Should pregnant women be required to have prenatal medical

[Guaranteed]

Poll question: Should pregnant women be required to have prenatal medical

care?

Let's see where parents' rights begin.

[XemaSab]

1. Yes

If a woman has a sickly baby due to neglect such as smoking, fetal alcohol syndrome, improper nutrition, or what have you the taxpayer is likely to pay.

Prenatal checkups are MUCH more cost effective if they can prevent sick babies from being born.

[Book Lover]

2. What consequences or penalties would you propose

should the mother not have the state-mandated prenatal medical checkups? Not every woman who does not have prenatal checkups has an "unhealthy" baby: would those penalties change in severity depending on the health of the baby once born?

[rodeodance]

3. wrong binary question-How about giving them the option (IF prenatial

care was available to all--which it is NOT).

[JDPriestly]

6. I agree. It should not be required.

This is a privacy issue like abortion.

[DemBones DemBones]

16. Yes, if privacy allows a woman to

kill her unborn child, it should allow her to harm her unborn child by drinking excessively, using drugs, etc.

[Syncronaut Seven]

27. I think this is a key concept

Lets make sure health care is AVAILABLE before it's mandatory. From this mis-administration I would expect an unfunded mandate with federal penalties.

These guys LOVE that scam, each incidence is a direct hit on the safety, security and solvency of the individual states.

[newswolf56]

9. Many states already prosecute the mother whenever a baby...

is born drug addicted. Likewise parents who refuse to have their children inoculated against or treated for infectious diseases and therefore start or spread epidemics. By extension of the same principle, prosecute the mother -- and if appropriate the father -- whenever the child's chronic health problems could have been prevented by the prenatal care the parent(s) refused -- that is, assuming the availability of such care (free if necessary) to begin with. (Rationale: {1}-an infant so chronically afflicted will undoubtedly become the responsibility of the taxpayers; {2}-the affliction is due to criminal negligence on the part of the parent{s}.)

[Book Lover]

13. If the rationale is that the taxpayers have to pay

via Medicare/Medicaid to keep the baby healthy after the mother injures her/him, what about those babies that will not be a burden on the taxpayer? What justification is there to prosecute the rich?

As for the criminal negligence rationale - it seems to me that, as you describe, this is already in place in (at least some) state law.

What penalties do you suggest?

[newswolf56]

24. Good point...very good point in fact. I listed it as a rationale...

not because it reflects my own values, but simply because, in any debate, it is the main point that would surely be raised. (I have covered many such social-issues debates during my years in journalism, and --capitalist America being what it is -- they all ultimately hinge never on justice but solely on the supposed burden on taxpayers.) But the criminal negligence issue is absolutely adequate to decide the case -- and if I were writing the law, I would actually make the penalties harsher on the wealthy, for this purpose defined as those who could have afforded pre-natal care but wantonly (and selfishly) refused to pay for it. (The Washington State House unanimously this year passed a law substantially increasing the penalties for abandonment of elders and children, with means-testing as part of its implicit underpinning, though the law was bottled up in a Senate committee by a Seattle Democrat {Sen. Adam Kline} who seems to irrationally oppose increasing any penalty for any crime {except for technical or inadvertent offenses connected with legal firearms possession}.)

And penalties is indeed another good question. I believe it is Florida (or maybe South Carolina) that actually imprisoned a drug-addicted mother for life, this after her infant died during crack-cocaine withdrawal. Unlike my great empathy for alcoholics (for whom addiction is never by intent), I have no sympathy whatsoever for junkies: they choose their addictions maliciously cognizant of all the horror they are inflicting on themselves and anyone who is unfortunate enough to be close to them. And just as I have no problem with prison sentences for child abusers, I have no difficulty with sentences imposed for willful neglect. But as to what is a suitable or appropriate sentence, or even whether it should be served in a prison or by performing some sort of public service (perhaps informing parents as to the vital urgency of pre-natal care), I have no immediate opinion. Relevant as it is, I simply haven't thought it through: just the sort of instance I would wait to see what the legislators proposed, and then react accordingly.


Edit: re-inclusion of accidentally deleted phrase in first paragraph.

[cornermouse]

8. You're right, but you don't really supply the whole picture.

"Sickly" babies cry much more which raises the adult's stress level, increasing the potential for abuse.

Also some of the things that can be prevented by prenatal care can turn into lifelong health problems.

The financial, emotional,and mental price that may result from not getting prenatal check-ups is a very high price tag.

[shraby]

4. Prenatal care should be required if it is

free for those who can't afford it.

[JDPriestly]

5. Not required but encouraged.

If we can give incentives to corporations to do things they should do anyway for the good of the environment, why can't we give incentives to women to take good care of themselves when they are pregnant and to their children once they are born. Other developed countries do this.

[Guaranteed]

7. I agree with that wholeheartedly.

Very strongly, actually.

[DemBones DemBones]

18. I do, too. nt

[uppityperson]

108. Agreed. Not required but available and encouraged.

Even if may produce fucked up kids, people with problems that take many more of our resources to treat and take care of, it still should not be required. It should be provided and everyone encouraged to partake, but it should not be required.

What about having required classes before getting pregnant, to make sure the potential parent/s is/are ready and capable and aware of what they are getting into?

[kestrel91316]

140. Yep, available for FREE, but not forced.

[SlowDownFast]

10. Not required, but encouraged

through LAWFUL CERTIFIED MIDWIVES of ANY religion or creed.

Many states still outlaw midwifery options for those who choose to have home-centered childbirth.

[noamnety]

11. Nope

The state should never have the RIGHT to demand that a woman strip and allow a state appointed stranger to jam anything up her vagina against her will. We call that rape.

Even if she's pregnant, we call it rape.

And even if raping a woman saved someone else's life - it wouldn't be acceptable. If a terrorist announced that he'd let 50 hostages go if the government allowed him to rape some celebrity he loved, the state would not have the right to deliver the celebrity to him in order for him to rape her.

Not even if it saved 50 lives. Not even if they could make a compelling case that it was for the good of society.

[Guaranteed]

17. Should the state be allowed to force someone to sit in a classroom

for a number of hours and listen to someone tell them how to raise their children?

Aren't there autonomy issues there?

[LeftyMom]

12. No

As adults we have the right to decline medical care we do not want.

[Poppyseedman]

14. Absolutely, it should be required along with mandatory classes

on why it 's important for the state to compel you give up your individual liberties.

:sarcasm:

[journalist3072]

15. I think the question is...

Can women AFFORD prenatal care. During the Bush years, there has been an increase in the number of uninsured. Many people just can't afford health care.

[HockeyMom]

19. If you can force medical treatment on a pregnant woman,

it opens the door to forced medical treatment of ANYONE, i.e, like Terri Schiavo type cases. No. This would set a whole legal precedence.

[noamnety]

21. Yep - all these rules always apply ONLY to women.

If a man's own child is seriously injured, the man is NEVER required to donate blood, not even a pint, to save that child. Most times he'd of course do it, but they'd never even consider that as a law, because only women's bodies are government property.

[napi21]

113. You said forced medical treatment! That's wrong!

I can tell you, when I first found I was pregnant, I went to my Dr. for advise on what I could do to make sure I did everything possible to insure a healthy baby. He did a pelvic exam, with my OK, to make sure I was really pregnant, and that's it! We're not talking rape!!!

The rest of my visits were to check blood pressure, growth of the baby, weight gain, etc.

Why are you folks always looking at things like this as an offense to women?

Everything dons in these visits are for the benefit of the mother and the baby!

I think prenatal care should be free for anyone who can't afford it, but I do also believe it should be mandatory. I can't imagine a reason why any woman would refuse it unless she didn't know any better, and that's all the more reason she needs it!

[Fleshdancer]

20. I think it should be a right, not a requirement

perhaps there's a woman out there somewhere who doesn't want prenatal care, but I have yet to meet her, hear about her, read about her, etc. :shrug:

If you make prenatal care available to all women then I highly doubt it would ever need to be required.

[Guaranteed]

22. I agree with that, too. nt

[Scout]

23. self edit, nevermind :hi:

[MrSlayer]

25. No, no one should be forced to do anything.

But it does make sense to have it and anyone who wants it should receive it.

[applegrove]

26. Yes. In certain rare cases they recommend abortion. There is a skin

disease where the child is born and the skin blisters like it is burnt - their whole lives. They usually don't live long. But they live the life of a burn unit victim the whole time. The real doctors don't allow that one to happen anymore. Can you imagine scraping the skin off a baby every day?

This is a stupid question. Of course there should be medical treatment for all pregnant women. Some babies can be operated on to fix heart defects while in utero.

Also to monitor for drugs and the like.

[Guaranteed]

28. I think it's a little more complicated than that.

For example, in the case that you mentioned, I can see that a doctor would strenuously recommend an abortion to the mother. But he can't force her to do that.

He can't even force her to go into the office.

On the flip side, once a baby is born I think that there are medical procedures that can mandated by the government. I think that, sometimes in the name of religion, parents neglect their children's health by not giving them the medical treatment that they need. In many cases- not ALL cases, as it depends very much on severity- I believe that the government should be able to overrule the parents' decision.

[applegrove]

30. No it is simple. Women must go to a doctor prenatal. If they don't -

they are endangering the baby. A society gets to make those moral rules. It is not a civil liberties thing. Of course nobody can force you to have a dangerous procedure or an abortion. But their are tons of things that can be tested for too.

When you make it like a question - you make it seem like a choice. It is not choice. Should a baby not get to see a doctor until they are 4 years old? That would be criminal!

[Guaranteed]

32. ??? I just don't think I agree with most of that.

I agree that these are things that SHOULD be done, for the sake of the fetus/baby, however...

No, I just don't think I agree.

[applegrove]

35. Look as an adult you can avoid a doctor. But there is so much science

& intervention that can cure things. Also not eating properly...really affects a child's development. Simple things like folic acid. It is no fun to be born with a severe development disorder or whatever. Especially when it can be avoided.

[applegrove]

36. Not going to a doctor is neglect. Pure and simple.

[Guaranteed]

40. No, the standard for me is different when it's a fetus.

A fetus is still within it's mother's body and is encompassed entirely by her rights. The fetus is a "guest" within the woman's body. The fetus has to live entirely by her rules while she is doing that fetus the favor of lending it her body.

Things change- somewhat- once the baby is born. Then you can start talking about the baby's rights, abuse and neglect.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guaranteed]

50. I'm sorry, did you say I sound like a freeper to you,

Peewee?

You can't force a woman to take care of a fetus any more than you can force her to NOT have an abortion.

That's the concept. It's called having RIGHTS. It's called America.

[applegrove]

54. You are taking a harder line than currently exists. Under current morals -

women expecting an actual baby must go to a doctor, clinic, mid-wife, or be told they are neglectful. Why do we need to change the way we think and behave. Just because there are freepers out there do we chance the norms of 30 years of reproductive health?

Not your position..but your desire to change the norms in a black & white way remind me of a freeper.

[Guaranteed]

69. We're talking about RIGHTS- not what is "a good idea."

And that's what you're missing.

Your thinking would throw up all kinds of laws infringing on peoples' rights for the "sake of society"- as you determine that "sake" to be. Ultimately, your thinking would bring our society to a total standstill, and take away all of our Creator-given FREEDOM.

You need to take a good hard look at the idea of autonomy. We are our OWN people. You don't own us.

As a matter of fact, as far as your ideas about controlling women's bodies- Those are what you find at Free Republic.

Not mine.

On edit: Oh- don't you POST there?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guaranteed]

74. LOOK AT THE FUCKING POLL!

:banghead:

[applegrove]

Outside of this thread I mean. Obviously we are just two ships that

will pass one another in the night. You go port & I'll go port. Let's both agree to give up on each other. All we are doing is crashing and that isn't productive.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[applegrove]

83. We never connected on the issue. We look at it from different vantage

points. Nobody is beating the anything out of anyone. I'm sorry. Don't take it personal. I am in fact alloud to have a different opinion than you. This is a discussion board. Relax.

[Guaranteed]

88. You called me a FREEPER.

You expect me to "not take that personally?"

I'm sorry, but you're going to feel my full wrath within the bounds of the Democratic Underground rules.

ESPECIALLY since you're being...TRULY....hypocritical. You don't even see what you're saying.

YOU ADMITTED THAT YOU EVEN POST AT FREE REPUBLIC.

[applegrove]

90. You are setting up a new set of rules and taking it really personal.

Most of the rule-makers I run across are freepers. Sorry if I insulted you. This is a discussion board. You don't need to convince me of anything. I have my own take on the issue and a believe that the old system of moral - if not - legal suasion in getting vulnerable women into prenatal health care is important and excellent.

Don't tell me I am wrong. That is the way it is. You are moving the goal-posts and telling me I am wrong. I don't go for that. So please. Give it a rest. Prenatal care is really, really important for millions of babies who could be at risk. Women in Africa fight hard and walk miles for the privilege. Women's reproductive health was something ignored for THE LAST 100 CENTURIES of CIVILIZATION until two rich WOMEN got together and put money up to develop "the pill" in the 1950s. The leading cause of death in women everywhere & poverty in families for the last 500 years of city dwelling was childbirth and lack of reproductive health. So don't tell me what I can or cannot think about it. If you don't want to be called a freeper stop it with the RULE-MAKING!

[cynatnite]

92. You don't call other posters Freepers. Period.

Why do you think the post you did it in was deleted? It's against the rules whether you agree with them or not.

[applegrove]

96. Thank you mods - for keeping us honest and civil. You do a good job.

[Guaranteed]

105. Do you post at Free Republic?

Haven't you said that you do before?

[applegrove]

109. I did one day. I was curious. They were talking about how the UN

should be shut down because of the sex scandals in the Congo mission. I pointed out that the sex industries in Thailand & Philippines & Germany were based on the trade with U.S. soldiers in the various wars. I pointed out the sex industry beside every American base all over the world. I got banned. I think it took all of about 5 minutes.

A few days ago - after googleling myself and some nitwit on some other freeper site had mentioned my name and that they "felt like"... "him"- I logged on to find out what was up. Then i argued with about twenty of them and asked them to tell me how I was wrong when I said neocons are 100% wrong 100% of the time, I asked them if this President had made them better people (which they answered with crickets or $$ until I prompted them that they needed to give me a 'soulfull' answer) and then I made fun of the fact that none of them could answer me unless I prompted them - and told them it was obvious there was a serious disconnect between their minds and their hearts (Texas Brush)if they didn't understand the notion of "better person" "because 'president - during war" until I helped them out). I also asked them if they had noticed that they were all growing down and acting like adolescents which is what happens - when sociopaths are your leaders - which none of them would answer. Then I mentioned that their arguments on Germany's progressive policies causing high unemployment were wholly uninformed because Germany had given up all monetary policy tools, to rev up an economy during recession, went as soon as they joined the EEC as there is no longer the German Mark. Plus the Germans had to deal with joining up with East Germany, economic refugees from all the former soviet states, etc. I was promptly banned again.

[Guaranteed]

121. Which way are you growing with this argument you're making?

Haven't you given any kind of SERIOUS thought to it?

[applegrove]

124. You are talking about hyping rights in a place where there is no

need. You are moving the goalposts. A woman's reproductive health is hers..until she is planning on making the choice to have a baby. Then she it is not the rights that are important..it is about her rights & responsibilities to prenatal health. With each choice come responsabilities.

I am standing in the current reality for the prenatal. I stand by that. Sorry i do not agree with the structure of how you view the issue. But there you go.

[Guaranteed]

129. OH! Get this, folks! So, what you're saying is that if a woman makes

the decision at, say, one month into the pregnancy that she wants to have the child, she has NO RIGHT to change her mind afterward?

Is THAT what you're saying?

Are you saying that a woman gives up her rights the second she, perhaps, even CONSIDERS bringing the fetus to term?

You're dead wrong. DEAD. Wrong.

Her rights are not contingent on what you perceive to be her responsibility for the fetus' health while that fetus is entirely reliant on HER womb.

I have given you the necessary thought experiments to change your perspective. You will continue to be wrong until you give those thought experiments their due thought.

Enlighten yourself.

[applegrove]

144. That is not what I am saying in the least. You want to carve things in

stone. I'm not.

[cynatnite]

131. I have been pregnant four times

One of those times I had an abortion. It was a tough decision that I went back and forth on.

Are you saying that because at one point I thought about having it, I wasn't allowed to change my mind???

I don't get this.

[applegrove]

147. I'm not saying that at all. The questions is on the importance of

prenatal care. I say prenatal care is a right and a responsibility.

[Guaranteed]

139. So you're bi-postal. Interesting. nt

[applegrove]

149. Bi-postal? I'm in the shades of grey. Where woman are encouraged

& pressured to seek care for a child they plan and have decided to bring to full term. If they make a choice to abort - that is there choice.

Nothing bi-postal at all.

[Guaranteed]

152. You're posting at Freeperville.

You're "curious," apparently, because you couldn't just read what they were saying and make the correct judgment.

That's all I'm talking about.

And then you come here and call me a Freeper- after 6,000+ posts? You don't know the rules?

I don't even RECOGNIZE you. WTF is going on?

[applegrove]

157. It seems you are coming at the pre-natal care from the point of view

of abortions being made illegal. I am coming at prenatal care from the point of view it is important to the health of the mother and the child she has decided to carry to term. I don't think you should encourage any woman to not take care of herself or a baby she plans on bringing into the world. If she wants to struggle while she is making her choice fine. That is her choice. But once she has decided to bring a baby into the world. She cannot neglect her or its health.

You assume all abortions rights will be taken away if you do not draw a line in the sand. I don't agree. I think the issue is a dupe. I think the Repukes will tweak it & play with it - but they need it for every election they ever plan on winning. Which means they will not 'solve the issue' by legislating it. And they do not want to be responsible for the thousands of women who will die if it is all out banned. The vast majority of people in the USA want abortion to be safe, they just argue about how heavily it should be regulated.

As to freeperville - I didn't know what it was so I looked. Then I couldn't stand what they were saying so I logged on and argued. And I got banned. Done that twice. Most of my posts are on the liberal sites. I even gave up the sites that have a mixture because I cannot stand to hear neocons or GOP role-players spewing their crap.

[Guaranteed]

178. Naw, just talking about these "rights" things.

Again, and I think this is about the fifth time I've said this, you should look into them and what they are.

[applegrove]

181. Oh - I have heard enough right here.

[Guaranteed]

100. LOL. You have 6000+ posts, and you're saying these things.

I have no idea how.

That's not the way it works, here. And you should know that.

The rules are there to keep people like YOU from accusing GOOD, LIBERAL DEMOCRATS- those that DON'T post at Free Republic- of being Freepers.

Which you've just done.

Good luck, buddy.

On edit: Or "lady."

Good luck, lady.

[applegrove]

111. You are saying there is something wrong with me because I agree

with current standards of prenatal care. We got stuck there. Don't try and make me feel like an outsider. I am not.

[Guaranteed]

125. Tough shit.

In any case, the current standards of prenatal care do not MANDATE, legally, women to have it done.

You just don't understand what rights are.

[applegrove]

150. If someone is harming their baby - and someone files a complaint in the

7th month. There are cases where the law does come into play. I am not talking laws so much as moral suasion to give the women the choice, and when she is going to bring the baby to term..get her the proper care. Have you ever heard of etopic pregnancies? They kill women.

[Guaranteed]

153. Don't know WTF you're talking about.

It's nonsense, totally unrelated to what I'm saying.

[applegrove]

158. No. You want to re-set the goal-post for prenatal care. I'm saying that

is not acceptable to me. Prenatal care for babies who will be born is very important.

[Guaranteed]

193. No- this goal-post you're kicking at is a ghost.

The folks in the bleachers are laughing.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

THERE IS NO LEGAL PRECEDENT...INFRINGING ON THE RIGHTS OF A PREGNANT WOMAN TO *NOT* HAVE PRENATAL CARE.

[Guaranteed]

91. You don't have to do that, mods.

I'll take him.

[applegrove]

95. Her!

[Guaranteed]

102. Her. nt

[cynatnite]

42. What about when the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb?

At some point during a pregnancy they can survive outside the womb. Some doctors prefer 30 weeks and I've heard cases of viability as early as 20 even though it is rare.

When a fetus reaches that point and is able to survive outside the womb, would that change?

[applegrove]

In reproductive health you take care of the process. If you are having

a baby you do it properly. If you are not - you do that properly. All involving choice & medical expertise.

[Guaranteed]

59. That's an excellent question.

The answer is that a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy at any time. Certainly, while the fetus is still inside of her, even if it is viable, the fact that she has the right to do what she wants with her body does not change. It also doesn't seem that a doctor could force her to give a premature delivery- again, she can do what she wants with her body. Her rights encompass all of these things.

HOWEVER- the point you raise is an interesting one when it comes to the issue of abortion. When a fetus has reached the point of viability, if a woman wants to have an abortion, what should be done? Since the fetus CAN survive outside the womb, is it ethical for a procedure to be taken that would kill the fetus in removing it? Of course the woman should be able to remove the fetus no matter what, even if there is no other choice but to kill the fetus. However, should the doctor be able to take an elective procedure that would kill the fetus when it is viable, when there are other options? It *is* still in her body- and she has her rights.

I don't even pretend to know the answer to that question. I don't think that there's a right answer.

[applegrove]

63. I am not talking about abortion. I am talking about prenatal health.

Obviously abortion is her choice. Obviously partial birth abortions are horrid and should be illegal in most every case.

I am not argueing abortion.

[cynatnite]

68. What do you know about partial birth abortion? n/t

[applegrove]

70. I don't want to know more. But thanks.

[cynatnite]

77. You should know more...don't be blinded by the RW's use of the term

Partial birth abortion is the wrong name. It was designed to inflame people when in truth even as a legal procedure, it's so rarely done and happens when the mother's life is at risk. In many cases the baby is deformed to the extent that it may not even have a brain stem. That's just one example.

It's used as a wedge issue to inflame people. It's used as a political football and the media does nothing to educate the public.

Please, learn more about this before you dismiss it so easily.

[applegrove]

81. I am fine with saying that if you don't have your act together to make an

important choice within three months.. or 5 if you are terribly mentally challenged..you can wait and give the baby up for adoption. Unless the mother's life is in danger or some other mitigating issue.

I know what I need to know. And I don't need to know more. But thank you.

[cynatnite]

89. Why choose to remain in the dark?

3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are:

The fetus is dead.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.

The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.

The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

[applegrove]

93. All of these fall into the rare case clause I talked about when I

mentioned partial birth abortion. I have enough info. It should be rare.

[cynatnite]

98. It already is rare

No need to regulate or make laws over it. It's also a political term RW anti-choicers came up with. I knew a few doctors who became livid when something so traumatic that happens to a mother and her family that it gets turned into a political wedge issue.

The RW anti-choicers have done a fabulous job of misleading and in many cases outright lying to the public.

The better educated you are about this, the more likely the truth is to get out there.

[applegrove]

101. I'll always stick with rare on this issue.

[cynatnite]

103. Fighting the fight means being educated about the issue...

and not sticking your head in the sand.

[applegrove]

104. I'm not sticking my head in the sand. I am pro choice. I think partial

birth abortion should be rare. I think we agree you & I.

[cynatnite]

107. The term itself is a lie!

That's what I tried to tell you. Why perpetuate that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-birth_abortion

Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is a controversial term used to refer to a specific type of late-term abortion, clinically known as intact dilation and extraction (IDX or Intact D&X). Both the abortion method and the term partial-birth abortion are controversial. Although not a medical term, partial-birth abortion is commonly used in public discussion of the procedure.

Often the debate over partial-birth abortion is over the name for this type of abortion, as well as the procedure itself. Those who support the term's use say it describes a specific type of abortion in a phrasing that better represents what happens during the procedure. Those who do oppose the term's use say that the term is an deceptive political term invented to frame the argument in a way favorable to those in opposition to the procedure.

The procedure was first described by Cincinnati physician W. Martin Haskell, MD, in a monograph that was distributed by the National Abortion Federation in September, 1992 <1>. In this monograph, Dr. Haskell describes the procedure only as "Dilation and Extraction".

The term partial-birth abortion did not appear until several years later. According to a Lexis Nexis search, it was first used on June 4, 1995 <2> in media coverage of pro-life events in support of legislation. It replaced the earlier, more graphic term brain suction abortion, which was used in an Ohio law that banned the procedure but was blocked by the judiciary. The term brain suction abortion was similar to partial-birth abortion, in that it is a political term created by opponents to the procedure — specifically, pro-life activist Janet Folger <3>.

[applegrove]

110. Late term abortion. It is not a joyful thing. It should be rare.

[cynatnite]

114. Anti-choicers use it as a wedge issue and lies about it

It's already rare, but it's one step closer to their goal of banning abortion if they even get to make law on this. It's a term they coined to inflame and mislead the public.

They want the public to have visions of women in the late term of their pregnancies getting abortons.

Don't fall for the lies.

[applegrove]

115. I haven't fallen for their lies. We both only want late-term abortions in

certain cases.

[cynatnite]

117. It's already that way

Anti-choicers will lie and manipulate in order to further their agenda. They want ALL abortion to be illegal and this is one more weapon they use to further their cause.

There should be NO government law or regulation over abortion. It's between a woman and her doctor. Period.

[Guaranteed]

135. What the FUCK gives YOU the right to tell another woman that

she can't remove a fetus from her womb at ANY time?

[applegrove]

148. You are you talking to?

[Guaranteed]

155. You. WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO TELL

a woman what to do with the fetus that is in her womb?

[applegrove]

159. I have no right to tell her to have or not have an abortion. That is

nobody's business. I'm saying society does have a right to say - once she has made the choice to keep the fetus - "okay - now you have to take care of it". You have to be responsible.

What about drug addicts?

[Guaranteed]

185. You have no rights in any of those cases to FORCE a G.D.

THING.

I'm not telling her a damned thing. You are.

[applegrove]

188. Just that people be pressured into seeing a doctor when they plan

on carrying a baby to term. And in severe cases - well they happen don't they.

[LoZoccolo]

160. You are a trip.

You think you can intimidate people across the Internet by posting curse words in all caps.

Look at you!

[Guaranteed]

164. What curse words?

Is that like trying to intimidate people by calling them Freepers?

Or anything near it? :)

Hey- see post #88. Put yourself in my position.

[LoZoccolo]

167. "What the FUCK gives YOU the right to tell another woman that"

Those ones.

I just hit alert when people make those accusations and let the mods deal with it.

[Guaranteed]

169. LOL That's not what you responded to, though.

And the mods are well aware. I told them I'd deal with this problem on my own- like I always do.

;)

Don't need the babysitter.

[applegrove]

I didn't complain. I know we are in the heat of the moment. I chose

to read it in as benign a way as possible.

I am against babies being born with severe disease and without any pressure brought to bear on them to give up drugs & alcohol while they are pregnant. I am against any child being brought into the world (born) without a few blood tests and tests of the mother. Even if she is leading a decrepid lifestyle..vitamins are important. So I am not comfy in your personal fight to keep abortion legal if you make it easier for neglectful people to neglect their babies to be born.

I am pro choice.

[Guaranteed]

171. Forced to have abortions?

Really? Weren't you just saying that you thought women should be forced to have prenatal care?

Now you're saying that you think that they should be forced to have abortions?

I have no idea what you're trying to say, here. There's no consistency.

[applegrove]

173. Where did I say forced to have abortions? The only case for that

would be certain diseases where the child born will be in agony. Even then - I would imagine the abortion would not be forced but the counselling would be very heavy.

[Guaranteed]

182. RIGHT HERE:

"I am against babies being born with severe disease and without any pressure brought to bear on them to give up drugs & alcohol while they are pregnant. I am against any child being brought into the world (born) without a few blood tests and tests of the mother."

That's...uh...forced abortion.

[applegrove]

187. Sorry - no - I meant that prenatal care can stop babies from getting

the diseases. Folic acid if taken while you are trying to conceive stops spina bifida cold, vitamins, genetic counselling if their are genetic issues in your family (which could mean a surrogate parent), alcohol treatment if you have a problem, general health of the mother, etc. All things that reduce the incidence of disease - that is why I am for prenatal care - to reduce disease and LDs. That is what I mean by babies being born with disease. Not that they should be aborted - except in rare cases of that skin disease i mentioned earlier and again that comes through counselling not by force (downs syndrome kids would be up to the choice of the mother - those kids lead very, very happy lives - I honestly think i would have a child like that if a fetus of mine was so diagnosed - but then again my lifestyle is family oriented and quiet).

No absolutely do not believe in abortion for kids with issues. Would not be my choice - though you never know until you get there.

[applegrove]

165. I am not on a trip. The bold letters came after someone threatened me.

It got a little heated. We are talking at cross purposes.

[Guaranteed]

166. Not sure what...anyway...when you called me a freeper, what provoked

that?

[applegrove]

170. I can well understand. I was wrong. I just saw you moving my world

- a world all women carrying babies to term must go and get treatment for themselves & their unborn children. You are going on your fears about the nuts taking women's choice away. It gets heated. We both zone in on our particular issue - eh?

[Guaranteed]

172. No. Talk to NSMA and Kathy in Cambridge and Misunderestimator.

I'm on their side.

It's not my issue, though.

I DO kick ass, though, don't I? ;)

But start talking about flag-burning amendments and I'll get really angry.

[applegrove]

174. I don't know them. But I would say you could be sensitive when coming up

with new positions or policy alternatives & the effect & side-effects it will have on current policy (on some other issue). When we get angry or afraid - we do get tunnel vision.

[Guaranteed]

177. I was quite civil up to the point where you called me a Freeper.

After that, I think I'll continue to be hostile until I get a serious, sincere, heartfelt apology.

[applegrove]

180. I appologized above. If I do it again will you consider it heartfelt this

time? I apologize for calling you a freeper.

[Guaranteed]

183. Fair enough. nt

[Guaranteed]

119. That doesn't make shit worth of sense.

You think she should be able to terminate the pregnancy, but, when it comes to quality of the pregnancy, THEN you're concerned?

What in the hell is your justification for that?

[applegrove]

151. Current reality! You want to make things black & white. They are not

now..nor have they ever been.

[Guaranteed]

156. You're not even consistent! That's all I was asking for

on that one. Shit.

You can't even pull that off.

At six months, if a woman says she wants to carry the fetus to term, but also wants to smoke, you'd say that carrying to term is her right, but the smoking is NOT?

[applegrove]

161. I would ask that her doctor scold her. Smoking is not the worst. Not

seeing a doctor or going for blood tests would be much worse in my mind. Or abusing drugs or alcohol.

I would ask that if she was scolded or reported and she was so addicted to alcohol that she binged every night.. I would hope that authorities would not slap her on the back and say: "it is your right to give this baby fetal alcohol syndrome". I would ask that social workers visit and get heavy on her.

[Guaranteed]

175. My sister almost DIED because my mother smoked during the

pregnancy. She was born 7 1/2 weeks early, severly underweight, and FEET FIRST.

She ended up totally fine. And I harbor no resentment toward my mother.

But now you're saying smoking isn't SO BAD? After all this?

And I'M THE ONE DEFENDING??

[applegrove]

176. Smoking is bad. Low birth weight. But alcohol binging is even worse.

Sorry. Nobody should smoke when they are pregnant.

[cynatnite]

66. There are a lot of complicated issues to this

It boils down for many people when life begins and when a fetus can be considered an independent person without having to rely on the mother's body.

Personally, I don't believe abortion should happen after the first trimester, but I can't view that as being law.

It also seems to me that if a fetus is able to live outside the womb, then its rights come closer to being equal to the mother.

This is all just a personal belief for me and not something I would expect everyone to feel the same. I've had an abortion and I've witnessed and assisted in plenty of deliveries.

It is so complicated and unclear that I honestly can't see how the government can expect to regulate it. I hope they never do. This is where it stays between the woman and her doctor.

[applegrove]

73. I'm with you on much of that. Though i have no personal experience.

[Guaranteed]

82. My approach takes all of that into account.

And that's the beauty of it.

Whether a fetus is a person or not- up until the day before, or even the day of delivery- it makes no difference.

The woman's rights do not change in lieu of the fetus' personhood. She can decide to discontinue allowing it to live inside of her at any time. It's her right, because it's HER BODY.

[applegrove]

84. I don't agree with you. I'm not a black & white person.

[Guaranteed]

87. How about this:

If a woman has a baby- a six-month-old baby, let's say- and it gets sick, and the only way it can live is for her to be hooked up medically via tubes to it for nine months, can the government FORCE the woman to hook herself up to it for that amount of time?

Or ANY amount of time?

Is that a "black and white" thing? Or does that just make what a pregnant woman is doing a little bit clearer?

[applegrove]

94. It is not clear at all. You are jumping on prenatal health and erasing it

as something not important. You lost me there bud!

[Guaranteed]

106. No, I didn't say it wasn't important.

The example shows pretty clearly what a woman's rights are.

Again, we're talking about rights, not what's "important." We're talking about what people (women, specifically), have the RIGHT to do, or even NOT to do.

Your response shows fairly clearly that you STILL are not understanding what is going on, here.

Do you know what a "right" is?

[applegrove]

112. You do not have a right to neglect your baby if you are carrying it to

term. Both mother and baby need extra health care. In fact - before you conceive..if possible..you should go in and be tested for folic acid deficiency. Before you conceive. If you are planning a baby, before that baby is a zygote, you should have prenatal care & tests. And god knows.. at some juncture, or today, in the future genetic counselling if it applies. These should be norms.

[Guaranteed]

123. She can change her mind the next freaking day. IT'S HER RIGHT.

You can't tell her that she can't.

In fact, I'd like to see you try. It'd be a fucking JOKE. Or- you know what? No it wouldn't. It wouldn't be funny at ALL. Women with coathangers. That's what that would be. Not EVEN a fucking joke. It would be disgusting as hell. You're WRONG on that- MORALLY.

Similarly, you can't force her to do anything with her body as far as her health when she is pregnant. What are you going to do next, tell her she has to eat certain foods, too? SCREW that.

You don't even know what you're getting into. That's why there are pro-choice people around, to keep the anti-choice people from fucking everything up.

[Ilsa]

86. I've heard 23 is the earliest to survive, but outcome wasn't all that

good with severe disabilities (CP).

[Swamp Rat]

46. Nope. That's the "Ignoring a Common Cause" Fallacy.

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one thing causes another simply because they are regularly associated. More formally, this fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are regularly connected. Further, the causal conclusion is drawn without considering the possibility that a third factor might be the cause of both A and B.

[applegrove]

49. Neglect is neglect. When CAS takes a child away from parents..

A may not have caused B. It could be C. But that child is still neglected and if the child is not taken away..and intervention of some sort takes place.

[Swamp Rat]

61. OK, but that's another Fallacy of Equivocation.

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiments. I'm just practicing my (novice) skills in logic. :) :hi:

[applegrove]

64. Neglect is a thing. It exists. It needs to be legislated against.

[Swamp Rat]

76. Some may argue against the assertion that "neglect is a thing,"

unless the meaning is broadened to encompass "construct." It could, perhaps, pose as the opposite or antithesis of tangible a "thing."

Legislation already exists to prevent neglect, i.e. housing/buildings/real estate, so it is possible that additional legislation to prevent neglect, as it relates to human health, could be enacted. As you already can see, though, it may be very hard to convince others to curtail their civil rights - some folks might consider their health (and fetus) their own business.

[applegrove]

79. Like I said - we don't have to celebrate neglect. Prenatal or not. It

is a bad thing and the children will suffer for it.

[Guaranteed]

133. I'd argue that neglect is either a right, or nonsensical, when

applied to a fetus living within its mother's womb.

Neglect implies that the being who is being "neglected" has supreme rights compared to some other being that is responsible FOR that being's rights.

That is not the case, here. The mother's rights are SUPREME to the fetus' rights. The mother's rights TRUMP the fetus', because it's her body. The fetus is entirely a guest WITHIN her rights.

[Cats Against Frist]

168. Hi.

I'm not saying that I disagree with you -- but I was wondering where you came up with your assuredness that a woman's rights are supreme to a fetus' right, or that the mother's rights trump the rights of the fetus.

Again, I'm not saying that I disagree -- only that I think that it's important, in this conversation to realize that no matter how many CAPITAL LETTERS you use -- everything is an arbitrary construct.

[Guaranteed]

186. It's not arbitrary at all. The woman's womb was there first.

The WOMAN was there first. The fetus then came in and implanted in the womb and said, metaphorically, "I'm going to live and grow off of YOU, entirely."

It's the woman's freaking womb, and her body. She can do whatever she wants. She doesn't have to "give tenancy" to her womb to a fetus. It's hers- it's HER.

Throughout the entire pregnancy. Nothing changes anything, especially as far as the gub-ment is concerned. The gub-ment can't tell her SHIT as far as what to do.

[Ilsa]

38. Sorry applegrove, but you are simply wrong about requiring

a doctor in every circumstance for prenatal care. I know plenty of women that see midwives and nurse-midwives for prenatal care and delivery, usually at home. They have healthy deliveries without excessive medical intervention or if it is needed, they are taken for medical care if the delivery is breach. The nurse midwives do all the same stuff in assessing avaluating the patient and answering questions, drawing blood, etc. In fact, they do more teaching about diet, taking care of baby, breastfeeding, delivery, etc than is possible in a doctor's office with requirements to see 100 patients a day.

[applegrove]

43. Okay - nurse practicioner. Blood tests. That is all I ask.

[Ilsa]

55. The midwives and nurse-midwives do blood tests and more.

And a nurse practitioner may not be a certified midwife and may not have attended many births. In Texas for example, you have to attend a minimum of 100 births with another licensed midwife to get certified. If I was in labor and only a Family Nurse Practitioner and a nurse midwife were available, I'd pick the nurse midwife.

[applegrove]

57. Perfectly acceptable if they are following known science & health issues.

[cynatnite]

48. I knew some midwives and nurses who did home delivery

The care beforehand is strict and the mother has to meet low risk requirements. They do spend a lot of extra time with the mom that doesn't happen in a hospital.

I wouldn't have minded home deliveries with my kids if it had been possible.

[applegrove]

56. Exactly. Because it is a matter of health for both mother & baby.

[Fleshdancer]

141. bad things happen to a fetus with or without a doctor involved

Like I said earlier, I don't know of any pregnant woman who would outright refuse prenatal care when available, but the notion that not going to a doctor automatically equals endangering the baby is a little overboard in my opinion.

Monthly check-ups, blood tests and sonograms haven't exactly been around for ages and in many places in the world, prenatal care just isn't available...yet the human race is over 6 billion. As it stands, proper prenatal care is a privilege for those who can afford it. I would prefer to make it available to all women in the world first and after that, perhaps we can discuss the idea of forcing women to do something they would most likely do anyway.

[applegrove]

163. Yes but don't you think there should be care at least twice during a

pregnancy? As opposed to nothing? Etopic pregnancies kill women. Many illnesses in the mother hurt the baby.

[cynatnite]

29. Yes...I mean...No....I don't know.

I'm really torn on this. A part of me says 'yes' because the baby doesn't have a say in the matter. The other part says a woman should have control over her own body and not have the state force itself on her. It's something I will have to spend some time thinking about.

When I was in the Army I went with some friends to a party. One of the women there was probably 7-8 months pregnant. She was downing JD straight from the bottle constantly. It made me sick to watch what she was doing to that baby she carried.

Complicated issue for me.

[Guaranteed]

31. I know exactly what you're saying.

A couple of months ago I watched a pregnant woman smoke a few cigarettes at a party for 1-year-old triplets. It was disgusting.

But, for me, I have to go with the rights of the woman. It's just her right. It's fucked up, and it's a serious hit on rights themselves that we have to allow that, but we do. The fetus is dependent on her body- but she has the right to do what she wants with her body.

I see it like the woman is doing the fetus a favor in allowing it to grow inside of her. Yes, she has a certain amount of responsibility (along with the father) for bringing the child into the world, but that doesn't change her rights. Even if she had PLANNED on the pregnancy, it doesn't overturn her right to terminate it. It's like if you allowed someone to live in your house (but stronger because it's bodily). You're doing them a favor. They can't keep you from doing the things that you want to do. (Children, yeah, yeah, it's different.)

However, with things like smoking, *I* reserve the right to pass judgment. I didn't know the woman I saw smoking at that party, or I would have said something. Maybe I should have anyway.

That's not to say that I judge those who have abortions, because I don't. I *do* think it's important for a woman to weigh all of her options before she has one, but, again, it's her right to do whatever she needs to do, and I expect that most women do weigh their options.

[delen]

45. Some medical insurance

companies code* pregnant women who smoke as having "mental problems"
I'm an LPN and I've seen the memos to providers instructing them to do this.


* refers to ICD-9 codes used by all insurance companies.

[cynatnite]

51. Wow, I didn't know that

Do the insurance companies require the women to be counseled or something?

[delen]

53. No

I'm not quite sure what the deal is about except that I've heard(medical rumor) that one of the companies requiring this is also considering refusing to pay for any smoking related health problems in the next 5-10 years, this includes second hand smoke.

[proud2BlibKansan]

143. Smoking cigarettes while pregnant

and drinking are two completely different things.

It's pretty hypocritical of you to say that a woman is doing the fetus a favor in allowing it to grow inside of her, yet you are passing judgment on a smoking pregnant woman. If you had said anything to me, I would have told you to mind your own business.

[Guaranteed]

162. I see what you're saying there,

but my sister, back in '67, was born 8 weeks pre-mature, feet-first, because my mother smoked.

Look- again, it's the mother's right to do whatever she likes with her body. And I can understand that she could have reasons for having an abortion. That's where the not passing judgment thing comes in for having an abortion. Actually HAVING a child is a HUGE, HUGE responsibility. IT...IS...A...LOT...OF...PRESSURE...That I can only imagine. Abortion should NEVER be judged.

HOWEVER.

There is no GOOD reason to be smoking. OR drinking. There's no excuse.

There's no hypocrisy, because there's no good reason to do either.

Similarly, it's every woman's right to NOT have prenatal care. I don't AGREE with that, at all, but there are some LIMITED reasons that that would be difficult for the woman to do. I don't even have to evaluate them- if it doesn't happen, I can assume the woman has sufficient reason. I've even seen it. I understand.

But there is no sufficient reason for smoking or drinking- WHILE IT FALLS WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO DO SO. And I will pass judgment if they do. Even my own mother- although she claims that back in the 60's they just "didn't know."

[Ilsa]

33. I have friends that have healthier births without doctors'

involvement. Healthy 9-10 lb babies, ready to come into the world and take it on!

[cynatnite]

39. Will never be acceptable in my eyes

After the 2003 war that toppled Saddam Hussain, the number of women who gave birth at home shot up to about two-thirds.

Of those, 80 per cent had nobody with any formal training present at the birth. Far from lifesaving emergency care, many mothers died from preventable complications.

Today, nobody knows exactly how many mothers are dying in Iraq.

Violence has prevented medical experts from measuring the maternal mortality rate since late 2003, when the number of Iraqi women who died from childbirth climbed to 370 per 100,000 — triple its 1990 rates and 31 times the US rate of 12.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/FeaturesNF.asp?ArticleID=173984

on edit: If the choice and the ability is there I do think women should get the care...but I honestly don't like the state forcing itself in such a way. I keep in mind all the women who want the care, but can't have it. Too many women die because of the lack of it.

[Ilsa]

"80 per cent had nobody with any formal training present at the

birth" Well duh! Midwives are trained to provide prenatal care and deliver babies. If these women had access to good diet and education about their pregnancies and help from midwives, that would make a huge difference! They were looking for midwives to go to Afghanistan a couple of years ago, BTW, not just doctors.

[seabeyond]

34. i think they should, but i have to be consistant and say, no law

[JimmyJazz]

37. Yes - once a person decides to continue a pregnancy, they

owe it to themselves and to their child to have prenatal care. If they didn't, how would they know if the fetus had a condition that could be treated in the womb, but would be fatal outside of the womb. How would they know if the child they were carrying wasn't developing from the waist down or wasn't developing a brain and should perhaps be aborted? How would they know about gestational diabetes?

I could go on and on and on, but clearly, once a woman determines she is carrying a pregnancy to term, it is within her baby's and her own best interest to seek prenatal care.

[electron_blue]

44. Yes, it's in her and baby's best interest, but it shouldn't be legislated

Think about the goal - a healthy mom & baby. What is the best way to achieve it? Not to threaten the mom with legal action, fines, protection services and jail.

No, the best way to maximize the number of women who get adequate prenatal care is to offer it free and without judgment. No health insurance needed for prenatal vitamins and the basic checkups.

Which one do you think Americans will choose? Americans, by and large, hate the idea of others getting a "free ride", don't they? They will likely settle on either penalizing moms who don't get the care, or ignoring the problem (our current answer).

[JimmyJazz]

52. I think that if you are pregnant and don't seek prenatal care and

something happens to your baby as a result, you should be held legally accountable. After all, isn't that our beef with some of these fundie wackos? That they don't provide medical care for their children based on their religion and children die needlessly as a result?

[electron_blue]

65. No, that may be your beef, but it is not "our" beef

Please don't lump us altogether. I have entirely different beefs with the fundies.

By and large, if you look at women who are not getting prenatal care, they are poor. It's not the wealthy women who are skipping this. We need free and generous prenatal care, not threats and penalties.

Don't forget - most babies are born just fine and healthy even without doctor visits. Women's bodies are very good at carrying and delivering babies, even without doctors. I am not suggesting that all pregnant women boycott doctors, but that legislating doctor visits is just another attempt to legislate women's bodies.

I don't see how a person can be in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade in place, yet want to legislate prenatal visits.

[JimmyJazz]

75. My fault. I'm not talking about women who aren't seeking pre-natal

care because they can't afford it. I'm a socialist who believes in national healthcare. I'm talking about people who have it available and choose not to have it.

And, while many babies are born fine without it, I can testify that many survive ONLY as a result of proper pre-natal care. I've got two girls right now only because I received proper care. Otherwise, I might be writing about two still born babies.

Look, even a simple thing like elevated blood pressure or gestational diabetes can severely complicate a pregnancy. Why not know it's happening and get the necessary treatment? Why unnecessarily risk the life of the mother and child over something so simple?

Many, many babies are born without the aide of a doctor or without prenatal care, but it doesn't have to be that way and it shouldn't be that way.

You are going to have a really tough time selling me on this one because, but for prenatal care, my daughter would not be alive today. So maybe we should just agree to disagree and call it a night.

[U4ikLefty]

67. Would you charge them with a felony?

How long shall we imprison them?

[JimmyJazz]

80. Being accountable for ones actions doesn't necessarily mean

imprisoning them. But, thanks for putting words in my mouth - my vocabulary wasn't quite so extensive until just now.

[U4ikLefty]

97. Stop being ridiculous...you said "you should be held legally accountable"

if a a mother does not seek prenatal care & "something happens" as a result.

These were your words...don't pull this BS about "putting words in your mouth." If you talk about being held "legally accountable" we are usually talking about imprisonment.

...no wait, maybe you meant the courts should garnish their wages...LOL!!!

[JimmyJazz]

134. oooh - thanks for the witty response....

:boring: Oops, I'm sorry. What was the question?

Garnishing wages - yeah that's exactly what I had in mind. Gee, who knew DU had a mind reader on board.

TTFN. :hi:

on edit: I won't stop being ridiculous. It's my job. I'm good at it. Get over it.

[U4ikLefty]

146. More silly posturing I see. Again YOU said "legally accountable"

If you can't back up your statements don't get mad at me.

BTW, I can see from your last postutring post that your're INDEED continuing to be ridiculous. Also, I was never "on it" so I don't need to "get over it."

Have a nice authoritarian day!!!

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lildreamer316]

62. WHICH is exactly what happened to me.

Didn't know I was pregnant unti 5 months along. As soon as I realized I was gonna be a mommy and we had NO money; I took my ass to medicaid. Thank god for medicaid; took care of ALL my premeds and appointments and of course the labor and delivery. Hospital treated me wonderfully and found me a great pediatrician. Got WIC and everything until we got on our feet and then I VOLUNTARILY went off the program. Can't say enough about my stint on the government welfare program. If I hadn't had it we would have been up a creek.

[seabeyond]

47. this is bogus. poll for taking parenting class yes.....prenatal no

take a parenting class on how to care, and raise? a child, like i would like to see who's blueprint we use on raising? a child, yet something like hte health of baby and mother the poll is showing a no

i said no to both

but find this a bet, hm,.....what exactly

[Crunchy Frog]

58. From whom?

What if the woman wants to get her care from a midwife or some other alternative practitioner? Who gets to make the decision for her as to what type of care is or is not acceptable?

I think prenatal care should be accessable for all pregnant women, not required though. There's too much potential for coercion and abuse.

[Pithlet]

60. No

I think anyone who has access to prenatal care has an absolute responsibility to get it. But I can't support forcing someone to to do so.

[pinto]

72. I think all pregnant women should have access and info about prenatal care

no charge, no questions asked. It's an investment in our future.

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

85. it shouldn't be forced on someone

Seems like it would open the door to forcing mandatory treatment or medical care for anything else. Prenatal care should always be encouraged, of course, just not made mandatory/compulsory.

[miss_kitty]

99. How about a good solid education from a young age

that would cause most people to want prenatal care, because it is the smart thing to do?

How about a healthcare system strong enough to support that well-educated desire?

Parents' rights begin when they are children, not won the night the condom breaks or they forgot to take the pill or were too drunk to fuck, but did it anyway.

The trouble is, they aren't afforded those rights in this country when they are children. Because we can't afford it.

We are spending the money we could be using for education, K thru College and the best healthcare system in the world on the military, the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism and the war on drugs, as well as on prisons, pork, tax refunds to the most wealthy, crisis management and stopgap measures.

And until this way of doing things is changed, arguments like this will break out in chatrooms on the internet all the time.

[Lars39]

116. Best answer!

You summed up my answer perfectly. :)

[cynatnite]

118. Very well said!

Makes one wonder what sort of country we would have if this was done and common sense ruled rather than a 2000 year old book.

[proud2BlibKansan]

120. This is not about Mom's civil rights

It's about what is best for the baby.

And I wonder who here is willing to speak for the baby's civil rights?

[Kazak]

130. Yes, what exactly is best for the baby?

In medical institutions, mothers are likely to be forced or coerced to give birth in stirrups, rather than in whatever position she is comfortable with. Women are far more likely to be induced in a hospital, thereby increasing the need for a c-section. C-section rates are artificially increase in other ways too. Until recently, episiotomies were often routinely and unnecessarily given. Babies are often separated from their mothers soon after birth. What really is best for the baby anyway?

[proud2BlibKansan]

132. Prenatal care is what is best for the baby

Isn't that the subject of this thread?

[Kazak]

136. Yes, let's bounce some sonar rays off of our fetus...

because we just HAVE to know what it's gender is.

Yes, women who feel confident that they know what their shared bodies need nutritionally should be aloud to go it alone if they feel the need to. Other women should have alternative options, like midwifery available. The meme that medical attention must be administered is just that. Payola for doctors and healthcare administrations. Bah!

[proud2BlibKansan]

142. Who said anything about sonar rays?

:shrug:

[Guaranteed]

138. No more rights for the woman?

No. I don't think so.

Her thinking that she will have the baby doesn't change her ability to not have it, or do WHATEVER she likes with her body in the meantime (other than, legally, taking illegal drugs- duh).

[proud2BlibKansan]

145. Then she should be able to smoke cigarettes

without anyone passing judgment on her.

I know far too many women who have smoked while pregnant and had perfectly normal and very healthy babies.

[Guaranteed]

189. Yes, legally. NOT without judgment, though.

Because your "friends" that smoke are well within the medical exceptions to the rule, WHILE there is no REASON TO BE SMOKING. WHATSOEVER.

The legality stays, the judgment- sorry, but that will NEVER change. Smoking, drinking, doing ANY kinds of drugs during pregnancy- fucked up beyond belief. And unexcusable. Period.

But within her rights (other than the "illegal").

[Guaranteed]

137. That's another thread. This is prenatal. nt

[Kazak]

122. Women have been giving birth for, well, forever as far as we're concerned.

Pregnancy is not a sickness nor a disease. Why would it require medical attention? Sounds like you're talking about bigtime payoff to corporate interest to me... :crazy:

[cynatnite]

126. Pregnancy and birth can also be very dangerous

Mother and infant are at risk from a variety of factors even at their healthiest.

Check out what happens in this day in age when there is no health care for pregnant women in Iraq:

After the 2003 war that toppled Saddam Hussain, the number of women who gave birth at home shot up to about two-thirds.

Of those, 80 per cent had nobody with any formal training present at the birth. Far from lifesaving emergency care, many mothers died from preventable complications.

Today, nobody knows exactly how many mothers are dying in Iraq.

Violence has prevented medical experts from measuring the maternal mortality rate since late 2003, when the number of Iraqi women who died from childbirth climbed to 370 per 100,000 — triple its 1990 rates and 31 times the US rate of 12.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/FeaturesNF.asp?ArticleID=173984

[LeftyMom]

184. How does that relate

to American mothers?

Obviously giving birth in a warzone is dangerous- I don't see how that means that a woman like myself, eating a healthy diet, educated about birth and babies, with speedy access to medical care should it be needed shouldn't or can't make the educated decision to choose self-care.

[cynatnite]

192. To show what happens when pregnent women have no medical care

These women in the article weren't in the middle of a warzone. They have no access to decent medical care and it has cost lives. Give them a choice and you'll find most mothers CHOOSE to have medical care.

[In_The_Wind]

127. absolutely not

It would violate their individual rights to make an informed decision for themselves.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. Can we start with "funded", and go from there?

For lots of people, decent medical care isn't even an option.

[cubschicago]

179. ... Gotta pay the time

[Sgent]

190. A couple of thoughts on this issue

Funding -- Most (all?) states fully fund prenatal care for those eligible for Medicaid. Medicaid eligibility by federal law is required for pregnent women. So while its possible that a woman couldn't find a physician to accept Medicaid, this to me is suspicious -- in most cases they are eligible or have enough money to pay for the care.

Prenatal care can involve a wide ranging set of medical decisions -- from evaluation of the danger of the pregnancy to ultrasounds, vitamin recommendations and more advanced techniques. Any qualified person should be able to perform the care -- MD's, Certified Nurse-Midwifes, and Midwifes with appropriate training.

Until/Unless Medicaid and insurance cover elective abortions at the same rate as a pregnancy, there should be no legal liability attached to mom. If/when that happens, mom should face the same liability for treatment of baby in the womb as treatment after the baby is born. Neglect has consequences.

This would not mean that every parent who didn't seek prenatal care would be charged, but I would think that those who didn't seek it and had a sick baby because of it could be in trouble.

[Guaranteed]

191. "Medicaid Determines Liability." Helluva precedent.

No.

No, this isn't nearly as much of an economic issue as it is a civil liberties issue. As a civil liberties issue, those liberties, as far as pregnancy is concerned, are not infringed upon by the availability of funds to support medical care. That would be a pretty serious infringement on her choice, in general.

[Sgent]

194. One of us is misreading the other I think

I wasn't entirely sure what you were getting at, as lack of funding would provide immunity to the woman from prosecution.

Assuming funds are available for an abortion, I am advocating a fairly controversial issue -- that women should be responsible for their behavior while pregnant.

Although I agree with the civil rights issue to some extent, that stops when she is infringing on her child's rights. So if a child is born with asmthma, with a low birth weight leading to complications, with a correctable heart defect, or with fetal alcohol syndrome, then IMHO, the mother has negleted her pregnancy, and the child. Whatever reprocussions come from that, so be it.

That being said, like all DHS programs I would doubt that this would result in immediate removal or prosecution. Unless the neglect is particularly henious or destructive, DHS usually requries parenting classes for parents who are neglectful. If it becomes a chronic problem, or if the mother failes to change her ways, then penalties can escalate.

[The Magistrate]

195. Locking

This has become a terminal flame-war.