Should a pregnant woman be permitted to "terminate" her pregnancy by early birth?

[Renew Deal]

Poll question: Should a pregnant woman be permitted to "terminate" her pregnancy by early birth?

This article brings up some serious moral questions. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8968649&mesg_id=8968649

Basically a pregnant woman knew she was going to lose her insurance, so she scheduled the birth before her insurance ran out. The early birth was accompanied by potential long term medical risks for the child.

So.... Should a pregnant woman be permitted to give birth prior to 39 weeks and without a medical reason to do so? I am assuming that after 39 weeks risks go down and that there are legitimate non-medical reasons to have a C-Section (which I know many people will disagree with).

[davsand]

1. Ain't nobody's business except hers.

I'd HOPE the mother would listen to medical council, but the bottom line is that it is, in fact, a decision that only that woman can make.

Choice comes with responsibility for ALL aspects.




Laura

[Taverner]

4. +10000

[Lucian]

21. That's the only answer to this question.

[phone]

[FBaggins]

27. Close... but it isn't just her decision.

The woman gets to make informed medical decisions about what to do with her body, but medical professionals don't have to go along if they disagree... and the decision shifts more the farther away from the "safe" zone that she gets.

This is why doctors have to sign prescriptions and people don't just get to decide that they want to take a particular medication. You can't just decide that it's your body and you want XYZ drug. A physician has to agree that it's appropriate in your case.

I'd imagine that the insurance company also has the option of saying that they won't pay for an elective delivery prior to a certain point (which would negate her reason for the timing in the first place).

[joeybee12]

2. You left off the obvious option...Only A Man Can Decide That For Her

:sarcasm:

[brendan120678]

3. It should be the choice of the mother, hopefully after consulting with...

her medical professional.

Of course, if no doctor wanted to even try doing this out of fear of malpractice suits or any other reason, I can't say that I'd be surprised.

[WinkyDink]

5. Putting at risk a life post-birth for non-health reasons is not the same at all as abortion.

"Oh, I'm going to induce a short-term baby because I want to go on vacation soon after."

[mzteris]

6. The obscenity here is the GD INSURANCE situation

for causing the dilemma in the first damn place!! :nuke:

[dana_b]

12. exacty what I was going to say n/t

[mzteris]

29. except I just found out that she HAD insurance -

so this story makes no sense whatsoever.

[RainDog]

7. the real question is: why should a woman have to give birth early?

this isn't about terminating a pregnancy.

this is about how fucked up American health care is. why on earth would or should a woman give birth at one time or another b/c of insurance issues?

why should a woman even consider giving birth before a baby is ready to be born?

this is so sick it makes me want to throw up.

[seabeyond]

8. i had my kids at 38 and 36 weeks. they were only in hospital normal time, one day

before we went home. hardly considered early.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

9. ALWAYS YES.

How often does your scenario happen?


Instead of arguing the minuscule, let's argue the other 99 out of 100 times.

[Renew Deal]

11. Potentially a lot

If you include c-sections in the 40th week. I bet if I ran this poll again as "Should c-sections be permitted for non-medical reasons?" the results would be overwhelmingly low.

I also wonder if I introduced bias into this poll by using the phrase "terminating her pregnancy", but I'm trying to be as clear as possible.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. What part of "ALWAYS YES" wasn't understood?

Throw in midgets and unicorns and I'd still support the woman's decision.

If she wants to stab her pregnant belly with a steak knife... I still support her decision, with MAXIMUM reluctance. (And a note-to-self wondering wtf was up about that tragic situation)

Once born, we're not talking about abortion any more. We're really talking murder. And then the talking points will change.

[Renew Deal]

23. Your response is not reasonable.

It's pseudo-libertarian crap.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

28. My assertion that a woman has the ABSOLUTE right to control her own body...

is "pseudo-libertarian crap?"

Wow.

Just wow.

[Renew Deal]

34. This includes "stabbing her pregnant belly with a steak knife..."

:shrug:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

35. Yes it does. nt

Edit to add clue: What is she stabbing before she gets to the "baby?"

Edit to add answer: Herself.

Edit to add: Life isn't always pretty.

[RB TexLa]

10. Of course. And nothing is the doctor's decision, they give advice. They do not make decisions.

[Warpy]

13. It's none of our business

It's the woman's decision with input from her doctor.

Delivering a month early is not an unacceptable risk, although the risk for a lot of individual problems is increased.

If it's the difference between having mother and child covered by insurance and having them uninsured and facing a lifetime of debt and privation, it's an acceptable risk.

It's also an illustration of how the Blue Dogs and Republicans sold this country out to the corporations when they considered reforming a rotten health care delivery system.

"Reform" did nothing for me. Insurance companies will be forced to write policies, but if those policies don't cover my pre existing conditions, they are worthless pieces of paper.

[Arkansas Granny]

14. After a fetus reaches the point of viability, all medical decisions made

should consider the health of the fetus as long as the mother's health is not put at risk by doing so. Giving birth to a premature infant is really risky. Some develop perfectly normal, but others will have increased possibilities of lifelong medical problems.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Maru Kitteh]

18. Enjoy your stay.

Premature ejaculation much?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Renew Deal]

22. That's obvious.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[pipi_k]

26. Fetal tattoos....

bwahahahahaahah!!!!!!!!!

entertaining, at least...

:7

[FBaggins]

32. Welcome to DU!

Just wanted to say hi before it was too late.

Have you picked your next signon name yet?

:hi:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

38. How many juxtapositions of (adjective signifying liberal or leftist) + (noun) are there?

Many.

[blogslut]

16. 39 weeks is pretty far along

It's not optimum but delivery is a tricky thing regardless of gestation length. Apparently her OB/GYN thought it was fine or the procedure would not have happened.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. How about the mole on your neck?

Do I get input?

Let's reverse this.

[thelordofhell]

25. Here we go

I think that all pregnant women should get free healthcare. (Of course I also think we should have a Canadian type healthcare system)

[Desertrose]

30. Universal single payer for all...not a problem.

just sayin'.

Why should ANYONE have to make such a choice?!

[damntexdem]

31. I had to vote "yes, other" because of an ad over "yes, mother's decision."

But there are issues raised by the intent to have a child with higher risks of health problems. And there is the issue of possible overuse of medical resources -- the C-section itself, but possibly health treatment should complications ensue from the early birth. Still, the basic issue is the mother's right to choose.

[leftynyc]

33. I said yes it's the mother's decision

but I have to qualify that she has to forfeit any rights to sue her doctor if something goes wrong later because of the early birth.

[HopeHoops]

36. Turn the situation around. Should the insurance company be able to terminate her insurance?

I don't particularly approve of what she did, but the real issue is allowing insurance companies to shut off insurance coverage for a pregnancy, even if a woman is fired or otherwise loses her job. THAT is what is really wrong.

[uncommon]

37. Celebrities do it all the time, don't they?

Schedule a c-section weeks early to avoid the disfiguring aspects of a full term pregnancy?

I think a woman should have the right to do what she will with her body so I voted yes, but the real problem here, as someone posted above, was the insurance issue - if she is already pregnant, then the insurance coverage should extend to the end of the full term pregnancy.

And beyond that, no one should have to make a decision like this because of cost.