"health" of the mother

_

cincybearcat wrote:

How is being pro-choice not being for keeping abortion legal...thus pro-legal abortion?

Because "abortion" is the noun in "pro-legal-abortion" so that's what the "pro" refers to, not "legal" which is just another adjective. "Choice" is the noun in "pro-choice," so it's choice that the person supports/promotes, not abortion.

I might say "pro-legalization of abortion," but there's no need to be pro-legalization since abortion is already legal.

_

iamica wrote:

I think we should all be working together to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, and by doing so, reducing abortions.

I agree. And I couldn't help but notice that Obama said the same thing in the debate last night, yet McCain didn't say he supported this effort.

chopitdown

scb wrote:

It's not even the mother who gets to make that determination anyway, nor is it me or Cincy or anyone else but the woman's doctor. And if a doctor tells McCain that a patient's health is at risk, it shouldn't be McCain's place to decide that it's not.

Edit: I mean the determination of when the mother's health is at risk. Of course the mother whose health is at risk gets to decide whether or not to have an abortion.

how many times, with our advanced medical care, is abortion often the only way to save a mothers life???

know1

scb wrote:

Because "abortion" is the noun in "pro-legal-abortion" so that's what the "pro" refers to, not "legal" which is just another adjective. "Choice" is the noun in "pro-choice," so it's choice that the person supports/promotes, not abortion.

I might say "pro-legalization of abortion," but there's no need to be pro-legalization since abortion is already legal.

How about "Pro-legalized-abortion"?

prytoj

My two cents:

We're probably not in danger of life-over-health choices being removed anytime soon, as in the case of the OP (deepest sympathy btw). Nor should we in my opinion.

What is the role of government? It's a grey area, and some might say it's to ensure maximum choice, freedom. I think we could go further and say the role of governemt is to provide for the long term prosperity of the society as a whole, providing for the many, not the few. Maximum choice being the primary vehicle.

Now, taking god out of the equation, which just diltues the argument, does the long term prosperity of the society not mean giving every person the chance to bcome tomorrow's doctor, teacher, or other positive contributor to society?

Is it a responsible government that casts aside those who might otherwise have the chance to become that? I would say that we need more people, not less.

And what about the many versus the few? Is it not fair to say that most people are good people, unwanted at birth or not? Can we not at least agree that a pregnancy is viable at a certain point? Is it not fair to say that the vast majority of mothers have healthy, viable pregnancies? Should we not at least give those kids the same shot to hit the sack like all of us were freaks like that? go getcha sum!

maximum choice for the many, not the few.

from a dumbass...

_

saveuplife wrote:

You said you didn't like the term pro-legalized abortion. It's a fact that, that is exactly what pro-choice individuals are for. Why then, are you scared to say.... "yes, I'm pro-legalized abortion."

pro-legalized abortion = pro-abortion
pro-abortion = pro-ONLY ONE OF the options (abortion)
pro-choice = pro-ALL OF the options (abortion, parenthood, & adoption)

saveuplife wrote:

But, so is plastic/cosmetic surgery. In fact, I'm willing to bet the death-rate for the patient is similar for both procedures.

Haha! I'll take that bet. I doubt there's any way that's possible, especially given the fact that many plastic surgery procedures use anesthesia, which is a leading cause of death in surgical procedures, whereas most abortion procedures do not use anesthesia.

Okay, I just had to do a quick search and here's what I found:

From the American Society of Plastic Surgeons:
1 death in 51,459 cases (And this study only looked at office-based surgeries. I would imagine it's higher for those procedures that are too dangerous to be performed in an office.)

Abortion deaths (Grimes 2006):
0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions (And this includes ALL abortions, even the late-term ones that must be done in the hospital. Of course, the majority of abortions are done at 9 weeks or less, when the death rate is 0.1 per 100,000.)

Wow - so there is about a 3 times greater risk of death due to outpatient plastic surgery than due to abortion.

This is an irrelevant comparison anyway. A pregnant woman doesn't have to choose between abortion & plastic surgery; she has to choose between abortion and childbirth. (The death rate due to childbirth is 7.1 per 100,000, by the way.)

saveuplife wrote:

And they both can centainly be considered invasive.

Not necessarily. You can have an abortion by taking a pill. That's certainly not an invasive procedure.

_

chopitdown wrote:

There was another study that saw 151 abortions that were performed to save the mothers live (from 1967-90) and that number is %0.004 of all abortions performed.

it seems that the notion for the health of the mother MAY be something to tug at heartstrings of people, but not have as much grounding in reality as people would like.

You're 0.004% claims to be the % of abortions done to protect the LIFE of the mother. I don't believe that's what's at issue here.

But if you are using that to suggest that abortion is very rarely needed to protect the HEALTH of the mother either, I think you're making a good argument IN SUPPORT OF including a health exception. McCain argument is that this exception would allow a lot of abortions to happen that wouldn't have happened otherwise. If it really only refers to such a small number of abortions, there shouldn't be a problem.

_

know1 wrote:

How about "Pro-legalized-abortion"?

Nope. Legalized is still an adjective while abortion is still the noun.

saveuplife

scb wrote:

Wow - so there is about a 3 times greater risk of death due to outpatient plastic surgery than due to abortion.

Dude, you are proving my point.

As I said, you don't hear policy makers rallying to limit plastic/cosmetic surgeries. Yet, you just stated the risk is HIGHER than abortion of death.

Hmmmm.

_

chopitdown wrote:

how many times, with our advanced medical care, is abortion often the only way to save a mothers life???

I don't have the exact stats, but it's true that - as a percetage of all abortions - the number is small. Why, then, will some not allow that small percentage of women's lives to be saved?

prytoj

Originally Posted by chopitdown
There was another study that saw 151 abortions that were performed to save the mothers live (from 1967-90) and that number is %0.004 of all abortions performed.

it seems that the notion for the health of the mother MAY be something to tug at heartstrings of people, but not have as much grounding in reality as people would like..................

considering how technology and healthcare have advanced in the last 20 years, choice-health issues will become much less relevant in the US at least.

I belive that in Russia, the fertility rate is 1.4 children/woman, which is a completely unsustainable popluation. That is, more people are dying than being born, which means that russia is experiencing population decline, and an increasing elderly population with fewer young people to care for them, right now. of all russian pregnancies, a full 70% are aborted right now.

not that we're russia

In the US the fertility rate is 2.1 kids/woman, above the theorietical threshold of 2.0-ish.

prism

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

It's absurd to imply that pro-choice advocates are trying to protect a mother's right to abort because of heartburn, or any other insignificant health issue. The fact is, there is a LOT of gray area between a healthy pregnancy and a pregnancy that results in death. There are complications that can severely impact a woman's long-term health that don't result in immediate death.

edited just to add: I don't believe that anyone but the mother in question has the right to determine whether or not her health concern is valid "enough".

exactly.

i was told at 16 what the risks were to my health. so when i got pregnant at 19 i caved into the fear and had an abortion. then when i got pregnant at 21 and again at 23 i decided to go through with it and have my kids. despite being told by a respected perinatologist that i should seriously consider aborting the pregnancies. but being that i'm stubborn and determined, i listened to my instincts that "knew" that other than being preemies my daughter and son would be healthy.
now did carrying the pregnancies impact my long-term health? oh you betcha, it sure did (almost 20 years later.) however i feel with each pregnancy i made the right decision. would i make the same choices regarding my pregnancies despite the serious effects on my health had i to do all over again? hell yes

i guess the point i'm trying to make is i am pro-choice. i'm not pro-abortion. i'm not pro-life.



the word Senator McCain is pro-CHOICE. and each woman's choice is not in any way yours to make.

oh and since he seems so convinced that adoption is the only answer....why does he not do more to support and encourage adoption of the 'less than perfect' kids of all ages that are currently languishing in the foster-care systems?

_

prytoj wrote:

We're probably not in danger of life-over-health choices being removed anytime soon.

The whole reason they were debating about this is because the health exception already has been removed from the so-called partial birth abortion ban. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...

prytoj wrote:

I would say that we need more people, not less.

I think the World Population Council, the World Health Organization, etc, etc. would disagree with you there.

_

saveuplife wrote:

Dude, you are proving my point.

As I said, you don't hear policy makers rallying to limit plastic/cosmetic surgeries. Yet, you just stated the risk is HIGHER than abortion of death.

Hmmmm.

I'm not a dude, and I must not get your point...

prytoj

scb wrote:

The whole reason they were debating about this is because the health exception already has been removed from the so-called partial birth abortion ban. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...



I think the World Population Council, the World Health Organization, etc, etc. would disagree with you there.

sure, you can go with the globalist point of view, but that argument is so crass. it's dirty.

and If i really thought my daughters were ever going to have that choice taken from them, I'd be screaming right there with you. It's been decided, nobody really wants to touch this issue that much.

_

prytoj wrote:

and If i really thought my daughters were ever going to have that choice taken from them, I'd be screaming right there with you.

Are we talking about the same choice? The choice to have an abortion using the Dilation & Extraction procedure if it is necessary to protect the health of the mother? You do realize that that choice ALREADY HAS been taken away from your daughters, right?

josevolution

i'm pro choice it should be left to the woman what steps she want's to take no mine but hers .....

prytoj

scb wrote:

Are we talking about the same choice? The choice to have an abortion using the Dilation & Extraction procedure if it is necessary to protect the health of the mother? You do realize that that choice ALREADY HAS been taken away from your daughters, right?

first of all, at least in california, planned parenthoods are like 7-11. let's be real. There's one within a 10 min walk of where I went to school. In Orange, Ca, right on the santa ana line. a 20 min. drive from anywhere in OC.

And you walk right in, pay your money, they hand you some stupid abstinence pamphlets, you flll out the form , and they send your lady right in. I know from experience as a morally ambiguous youth. It's a cold bitch of an experience, and most will tell you that much at least.

But no on'es telling my kids that they cannot abort at the expense of their own lives, all minutia aside. There's just no real threat of that happening.

The argument you present is detail oriented, unless I missed something.
I'm trying to present a big picture view, if possible. But the view is my own.

evenkat

Next he'll be saying she said it was "rape"

Heineken Helen

saveuplife wrote:

By the way, why are those of you who don't like the title pro-legalized abortion, scared of it? Why do you not want more abortions as long as they are safe for the mom? If your not killing anything you are just removing cells, right? Why do you want less abortions? Why are you scared to say you are for pro-legalized abortion when that is clearly what you are for.

It just doesn't make sense to me. IMHO the tide on this issue is turning when people on the one side are starting to admit that they don't condone abortion even when the mom's life isn't threatened at all by the procedure.

You are starting to point out that there is something intrinsically wrong with it. You're not to point of saying it's life, but you certainly are getting closer.

You can call me pro legal abortion if you want... doesn't make a difference to me... but I don't promote it so it's not what I am! Simple as that.

I wish there were less abortions cos, unfortunately I know how hard it is for a woman to have to make that decision. It's something that always stays with you (not me but I know enough women... close friends, etc) and it's not something I would ever like anyone to HAVE to go through! My point of view is not because of the baby or the cells or whatever... it's cos no woman wants to have to do this or SHOULD have to do this.