DallasApple]

No Koldo..there is apparently NO difference in woman having an abortion at 3 weeks pregnant and a woman having labor induced at 25 weeks with a viable fetus because she doesn't want to be pregnant..none at all.Its completley the same.So if you are non plussed or hell AGAINST free for all being able to induce labor (with the aid of doctors and others footing the bill) that will result in a disabled suffering human then you must be anti woman.Just like the "pro lifers"..

 

[Koldo]

It never is. Just like an abortion close to viability is not simple. But it IS constitutional. At least in some states in the U.S.

Does that mean it depends on interpretation?

Like I said to Dallas, the similarity is based on a woman being decisive about her reproductive health and her bodily security. Lest anyone forgets, pregnancy is a health risk in and of itself.

Care to say what is the death rate on U.S.?
Oh, and if you don't mind the trouble, exclude the cases that happened prior to 5 months, and the ones where the women were at a high risk group.

 

[DallasApple]

Like I said to Dallas, the similarity is based on a woman being decisive about her reproductive health and her bodily security. Lest anyone forgets, pregnancy is a health risk in and of itself.
__________________

Yes and "lest anyone not forget" you know that before hand.Just like I do not believe the father should get to "walk off" not being held responsible for their actions neither should a mother.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Does that mean it depends on interpretation?

Some would argue that it does depend on the interpretation. It's why there is an ongoing battle between states rights and the Supreme Court write up on Roe vs. Wade.

Care to say what is the death rate on U.S.?
Oh, and if you don't mind the trouble, exclude the cases that happened prior to 5 months, and the ones where the women was at high risk.

I said health risk. Maternal mortality is in there among the health risks to her organs, to her blood, to her hormones, to her bones,. And if a woman chooses not to be pregnant because she doesn't want to take that risk, she should be able to opt out.

But in case you were wondering, maternal mortality is increased in the U.S. since 1990:

The rise of maternal deaths in the United States is historic and worrisome. In 1987, maternal death ratios hit the all-time low of 6.6 deaths per 100,000 live birth.9 These ratios were essentially maintained for more than a decade. Around 2000, the ratio began to increase and has since nearly doubled, hovering between 12 and 15 deaths per 100,000 live births between 2003 and 2007.10 The overarching statistics only scratch the surface: “near misses” (maternal complications so severe the woman nearly died) have also increased by 27% between 1998 and 2005, now affecting approximately 34,000 women a year;11 and appalling disparities in maternal health outcomes exist between racial and ethnic groups, and among women living in different parts of the United States.

The leading complications causing maternal deaths in the United States overlap with the main global causes; hemorrhage, pregnancy-related hypertensive disorders and infection are among the top causes of death in both the United States and the developing world. Other leading causes of maternal death in the United States are thrombotic pulmonary embolism, cardiomyopathy, cardiovascular conditions, and other medical conditions, whereas in developing countries, other leading causes of death are obstructed labor and unsafe abortions.

Source

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yes and "lest anyone not forget" you know that before hand.Just like I do not believe the father should get to "walk off" not being held responsible for their actions neither should a mother.

LOL You're sounding more and more like a pro-life supporter the further into the thread we go, D.

So, when are you going to address the "make it illegal" comment from you?

 

[Koldo]

I said health risk. Maternal mortality is in there among the health risks to her organs, to her blood, to her hormones, to her bones,.

Correct, but death is pretty much the worst outcome.

And if a woman chooses not to be pregnant because she doesn't want to take that risk, she should be able to opt out.

But in case you were wondering, maternal mortality is increased in the U.S. since 1990:

Source

15 in 100.000

That's a 0,00015% death rate.

 

[DallasApple]

LOL You're sounding more and more like a pro-life supporter the further into the thread we go, D.

So, when are you going to address the "make it illegal" comment from you?

Im pro non suffering at the hands of others selfishness and pro responsibility .If that makes me "pro life" then so be it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Correct, but death is pretty much the worst outcome.

Ah, so any health risk to a preterm is paramount but a health risk to a woman is....what? Your standard, "so what?" argument?

15 in 100.000

That's a 0,00015% death rate.

Ah, so what? Right? Maternal mortality is rising in this country. It's worrisome, and it's been enough for at least couple dozen reports and documentaries explaining how birthing in hospitals has become a big business, and how the practices of hospitals are putting women's lives at risk more than before 1990.

Would you take that risk on your life? Should you be required to? Even if it is to save another persons life?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Im pro non suffering at the hands of others selfishness and pro responsibility .If that makes me "pro life" then so be it.

Well, now we got that out of the way. There's your consistency.

Moralize however you want, D. I'll disagree with you, and you can disagree with me. The jello fights can ensue (they're more fun). But I'll meet you at the polls if you think legislating your morality ought to be a good thing.

En garde! :bounce

 

[DallasApple]

In fact I'm proud to say I'm "pro life"!That feels good...Its better than 'pro so what if you suffer tremendously over a selfish decision its my right to do so".

In that sense? Yes I'm pro life.I'm pro life in that I realize and can take responsibility over how I affect other's lives.Whoa how restrictive!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I find abortion for birth control purposes and the aborting of children with disorders like Downs Syndrome to be highly unethical and I can't support such actions but I don't believe in criminalizing it. I guess it's going to happen anyway, so there might as well be professional places to go to for it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

In fact I'm proud to say I'm "pro life"!That feels good...Its better than 'pro so what if you suffer tremendously over a selfish decision its my right to do so".

In that sense? Yes I'm pro life.I'm pro life in that I realize and can take responsibility over how I affect other's lives.Whoa how restrictive!

You go girl!

And I feel good about being pro-choice and supporting a woman's right to choose and to take charge of her reproductive rights! Yay! I'm awesome too!

 

[DallasApple]

But I'll meet you at the polls if you think legislating your morality ought to be a good thing.

I think i have already won.

 

[Koldo]

Ah, so any health risk to a preterm is paramount but a health risk to a woman is....what? Your standard, "so what?" argument?

No. I just asked for one specific piece of data.
I thought it would be easier that way.
If you want to provide more data, feel free to do so.

Ah, so what? Right? Maternal mortality is rising in this country. It's worrisome, and it's been enough for at least couple dozen reports and documentaries explaining how birthing in hospitals has become a big business, and how the practices of hospitals are putting women's lives at risk more than before 1990.

Would you take that risk on your life? Should you be required to? Even if it is to save another persons life?

I can smell exaggeration on this post a mile way.

Now be so kind as to provide data on what is the death rate as a result of labor induction.