It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: LadyVirginia on April 13, 2011, 01:20:37 PM
-
http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/sbt-indiana-senate-panel-to-consider-antiabortion-bill-20110413,0,6385117.story (http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/sbt-indiana-senate-panel-to-consider-antiabortion-bill-20110413,0,6385117.story)
The Senate Health Committee voted 6-2 on Wednesday in favor of a bill that would ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy unless there is a substantial threat to the woman's life or health. Indiana law now permits abortions up to the point of a fetus' viability -- about 24 weeks.
The committee did remove from the bill a requirement that women seeking abortions be told they faced greater risks of breast cancer. Abortion-rights supporters argued that could force doctors to provide medically inaccurate information
"could force doctors to provide medically inaccurate information"
Did they mean like that medically inaccurate information about a fetus is a human being? That an unborn baby feels no pain? That there are no risks to having an abortion?
-
Plus, that woman's health caveat? Just another euphemism for abortion cause I need it!
No mas!
-
Plus, that woman's health caveat? Just another euphemism for abortion cause I need it!
No mas!
Exactly.
-
Plus, that woman's health caveat? Just another euphemism for abortion cause I need it!
No mas!
I agree, for the most part, but I can think of one legitimate health risk, off the top of my head, in an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy.
-
An abortion for health reasons is still a little tough for me to swallow sometimes. I understand it must be a heartbreaking decision and is necessary at times, but it still sticks in my craw a little. I don't argue against it, but I'm glad it's one more thing that we'll never have to worry about.
Abortion as birth control, though...frankly I'd love to stick an ice pick in the ear of advocates and practitioners.
-
An abortion for health reasons is still a little tough for me to swallow sometimes. I understand it must be a heartbreaking decision and is necessary at times, but it still sticks in my craw a little. I don't argue against it, but I'm glad it's one more thing that we'll never have to worry about.
Abortion as birth control, though...frankly I'd love to stick an ice pick in the ear of advocates and practitioners.
In the case of ectopic pregnancy, there really is no choice. The organ in which the fertilized eggs implants, instead of the uterus, will burst -- viable babies do not result even when left alone.
-
Yes, I understand that. My wife's second pregnancy was a miscarriage, and I did a little reading on stuff. It wasn't that type of complication, so we never had to consider that course-of-action. Like I said, I don't argue against it, I guess I just lament the loss anyway, even as medically necessary as it is.
-
I agree, for the most part, but I can think of one legitimate health risk, off the top of my head, in an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy.
The way I see it:
Surgery to save a woman with an etopic pregnancy is not an abortion. The baby dies as an indirect result of saving the mother. An abortion is the deliberate taking of the baby's life as the end itself. (An etopic pregnancy is a fertilized egg that implants outside the uterus.)
***
And there are miracles too sometimes:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2003/08/11/c_section030811.htm (http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2003/08/11/c_section030811.htm)
***
Twice I was told to consider an abortion for health reasons. Twice I declined. Two lovely girls walk this earth because I didn't listen to that advice from doctors, and sadly, family.
-
I think I like your take on that, Lady. I'll try to affect a paradigm shift and never worry about it being called an abortion.
But I definitely love your happy ending. It speaks well of your courage. ::thumbsup::
-
I've asked for years for a liberal to give me real numbers of mothers that aborted due to a real life threatening condition. I tend to think it is a very small number.
-
I've asked for years for a liberal to give me real numbers of mothers that aborted due to a real life threatening condition. I tend to think it is a very small number.
I agree, otherwise, we would've seen that number used as evidence to justify the 3700 abortions done per day in the U.S.
-
I agree, for the most part, but I can think of one legitimate health risk, off the top of my head, in an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy.
The way I see it:
Surgery to save a woman with an etopic pregnancy is not an abortion. The baby dies as an indirect result of saving the mother. An abortion is the deliberate taking of the baby's life as the end itself. (An etopic pregnancy is a fertilized egg that implants outside the uterus.)
The baby usually dies whether the ectopic pregnancy is terminated or not.
***
And there are miracles too sometimes:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2003/08/11/c_section030811.htm (http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2003/08/11/c_section030811.htm)
***
Twice I was told to consider an abortion for health reasons. Twice I declined. Two lovely girls walk this earth because I didn't listen to that advice from doctors, and sadly, family.
I wasn't able to access the link.
I'm glad for you and your two girls; the doctors surely don't know everything and even when they prove correct, Sarah Palin is a role model in one respect.
Just to clarify: I am not an abortion advocate, justifier or excuser. It's infanticide. Every abortion results in one dead; one wounded.
-
The baby usually dies whether the ectopic pregnancy is terminated or not.
Yeah, I know Pan. But the distinction of direct and indirect (or intent) is important to me
-
The baby usually dies whether the ectopic pregnancy is terminated or not.
Yeah, I know Pan. But the distinction of direct and indirect (or intent) is important to me
With me as well. In these particular cases, however, as the life of the mother is at stake, and, as the baby's death is a foregone conclusion, in addition to facilitating injury and possible death to the mother, I see no sin in it.
-
"Health of the mother" means anything a liberal decides it means. Anxiety, sadness, youth, age, marital status, financial status, drug addiction, whatever. I don't like the language of that exemption wherever I see it. It cedes the argument, as does so much of our Leftist-driven culturally accepted nomenclature. "Immediate threat to the life of the mother" should be the standard by which conservatives make exceptions, if they are indeed to be made at all.
I can accept emergency measures to save a mother's life that require a choice between the child and the woman, in an imminent life-threatening situation.
Of course the Leftists will never go for that because it means that virtually all legal abortions would end.
-
"Health of the mother" means anything a liberal decides it means. Anxiety, sadness, youth, age, marital status, financial status, drug addiction, whatever. I don't like the language of that exemption wherever I see it. It cedes the argument, as does so much of our Leftist-driven culturally accepted nomenclature. "Immediate threat to the life of the mother" should be the standard by which conservatives make exceptions, if they are indeed to be made at all.
I can accept emergency measures to save a mother's life that require a choice between the child and the woman, in an imminent life-threatening situation.
Of course the Leftists will never go for that because it means that virtually all legal abortions would end.
I'm good with all of that, but (ya know what they say? everything before the "but" is bullsht?) we, that is, the righteous opponents of abortion, must take a little care to carve out the legitimate exceptions to the "anything a liberal decides it means".
I don't want to be standing here alone, swinging in the wind, folks, but let's us just acknowledge that sometimes there are very real medical necessities to be considered -- by the mother. Any decent, upstanding woman is going to be caused grievous pain having to make this sort of decision, and her husband as well; there's no reason to make this more difficult by way of a blanket, hard&fast, "you lyin' bastid!" rule in the guise of standing on principle.
I can hardly believe I'm the one saying this, as anti-abortion as I am.
-
http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/sbt-indiana-senate-panel-to-consider-antiabortion-bill-20110413,0,6385117.story (http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/sbt-indiana-senate-panel-to-consider-antiabortion-bill-20110413,0,6385117.story)
The Senate Health Committee voted 6-2 on Wednesday in favor of a bill that would ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy unless there is a substantial threat to the woman's life or health. Indiana law now permits abortions up to the point of a fetus' viability -- about 24 weeks.
The committee did remove from the bill a requirement that women seeking abortions be told they faced greater risks of breast cancer. Abortion-rights supporters argued that could force doctors to provide medically inaccurate information
"could force doctors to provide medically inaccurate information"
Did they mean like that medically inaccurate information about a fetus is a human being? That an unborn baby feels no pain? That there are no risks to having an abortion?
And when they get caught the face a murder charge and that brings them.Make it mandatory life and no parole and let's see who does what.
-
<snip>I don't like the language of that exemption wherever I see it. It cedes the argument, <snip>
I agree and that's the intent I think.
There is a difference between pregnancies with problems and immediate, life-threatening emergency situations.
In my situation I was told I could die, my daughter could die (or survive severely handicapped), we both could die or we could both live and be healthy (though it was made clear that wasn't realistic). I choose option #4 (seriously I knew from the moment I heard the doctor's diagnosis I was going home with my daughter. Eventually I did though she decided to hang out with the other hospitalized preemies for a while ;)) I was not in an emergency situation but it could have turned into one at any time since I did have a life threatening condition. But it was manageable. This required 3 loooong months in the hospital full of tense moments when we thought this is "it". I was told originally that I wouldn't "go" longer than a week before something happened. Doctors told me such happy things as get ready to not go home with your baby and well at least you have other children. Then it got to the point they did a c-section after 3 months there because I went too long! My doc even used me in the study he wrote about long term high risk pregnancies with my problems. Although it irked me that his conclusion seemed to be that in most cases these kinds of risks don't have good outcomes and aren't worth the trouble. :( I, of course, disagree.
(enuf about me, no more I promise)
-
I agree Pan. Not all circumstances that would drive a woman or couple to consider abortion are cut and dried, and there should be room for grace for those who find themselves in dire medical situations and dealing with pregnancy that threatens their life or yes, health. My beef is not that there is no such thing as a woman's health being threatened by pregnancy (after all, both by sons were born preemie because of severe pregnancy-induced hypertension, and the first almost died and killed my wife). My point is only that when that is the language, liberals will make it mean whatever they want it to mean. It's code language for "this is a hat-tip towards life, but the value of it is still arbitrary."
I'll share an anecdote relating such a consequential situation with an overall positive outcome. The wife of a couple that are very close friends of ours for years is afflicted with Lupus that primarily attacked her kidneys, rejecting them as if they were a foreign body. She had to take anti-rejection meds, and she was told in her mid 20s that pregnancy would ruin her kidney function, and hasten the day when she would need a very risky kidney transplant. They agonizingly resigned themselves to a life without children, and an uncertain future regarding her health. A few weeks after she was ordered by her doctor to never have children, they discovered she was pregnant.
Her kidney function was already at a bare 50%, and they told her if she carried the baby to full term, her function would be reduced to about 30% immediately, a degradation that would otherwise take several years. She was further told that once her kidney function was reduced to that level, the decline if her kidney health would become more acute and accelerate. She was advised to abort.
We didn't know our friends then, as they made their decision to carry the pregnancy to term. We met them because our sons are the same age, and our back yards were connected.
The doctors were right. The pregnancy destroyed her kidneys. Her health steadily declined for about 8 more years until her brother sacrificed one of his kidneys so that she could live. She is now in her early 40s, very cautious with her health, and relatively healthy. Her son is 16, athletic, smart - and an only child.
I can't imagine many medical situations that are not imminent emergencies that would require killing a baby in the womb. I'm sure they exist, and I plead ignorance as to the nature of them. But I know at least one woman who went through the fire, and chose life at the cost of her own health. For her choice, she was blessed with a son and a new kidney. That speaks to me.
-
But I know at least one woman who went through the fire, and chose life at the cost of her own health. For her choice, she was blessed with a son and a new kidney. That speaks to me.
Thanks for the lovely story IDP.
-
Your tale speaks to me as well, my friend. As you say, all is not cut and dried and since all I required is an acknowledgement that, despite the "progressive" push to abort at will, there are a few real issues to weigh, I yield the floor.
-
Until someone can show me otherwise, I believe 99.99% of all abortions are for cosmetic purposes.
-
I'm sure there are the rare legitimate health of the mother exceptions, the ectopic cases such as Pan mentions. But the exceptions are driven by a real medical need, they are not a personal choice to terminate a pregnancy by hiding behind the health provision. What is their health reason? I don't want this extra weight? I'm just so stressed out, gosh, make this all go away? All of this could be avoided if such statutes were amended to contain language like "in the case of a womans legitimate medical need (such as an ectopic pregnancy)", right?