"health" of the mother

iamica

cincybearcat wrote:

And this is exactly what McCain was talking about...are we aborting babies late-term to save the mother's life...or to save her hip? But anyhow, someone that is "pro-choice" wouldn't think it mattered anyway.

Thanks for being completely insensitive about my sister-in-laws condition. I guess you missed the part that said if she had a baby, she would lose the ability to walk. Or do you just not care?

prytoj

iamica wrote:

There are ways in which a pregnancy can severely affect the health of the pregnant woman. For example, pre-existing conditions such as diabetes and heart disease, and pregnancy inducing conditions such as preeclampsia, can endanger the health of a woman should she become pregnant.
My sister-in-law has a birth defect involving her right hip. Doctors have told her that if she gets pregnant, it could cause further complications for her hip down the road, and may even affect her ability to walk.
I guess my point is that there are situations to consider where the pregnant woman's health could be negatively affected.

As much as I feel for any disabled person, this argument is a kick in the balls.

You execercise your reproductive freedom the moment you hit the sack unprotected, like it or not. And your sister was pretty much informed as to the consequences.

And so, to pursue your argument, you're telling me one should be allowed to wait 4-1/2 MONTHS to decide that THE POSSIBILITY of an imparment in her walking ability trumps a viable pregnancy?

And of all viable pregnancies terminated, how many are on this grounds?
We're allowing this gruesome method to be legal so a few people can walk better?

It's starting to make me ill. I'll try to refrain for your sister's sake...

iamica

Who said anything about 4 1/2 months? Nobody was talking about that. I'm just saying that there are legitimate reasons that a woman should choose to protect her health. I guess my main point is that it is no one's choice but hers. Nobody on this board has the right to make that decision for her. And unless you're in that situation yourself, do you really have any right to judge?

evenkat

prytoj wrote:

As much as I feel for any disabled person, this argument is a kick in the balls.

You execercise your reproductive freedom the moment you hit the sack unprotected, like it or not. And your sister was pretty much informed as to the consequences.

And so, to pursue your argument, you're telling me one should be allowed to wait 4-1/2 MONTHS to decide that THE POSSIBILITY of an imparment in her walking ability trumps a viable pregnancy?

And of all viable pregnancies terminated, how many are on this grounds?
We're allowing this gruesome method to be legal so a few people can walk better?

It's starting to make me ill. I'll try to refrain for your sister's sake...

You assumed she 'hit the sack unprotected'.

Heineken Helen

evenkat wrote:

You assumed she 'hit the sack unprotected'.

Isn't that the only way to get pregnant? Stupidity and selfishness :rolleyes:

prytoj

evenkat wrote:

You assumed she 'hit the sack unprotected'.

details...

In the BIG PICTURE
If you oppose this legislation, you are hurting a great many an helping no one.

Any other analysis is intellectually dishonest. Where is the gray area here?

_

prytoj wrote:

It is legislation "directed only at a method of abortion, rather than at preventing any woman from obtaining an abortion",

a method that "is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited"

by "A moral, medical, and ethical consensus" that further concludes

it is a "procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, BUT IN FACT POSES SERIOUS RISKS TO THE LONG-TERM HEALTH OF THE WOMEN and in some circumstances, their lives"

I just don't see where the rub is here, regardless of your stance on abortion.
the point is to "unite" and "build concensus" right?

Who exactly are we protecting by opposing this legislation?

We're protecting the women who need this procedure to protect their health.

Many doctors disagree with the assertion made by these politicians, which you have quoted above. (I understand that they based this on the testemony of *some* doctors, but when doctors disagree, it is up to the medical community and the individual doctor/patient relationship - NOT the political community - to decide what is the best/safest standard of care.) If I want to know whether or not I need this particular procedure to preserve my health, I'm going to ask MY doctor - not the Supreme Court.

And, for the record, the friggin' American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists OPPOSED the ban for medical reasons. Here's their official statement:

ACOG wrote:

Washington, DC -- Despite the fact that the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States—the US Supreme Court today upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) amicus brief opposing the Ban, the Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country.

"Today's decision to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is shameful and incomprehensible to those of us who have dedicated our lives to caring for women," said Douglas W. Laube, MD, MEd, ACOG president. "It leaves no doubt that women's health in America is perceived as being of little consequence.

"We have seen a steady erosion of women's reproductive rights in this country. The Supreme Court's action today, though stunning, in many ways isn't surprising given the current culture in which scientific knowledge frequently takes a back seat to subjective opinion," he added.

This decision discounts and disregards the MEDICAL CONSENSUS that intact D&E is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions that make the potential complications of non-intact D&E especially dangerous. Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment.

"On behalf of the 51,000 ACOG members who strive to provide the very best possible medical care to the women we serve, I can only hope that in the future, science will again be at the core of decision-making that affects the life and well-being of all of us," said Dr. Laube.

prytoj

iamica wrote:

Who said anything about 4 1/2 months? Nobody was talking about that. I'm just saying that there are legitimate reasons that a woman should choose to protect her health. I guess my main point is that it is no one's choice but hers. Nobody on this board has the right to make that decision for her. And unless you're in that situation yourself, do you really have any right to judge?

Hey, I'm pro-choice. I've never seen world through the eyes of a woman.
But this is another detail-oriented argument. We're arguing a very hypothetical and unlikely scenario, which refutes the argument altogether.

The legislation clearly prihibits only one method of abortion, used most commonly in the 18-36 week range. Which is 4-1/2 months.

This legislation does not prohibit your sister-in-law, or anyone else from using any other method of abortion or contraception.

Take a morning after pill or something, sheesh.

prytoj

This is a view of one organization, not a "moral, medical, and ethical concensus"

And this argument still providing for the few, not the many.

_

prytoj wrote:

And of all viable pregnancies terminated, how many are on this grounds?
We're allowing this gruesome method to be legal so a few people can walk better?

Uh, I'm sorry, but aren't you the one who just said:

prytoj wrote:

This statute prohibits A METHOD of abortion in the United States that it names "partial birth abortion". The procedure described in the statute is usually used in the second trimester

And now, just a few posts later, you're suggesting that this method should be banned because it ends VIABLE pregnancies and that this ban would STOP late-term abortions? :rolleyes: Do you just not get it, or are you not able to make up your mind?

PEOPLE: The Partial Birth Abortion Ban DOES NOT ban late-term abortions, even the abortion of viable pregnancies. Late-term abortions still happen; they're just not able to use this particular METHOD anymore.

Besides, didn't any of you pro-life folks notice that Obama said he would SUPPORT a ban on late-term abortions?? (This would end more abortions than the stupid ban they have.) Or did you just tune him out?

_

prytoj wrote:

If you oppose this legislation, you are hurting a great many an helping no one.

Are you saying that if you support this legislation you help a great many and hurt no one? If so, how so?

prytoj

scb wrote:

And now, just a few posts later, you're suggesting that this method should be banned because it ends VIABLE pregnancies and that this ban would STOP late-term abortions??

Kind of off-topic, and lying to call me a liar is a liitle insulting.

My personal views have nothing to do with the facts. Let's play nice and debate openly, k?

keeponrockin

The choice should be up to the mother, IMO.

_

prytoj wrote:

We're arguing a very hypothetical and unlikely scenario,

I'm sorry, are you an obstetrician, gynecologist, family medicine doctor, or any other kind of women's health professional? I need to see some credentials, please.

Otherwise, when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists says one thing and you disagree, why would your little opinion have more validity than the consensus from the professionals?

_

prytoj wrote:

This is a view of one organization, not a "moral, medical, and ethical concensus"

And this argument still providing for the few, not the many.

Huh???

_

prytoj wrote:

Kind of off-topic, and lying to call me a liar is a liitle insulting.

My personal views have nothing to do with the facts. Let's play nice and debate openly, k?

Seriously... huh???

prytoj

scb wrote:

Are you saying that if you support this legislation you help a great many and hurt no one? If so, how so?

Well, according to the legislation, developed "by concensus", the procedure is destrucive to the woman. Add on top of that the actual viable preganancies terminated by the proceedure...

you're going to have to fix a lot of freakin' legs to justify that. There just aint that many leg problems in our society, I'm afraid.

prytoj

scb wrote:

I'm sorry, are you an obstetrician, gynecologist, family medicine doctor, or any other kind of women's health professional? I need to see some credentials, please.

Otherwise, when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists says one thing and you disagree, why would your little opinion have more validity than the consensus from the professionals?

I didn't know I was debating a doctor, am I?

franlky, at the end of the day, I'm more interested in putting more Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the world than what they themselves think. Or fixing hip problems, or glandular irregularities.

I'm more sensitive to the overall welfare of our society than I am to affording people every single ooportunity to abdicate their own personal responsibility, extremely rare cases excepted.

That's off-topic, though. we're dabeting the merits of the legislation, so let's get back to that.

_

prytoj wrote:

Well, according to the legislation, developed "by concensus", the procedure is destrucive to the woman. Add on top of that the actual viable preganancies terminated by the proceedure...

you're going to have to fix a lot of freakin' legs to justify that. There just aint that many leg problems in our society, I'm afraid.

ACOG is the official voice of American Ob/Gyns. They are the professional organization of Ob/Gyns. They set the standards of care when it comes to obstetrics & gynecology. Doctors are expected to follow the guidelines set by this organization, and if they're sued for malpractice and they didn't follow these guidelines, they're screwed.

The statement in this law was according to a "consensus" by whom? Politicians? Lawyers? A few dissenting doctors? They do not set the standards of medical care.

You say supporting the ban helps the "viable pregnancies terminated by the procedure". But this ban does not keep any of these pregnancies - viable or otherwise - from being terminated. IT HAS NOT SAVED ONE UNBORN CHILD. Women still get their abortions - they just use a different method.

_

prytoj wrote:

I didn't know I was debating a doctor, am I?

You are debating the official statements of doctors, presented to you by a women's health professional whose job is, in part, to teach doctors about abortion, including abortion legislation.