funhusker Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 If anything, this law shows how much shaky ground some states feel Roe v Wade is on. They felt the need to right Roe v Wade (and other decisions) into law so NY women, along with several other states, won't lose access to services. Link to comment
Caveman Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 Just now, funhusker said: If anything, this law shows how much shaky ground some states feel Roe v Wade is on. They felt the need to right Roe v Wade (and other decisions) into law so NY women, along with several other states, won't lose access to services. Although, I do have a burning question. If the mother's life is in danger at 38-39-40 weeks, why abort the baby? Why not just deliver it? OB-Gyn's can perform an emergent C-section in 1-2 minutes. Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, Caveman said: Although, I do have a burning question. If the mother's life is in danger at 38-39-40 weeks, why abort the baby? Why not just deliver it? OB-Gyn's can perform an emergent C-section in 1-2 minutes. Bingo. Link to comment
funhusker Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Caveman said: Although, I do have a burning question. If the mother's life is in danger at 38-39-40 weeks, why abort the baby? Why not just deliver it? OB-Gyn's can perform an emergent C-section in 1-2 minutes. That would be a good question for my wife. But my understanding is that is what "aborting" a pregnancy is. I think the "problem" arises in keeping the baby in the womb when it is in the best interest for baby and not mom. For example, inducing the delivery of a dead fetus is recorded statistically as an aborted pregnancy. Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 Just now, funhusker said: That would be a good question for my wife. But my understanding is that is what "aborting" a pregnancy is. I think the "problem" arises in keeping the baby in the womb when it is in the best interest for baby and not mom. For example, inducing the delivery of a dead fetus is recorded statistically as an aborted pregnancy. At that point in the pregnancy the baby must be delivered, whether dead or alive. I've yet to hear a good reason as to why the baby can't be allowed to live. Link to comment
funhusker Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 9 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said: At that point in the pregnancy the baby must be delivered, whether dead or alive. I've yet to hear a good reason as to why the baby can't be allowed to live. This is an abortion by induction. I can't answer the other part because I'm sure it's a case by case thing that I've been lucky enough to not have to deal with. But I find it hard to imagine that a pregnancy that is causing severe health issues for mom would involve a normal healthy baby. Maybe it is more common than we'd think, I don't know. Link to comment
Caveman Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 I don't think delivering a baby early is considered abortion. And for reference, when I was in school several years ago, 24 week premies frequently survived and were considered viable (might be even earlier now). So if the mother's life is in danger later in gestation than that, it's hard to argue for aborting the baby. 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 On 1/23/2019 at 7:00 PM, Caveman said: I don't think delivering a baby early is considered abortion. And for reference, when I was in school several years ago, 24 week premies frequently survived and were considered viable (might be even earlier now). So if the mother's life is in danger later in gestation than that, it's hard to argue for aborting the baby. Depending on the intent and methods used in the early delivery, it most definitely can be considered an abortion. That's what "late term" abortions are. And your right, my wife recently has a "20 weeker" that looks like it is going to make it. But there are some pregnancies that can't be ended by vaginal delivery or c-section for whatever reason. But those of course wouldn't involve healthy babies, I don't think... Edit (2/3/19): My wife corrected me on the bolded, it is NOT accurate. She meant it "made" it through the night. After talking to her more this evening, she said any baby born before 25 weeks will most likely demand full medical care and isn't likely capable of normal life. She also mentioned a very unscientific poll between her coworkers that if they were to have a baby at 20 weeks, they would opt to "not resuscitate" because of the impending complications.... Link to comment
funhusker Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 Disclaimer: I'm not planning on getting into an "abortion argument" here. Just wanted to point out that, even though Walsh is riled up, this is nothing new. New York is not allowing anything in his state today that wasn't allowed in Nebraska yesterday. At least in the articles I've read. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 14 hours ago, Caveman said: Although, I do have a burning question. If the mother's life is in danger at 38-39-40 weeks, why abort the baby? Why not just deliver it? OB-Gyn's can perform an emergent C-section in 1-2 minutes. 14 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said: Bingo. Because not every situation is the same? You want to change the laws to try and cover every possible medical emergency scenario involving pregnancy? Or should the law perhaps just let the woman and the doctors decide what is best, like it does today? 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Because not every situation is the same? You want to change the laws to try and cover every possible medical emergency scenario involving pregnancy? Or should the law perhaps just let the woman and the doctors decide what is best, like it does today? The law has to have flexibility to allow prosecution in the event of an immoral mother or doctor. Parents abuse children, including unborn children. 1 Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 10 minutes ago, RedDenver said: Because not every situation is the same? You want to change the laws to try and cover every possible medical emergency scenario involving pregnancy? Or should the law perhaps just let the woman and the doctors decide what is best, like it does today? Sure, except it almost never has anything to do with the health of the mother, or the baby. https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/ According to the above's survey, a combined 7% of abortions were performed because of the mother, or baby's health issues. Florida logs reasons for all abortions performed in the state, and a combined percentage of 1.397% of abortions were performed because of rape, mother's physical health, mother's mental health, and fetal abnormalities. The truth is, most abortions are because of the inconvenience a baby would bring the mother (or father if he's on board). Link to comment
RedDenver Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 12 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said: Sure, except it almost never has anything to do with the health of the mother, or the baby. https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/ According to the above's survey, a combined 7% of abortions were performed because of the mother, or baby's health issues. Florida logs reasons for all abortions performed in the state, and a combined percentage of 1.397% of abortions were performed because of rape, mother's physical health, mother's mental health, and fetal abnormalities. The truth is, most abortions are because of the inconvenience a baby would bring the mother (or father if he's on board). We're talking about late-term abortions not all abortions since that's what you originally posted tweets about (misleading tweets I might add). From your link late-term abortions are only 1.3% of all abortions, which is much less than the 7% that are due to health concerns, so possible that most of the late-term abortions are due to medical issues but I don't see data anywhere to support or reject that conclusion. 1 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 https://www.thedailybeast.com/texas-forced-this-woman-to-deliver-a-stillborn-baby?utm_source=FB Daniel worried his wife would hemorrhage while Taylor could feel the baby struggling inside of her, Daniel said. Taylor declined to speak for this article. When Taylor started bleeding, they went back to the hospital, but with Fox’s heart still beating, doctors couldn’t legally interfere. “Eventually she was just screaming at them to get the child out of her,” Daniel said. I’m pro life but I hate it when people try to oversimplify this issue. No, people who are pro choice aren’t all evil people who are ok with babies being murdered. They don’t think the baby is a person before it’s born. No, pro life people aren’t all woman haters who want women to have no control over their bodies. There is a lot of nuance to this discussion and people keep trying to make it black and white. I can’t think it was right to not let this woman decide in this situation. There should be situations where it’s legal. Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 24 minutes ago, Moiraine said: They don’t think the baby is a person before it’s born. How is a layer of (the mother's) skin, and some amniotic fluid the difference between being a person, and something that's legally murdered? 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts