Late term abortion and women's health

[gaspee]

I'm enraged that women will face death in the future, rather than having all medical options available to them to save their lives.

This ban on late term abortions is propaganda, pure and simple. Instead of being enraged, I have two suggestions.

Women, don't have children. This is, obviously, not practical for everyone. It's what I'm chosing, however. I'd recently been revisiting my decision to remain childfree. At 37, I know I'd face a high risk pregnancy. Since all medical options to save my life in the event of an emergency are not available, I will remain child free.

Second option. A fund to get women who need this procedure to save their lives to Canada for treatment. Since the number of late term abortions performed in the US is actually extremely low, a fund can probably be established through individual small donations. The problem with this is that in cases of pre-eclampsia where life versus death for the mother could mean minutes, this will be impractical.

How much is the life of a woman worth? Obviously less than the life of a fetus, according to congress and the supreme court.

A third option would be to elect congresspeople and senators who don't think a woman is only a womb.

[iamjoy]

1. I Too Am Outraged

I hope no woman's health suffers (becomes ill or worse) from not being able to have this procedure. Since that seems unlikely, I am left hoping that if any woman suffers as a result of this ban/decision it is the ones who voted for Dubya.

[Bjornsdotter]

2. Jane

...I would not be at all surprised to see it come back strong.

I would contribute to a fund that would send women to Canada for treatment....the question is would Canada accept them.

Cheers

[ingac70]

3. Part of the reason this has happened....

is that "pro-life" advocates have been allowed to get away with the LIE that late term abortions are no different than first trimester abortions.
They ignore the facts that a perfectly healthy woman that has a healthy pregnancy cannot up and decide she no longer wants to be a mother in her ninth month and get an abortion.
The medical facts behind second and third trimester abortions have been over looked to further an agenda.

[femrap]

4. Thank you!

Women who have to go thru these late term abortions have fetuses that are terribly illand/or deformed. And some of the fetuses have no heartbeat.

I swear I feel like I am in a nightmare....male lawyers are now providing medical advice to pregnant women. Un-fucking-believable.

Does a woman have to die to get this reversed? Can the bereaved family members sue the 5 assholes who decided her fate?

And don't get me started on the Dems who allowed Johnny Bob 'Taliban' Roberts and 'I-lie-too' on the bench.

[bliss_eternal]

5. Why bother voting...?

...the powers that be in this country, don't care what I think. My opinion of my rights and body don't matter for shit.

:cry::cry::cry:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. That is foolish, I think.

To be blunt, what you personally think doesn't, and shouldn't, matter that much - your value is round about 1/200,000,000, that being roughly the size of the American electorate (I think - it may be wrong). There *isn't* that much point in voting - the odds of yours (or mine, of course) being the vote that tips the scales are negligable.

However, if as I think you're implying that the "partial birth abortion" ban makes you less, not more, enthusiastic about voting, then I think you're being foolish - this is a classic example of a substantive issue where one party will support your rights and the other won't.

The reason you've just lost the right to whatever a "partial birth abortion" is is that the wrong party are in power, not that no-one contending for power supports them.

[bliss_eternal]

8. You're entitled to your opinion...

...but personally, I think it's rude to call others foolish. I was upset and venting my honest feelings and I'm entitled to do so. I thought I was safe to do so here.

Given that you felt it necessary to hang labels on my thoughts...

Thank you for not betraying your gender, and telling me how I "should think or feel" about this. :eyes: How very male of you.
Address me again in such a disrepectful and insensitive manner and you're going on ignore. Consider yourself warned.

[omega minimo]

11. a crank who only comes here to criticize and cause trouble

adding nothing to the discussion -- ever -- with no apparent interest in women's issues other than to malign, who should be banned.

:thumbsdown:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. I note that you include a lot of personal attacks, but no attempt to rebut my argument.

And I would love to see you even try and put together a coherent argument for any of your personal attacks, rather than just asserting them.

I won't bother alerting, because I don't think you're worth it, but I'm reasonably confident this post is violating at least two DU rules.

[omega minimo]

14. If you can show one post of yours that is not derogatory, that expresses support or genuine reason

for your presence in this forum, I will reconsider my impression of your "contributions." Show us whether you are "worth it."

I was one that was willing to engage with you in this forum and on another issue, after others had given up because of your consistent behavior. But you gave me the "piss off" as well some time back.

So no, I will not rebut or attempt discussion with those who make it impossible to discuss reasonably. Especially in this forum where ideas are welcome but detractors are not.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. I have never, and would never, told you or anyone else to "piss off".

No matter how tempting you may sometimes make it. But while I am regularly extremely critical of the positions other people adopt, I very seldom slip as far as personal attacks, and I do not resort to profanity, even in extremis.

I don't bother to post agreement, in general - if someone else has already said something worth saying, I don't bother saying it again or slapping them on the back.

However, looking at my posts in this subforum in the most recently-modified threads, in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=3921&mesg_id=3921 someone else agreed with me (and I also broke my rule about not chiming in, for once). Likewise at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x6696#6701, although in that case the people agreeing with me were ones whom you probably also categorise as "disruptors" (i.e. people who don't agree with you), and at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=6764&mesg_id=6764

Aha, got one. At http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=6764&mesg_id=6764 I posted to highlight a subsection of something someone else said that I thought deserved to be given more attention.

If you do measure the value of a contribution by the willingness to walk in lockstep - which strikes me as a foolish way of doing so; the most valuable posts will be the ones saying things no-one else is saying (although the reverse is not true; they're only a subset of those) - then it's clear that there are non-trivial numbers of other people who agree with me.

But in general, most of my posts on this subforum, and on the internet in general, are when someone has said something I disagree with.

How do you define a "detractor"? My suspicion is that your contention that "ideas are welcome but detractors are not" is a mistatement of the purpose of this subforum as viewed by the moderators, but I'd need to know what you meant by a "detractor" to be certain.


"I will not rebut or attempt discussion with those who make it impossible to discuss reasonably." Wonderful. I'm very happy for you. I, however, don't make it impossible - I set out my positions, and explain carefully why I think they are the correct ones. That makes it very easy indeed to discuss reasonably.

[omega minimo]

16. Aw, sure ya do. "A human being only second"

and still didn't provide a single post -- although you linked threads -- "that is not derogatory, that expresses support or genuine reason for your presence in this forum."

Your continued snideness and misrepresentations reinforce the existing impression.

"....although in that case the people agreeing with me were ones whom you probably also categorise as "disruptors" (i.e. people who don't agree with you)" ... "If you do measure the value of a contribution by the willingness to walk in lockstep...."

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

If you're confused about the meanings of "derogatory" or "detractor," get a dictionary.

"I, however, don't make it impossible - I set out my positions, and explain carefully why I think they are the correct ones. That makes it very easy indeed to discuss reasonably."

No it doesn't-- because you don't "carefully" refrain from throwing in snide comments that -- yes -- are frequently VERY personal. Take a look at the top of this subthread, if you are still CONFUSED about it.

Donald Ian Rankin (1000+ posts)  Thu Apr-19-07 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. That is foolish, I think.

"To be blunt, what you personally think doesn't, and shouldn't, matter that much"

......."then I think you're being foolish........"

And consider this-- you create your own "walk in lockstep" subset on DU-- those who "agree" with you and those who put up with your attitude.

The rest you may not directly tell to "piss off," but they do anyway.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. No, there's nothing personal about either of those.

You've carefully removed the first one from context - it was very clear that my point was that what *any* one person thinks shouldn't matter that much. A point applied equally to every member of an electorate cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be termed "personal". Was this a deliberate attempt to misrepresent, or just carelessness?

"You are foolish" is a personal attack. "You are being foolish" is rude, I freely admit, but it is not a personal attack.

I know exactly what a "detractor" is - it's one who detracts *from something*. Everyone detracts from certain things, but I presume you're not suggesting that no-one is welcome here, and that there is a specific thing or set of things that you think detractors from are not welcome. I want to know what that thing is.

There is, incidentally, no subset of posters with whom I "walk in lockstep". There are, inevitably, some people who agree with me about any given issue; when such people post on a subject I generally refrain from doing so. There is not, however, anyone with the property that I am more likely to agree with something if they say it than if it comes from a source I don't recognise.

I assumed you were capable of looking through a thread and finding the post by me in it; if you're not then the relevant posts include http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=3921&mesg_id=6133
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x6696#6700
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=6764&mesg_id=6794
(all of which other people went on to agree with)

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=229&topic_id=5819&mesg_id=6060

Which agreed with someone else.

I maintain that that is a foolish measure of contribution, though - if your criterion was "posts that make a substantive contribution to the discussion of a subject" then nearly all my posts in this subforum would qualify (this thread being a noticeable exception).

[omega minimo]

18. bliss_eternal and others thought otherwise.........

You're entitled to your opinion...
Posted by bliss_eternal
...but personally, I think it's rude to call others foolish. I was upset and venting my honest feelings and I'm entitled to do so. I thought I was safe to do so here.
Given that you felt it necessary to hang labels on my thoughts...
Thank you for not betraying your gender, and telling me how I "should think or feel" about this. How very male of you.
Address me again in such a disrepectful and insensitive manner and you're going on ignore. Consider yourself warned.



Note that she said "I thought it was safe to do so here" --- Good god esp. given the OP topic!!!!!! We are not looking for "lockstep" or an "echo chamber" and those sorts of accusations just come off as added hositility.

The "context" doesn't alter the effect your attitude has. I didn't "carefully remove" it -- I quoted what you said for your benefit, it you are interested in becoming less derogatory.

Whatever you think you intend, the effect ends up the same:

"...you create your own "walk in lockstep" subset on DU-- those who "agree" with you and those who put up with your attitude. The rest you may not directly tell to "piss off," but they do anyway."

[mrreowwr_kittty]

7. The murderous audacity of forced birthers

Women will die from this and the blood will be on their hands. Upholding a law that does not allow a procedure to spare the health of a woman also endangers her life. It's not like there are discrete categories of "this threatens the woman's life" and "this only threatens her health" in a precarious pregnancy situation. That's why medical organizations vehemently opposed the ban. Who the FUCK are those Justices to dictate what doctors can do for their patients? Who the FUCK gave them a medical license? Where the FUCK did Kennedy get off declaring that "other safe options exist" and "we can't give abortion doctors unfettered freedom"? (What is an abortion doctor, anyway? Never heard of that specialty. They're called OB-Gyns, numbnuts.)

[One_Life_To_Give]

9. What alternatives were listed to the court or possible?

The way the decision is worded it appears somebody briefed the court that there were alternatives?

Would this particular proceedure actually be used for pre-eclampsia? What would be the difference in that case from either a C-Section or inducing labor?

It may be only a work around. But I would think you could just call for a medically necessary early delivery. Could site both the mother and fetus health as reasons. If the child doesn't survive then result would be the same?

Maybe I am mistaken but I think the outcome from this might be many more severely dissabled babies being delivered. I guess thats what the anti-choice crowd wants. So perhaps they should be required to build and pay for the institutions that will be required to care for these kids. The rest of us face enough burden taking care of the psychological impacts this will have on women.

[rebecca_herman]

10. The supposed alternative offered

The supposed alternative I saw offered was to use an injection of medication to kill the fetus in utero, and once the fetus had died (confirmable by an ultrasound?) the doctor would then be free to remove it with the banned procedure as the ban only applies to a living fetus. I do not know how much more this would complicate the procedure (that procedure of using a direct injection to the fetus to kill it is generally used in cases of very large multiple pregnancies to abort some of the fetuses without harming the others so it can't be completely unsafe), but it still makes it technically possible. Not that I agree with the ban, a woman's health should come first, but there *may* be an alternative.

With pre-eclampsia if the fetus is old enough to survive I think it is generally delivered by c-section because that's actually a quicker procedure then the D&E which can take up to a couple of days if the woman is not at all dialated yet which she wouldn't be if she hadn't gone into labor, and I don't think pre-eclampsia would trigger labor from what I know. Maybe abortion procedures are rarely used in preeclampsia cases, but they aren't the majority, I have personally never heard of such a situation although perhaps some other posters here may have.

Edit: As for not having children, that is definitley not the solution and I don't see how it can be. Some people have a very strong desire to have children. I am one of those people. (Not yet at my age, but having children at some point is one of the things I plan for and consider important) What risk there is to me is worth it, rather then have my life lacking something I consider one of my most important goals. I will not give up my *choice,* deciding to have children is just as much of a right as deciding not to. I love children and for me they would bring something to my life I couldn't get elsewhere.

[Scout]

12. you should adopt rather than make more children n/t

[gaspee]

19. agreed! Wholeheartedly

I was taking a look at a few foster care sites today, thinking about the steps required to become a foster parent. I don't think I'm capable of handling most of these children's special needs, but that's where I would start if I decided I just had to have children.

I had been considering having a child of my own, for varied reasons. But as someone who is over 35 and has a MVP (mitrol valve prolapse) I consider myself too high-risk now that I won't be allowed to make my own medical decisions.

Doctors will hesitate to do what it takes to save the mother rather than the fetus. Since lawyers and politicians and politically appointed prosecuters will be judging their medical decisions after the fact.

People who insist on having a child of their own and not accepting another life don't want to be parents; they want to perpetrate their genes. Caring and nurturing another life should be rewarding even if it isn't your genetic material. Another pipe dream of mine. Sigh.