Abortion

[DallasApple]

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!

I have won again.Because I consider a viable fetus in my womb part of my reproductive rights and priveledge and would not for shallow reasons eject it from my body to its detriment.That's part of my pride as a woman.But hey everyone is different.

 

[DallasApple]

I can smell exaggeration on this post a mile way.

Yep...7 billion people in the world.The women are dying like flies..its men having babies with other men that we have so many in the world.

Abortion is 14 times safer than delivering a child.So if that was the real concern you would have had an abortion not delivered a child.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think i have already won.

This is about winning?

Is it illegal to have elective induction before 39 weeks? My understanding is that it isn't.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I have won again.Because I consider a viable fetus in my womb part of my reproductive rights and priveledge and would not for shallow reasons eject it from my body to its detriment.That's part of my pride as a woman.But hey everyone is different.

LOL funny how you decided to write the rules.

I got an idea. I challenge you to a dance off! Or maybe jello wrestling. How about a ping pong match? It's a heck of a lot more fun than challenging somebody to moral superiority based on a political position on abortion or induced labor. :beach:

 

[s2a]

I know what many of you are thinking not another. The fact of the matter is abortion is a determining factor in politics.

So what's your opinion and why?

Indeed, it is... but should it be a political debate at all?

I remain of the opinion that the choice of electing to have the medical option available, or eschewing it, remains available to the mother alone, and is not yours to decide, nor anyone else's, ever.

Period.

As the phrase says...

"Opposed to abortion? Don't have one"

There are no secondary considerations remaining within a "free" society...

...unless you advocate govt. decide that no "family" may be allowed more that one, and only one, child per family permitted as offspring...

... then your application to become a citizen of China is approved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And...?

So your position is internally contradictory. You say that the woman's consent should be required, but you argue against her opting out if she no longer consents.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Correct, but death is pretty much the worst outcome.



15 in 100.000

That's a 0,00015% death rate.

Do you think that you should be the one to decide what risk is "acceptable" to others? Do you think that others should be able to do the same to you?

 

[Koldo]

Do you think that you should be the one to decide what risk is "acceptable" to others? Do you think that others should be able to do the same to you?

Way to miss the point.
I was just making it clear what is this health risk she was talking about.

 

[Koldo]

So your position is internally contradictory. You say that the woman's consent should be required, but you argue against her opting out if she no longer consents.

Have you really read post #203?

 

[DallasApple]

Do you think that you should be the one to decide what risk is "acceptable" to others? Do you think that others should be able to do the same to you?

No ..parents have special rights to children .So in that sense you should have obligations /responsibilities beyond joe bloe thinks about what joe bloe should do with his body.Parents have a unique responsibility to their children.After the point of viablility if you simply decide you don't like being pregnant?And because its "your body"? Fine but you should have to sign a release you are an unfit parent unwiling (proven) to care for the child you deliver and have to give up all rights .You refuse to provide something that basic/vital and short term then you aren't qualified /safe to be around the resulting child of your actions... ..your actions have proven to be not in the best interest of the child ..and that's pretty obvious...you are unfit.

Do you think someone else should get to "decide" that if my kids have the flu (putting me at risk) if I can throw them outside and not interact with them till they are over it to limit my risks?I do.I think someone else should get to decide I'm obviously not parent material.

Because if you are so consumed with your own body even if you are healthy to put your child at extreme risks to "limit yours" you aren't safe to parent a child.

So my final decision? If a woman is selfish enough to want to induce labor at 25 weeks because she doesn't like being pregnant..and IF she can find a doctor to agree to it(which I highly doubt unless she as a LOT of money or he is a sociopath) and If (which I doubt ) a NICO unit will agree to footing the bill..let her do it..BUT on the condition she gives up all rights to any parental authority of that child.As she has proven herself on the most basic level unfit as a mother.

 

[Curious George]

No ..parents have special rights to children .So in that sense you should have obligations /responsibilities beyond joe bloe thinks about what joe bloe should do with his body.Parents have a unique responsibility to their children.After the point of viablility if you simply decide you don't like being pregnant?And because its "your body"? Fine but you should have to sign a release you are an unfit parent unwiling (proven) to care for the child you deliver and have to give up all rights .You refuse to provide something that basic/vital and short term then you aren't qualified /safe to be around the resulting child of your actions... ..your actions have proven to be not in the best interest of the child ..and that's pretty obvious...you are unfit.

Do you think someone else should get to "decide" that if my kids have the flu (putting me at risk) if I can throw them outside and not interact with them till they are over it to limit my risks?I do.I think someone else should get to decide I'm obviously not parent material.

Because if you are so consumed with your own body even if you are healthy to put your child at extreme risks to "limit yours" you aren't safe to parent a child.

So my final decision? If a woman is selfish enough to want to induce labor at 25 weeks because she doesn't like being pregnant..and IF she can find a doctor to agree to it(which I highly doubt unless she as a LOT of money or he is a sociopath) and If (which I doubt ) a NICO unit will agree to footing the bill..let her do it..BUT on the condition she gives up all rights to any parental authority of that child.As she has proven herself on the most basic level unfit as a mother.

I agree. If a person takes an affirmative step not to be pregnant they should not have rights to the baby or, in the case of an abortion, the aborted genetic material.

 

[DallasApple]

I agree. If a person takes an affirmative step not to be pregnant they should not have rights to the baby or, in the case of an abortion, the aborted genetic material.

O.K so your with me here..The woman wont be "forced" to be pregnant...but fully informed the risk she is imposing on her viable fetus by choosing to "not want to be pregnant" she loses all parental rights if she chooses it anyway?Im for that..

Exception being women who are at elevated risk that a doctor advises early delivery as a matter more or less "emergency".Or early delivery in the "full term range"..which I believe is at 37 weeks..

Like in (a personal example) my doctor told me with my last..at about 37 weeks...that if I did not go into labor in the next week (by 38 weeks) he wanted to induce..he said because he was "concerned" that I might not be able to deliver an 8lb + baby his (esitmate)..Well 5 days later I went into labor and delivered a 7 lb 14 ounce baby..But he was advising "early delivery" for mine and the babies safety had my body not kicked in ..And he was also right on with the weight..One or two more weeks and I could have needed a c-section with a 9+ pounder..(based on my hip measurements)..I could not have delivered...

So again Im not anti early inducement..

 

[Koldo]

Do you think someone else should get to "decide" that if my kids have the flu (putting me at risk) if I can throw them outside and not interact with them till they are over it to limit my risks?I do.I think someone else should get to decide I'm obviously not parent material.

Because if you are so consumed with your own body even if you are healthy to put your child at extreme risks to "limit yours" you aren't safe to parent a child.

I absolutely loved this comparison because there is also a small death rate associated to flu.

 

[Falvlun]

Personally, I would consider inducing a grossly immature fetus, which will likely have physical and mental disorders because of it, to be rather unethical. It would be more humane to simply abort.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Personally, I would consider inducing a grossly immature fetus, which will likely have physical and mental disorders because of it, to be rather unethical. It would be more humane to simply abort.

That's always the decision left to the doctors and the woman. What is the most ethical.

I prefer having the right to induce provided, if the gestational age, birth weight of the newborn, health of the mother, and the ability of the NICU staff lends to a solid chance for a newborn to live, and to have a chance at a quality of life. But all to provide a woman a choice to not be pregnant if she so chooses.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally, I would consider inducing a grossly immature fetus, which will likely have physical and mental disorders because of it, to be rather unethical. It would be more humane to simply abort.

But does this have a bearing on the law?

I'd consider it unethical to refuse to donate a pint of blood to save someone who would certainly die otherwise. I still support the person's right to refuse, though.

 

[Falvlun]

But does this have a bearing on the law?

I'd consider it unethical to refuse to donate a pint of blood to save someone who would certainly die otherwise. I still support the person's right to refuse, though.

I'm not talking about restricting abortions here. I'm talking about inducing labor--giving birth to a live human being at this point-- when the fetus is grossly underdeveloped.

There's a gap imo between pre-viability abortions and post-viability induced labor. It is being suggested that if the fetus is of an age where viability is possible, then induced labor is the way to go. For fetuses that are essentially fully developed, this is a great option. But for fetuses that are still grossly underdeveloped, I do not think it should be an option.

Basically, if it's that underdeveloped that it will likely have issues, then it should just be aborted; or the mother should be counseled to keep that bun in the oven another month. I'm just talking about that gap right there, and the ethical question of knowingly taking steps to create a disabled human being.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm not talking about restricting abortions here. I'm talking about inducing labor--giving birth to a live human being at this point-- when the fetus is grossly underdeveloped.

There's a gap imo between pre-viability abortions and post-viability induced labor. It is being suggested that if the fetus is of an age where viability is possible, then induced labor is the way to go. For fetuses that are essentially fully developed, this is a great option. But for fetuses that are still grossly underdeveloped, I do not think it should be an option.

Basically, if it's that underdeveloped that it will likely have issues, then it should just be aborted; or the mother should be counseled to keep that bun in the oven another month. I'm just talking about that gap right there, and the ethical question of knowingly taking steps to create a disabled human being.

That's why there are NICU staff who will refuse to either perform the procedure or will enact a DNR clause into the procedure if the birth weight and gestational age offers those kinds of risks.

I don't support counseling the woman to maintain a pregnancy any longer than she wishes.

Perhaps this should go to another thread, since this debate in and of itself is about abortion, but we kind of got derailed when the question was presented to first focus on what is the best economic decision regarding inducing labor post-viability, and then the debate centered squarely on the medical ethics concerning the issue.

 

[DallasApple]

That's why there are NICU staff who will refuse to either perform the procedure or will enact a DNR clause into the procedure if the birth weight and gestational age offers those kinds of risks.

So NICU staff can refuse what the woman wants? O.K I'll go with that.And by the way "those kinds of risk" are all the way up to 36 weeks.And its not about the "weight" .Its about a lot more than that specifically later term lung development.(the ability to breath and get the oxygen out of the air you suck in).The lungs are the last to develop.How we oxygenate our bodies.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So NICU staff can refuse what the woman wants? O.K I'll go with that.And by the way "those kinds of risk" are all the way up to 36 weeks.And its not about the "weight" .Its about a lot more than that specifically later term lung development.(the ability to breath and get the oxygen out of the air you suck in).The lungs are the last to develop.How we oxygenate our bodies.

Well, yes. I've made my point repeatedly that just like a doctor can refuse to perform surgical or chemical abortion if it goes against his ethics or the hospital ethics, a NICU staff can refuse to participate.

My concern is having the procedure legal and available to a woman and to her doctor. Just like we shouldn't see a woman or a doctor carted off to jail for murder if they elect to an abortion, I don't want the same for a woman, a doctor, and an NICU staff who wishes to support inducement.