Hello, guest
|
Name: M
[ Original Post ]
The US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, has upheld the nationwide ban on the "partial-birth" abortion procedure. This procedure WAS reserved for circumstances when the woman's life was at risk or when the fetus was horribly deformed. Do you think this is a good decision for womens' healthcare or do you think some women will die because of this ban?
Your Name


captcha

Your Reply here


 
Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 3:52 PM
The justices, voting 5-4, said the 2003 law is constitutional even though there is no exception for cases posing a risk to the mother's health.

This means that some women will be denyed a medical procedure which could save their life. Leaving their already born children behind without a mother. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 3:57 PM
For the first time since Roe vs. Wade, the court has enacted a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health. 

Name: Lizzi | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 3:57 PM
If aborting the child will save the mothers life at that stage then it should be kept legal. Abortion should be kept legal for any woman who wants it in the beginning of her pregnancy also. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 3:58 PM
How would any of you feel if you knew that continuing your pregnancy would result in your death? How would you tell your children that you are going to die and leave them behind because you cannot get the medical care you need? 

Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 3:59 PM
Lizzi--That right has been taken away today. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:02 PM
I have heard of cases where the mother is carrying several fetus' and that this procedure needs to be performed on only one of the fetus' to allow the other fetus' to go to full term. Without the procedure--none of the fetus' survive. 


Name: atomicsnowflake | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:02 PM
The partial-birth termination procedure is the most barbaric method of terminating a pregnancy. There are alternatives - ie - inducing the birth, then non-resuscitation of the infant following delivery.

Partial birth abortion is horrific in it's details. Do a Google search for descriptions of the method. No living thing should be treated in this way. Saline abortions are likewise extremely cruel. 

Name: Lizzi | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:06 PM
M I'm glad my tubes are tied! LOL 

Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:11 PM
I agree atomic--that late in a pregnancy is very extreme! I do not think it is as common as people think. I always thought the procedure was reserved in cases of the mother's life being threatened or the child is horribly deformed (no brain kind of thing.)

What will happen in cases like this now? 

Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:13 PM
What kind of medical care will there be for women in these circumstances now? 

Name: Lizzi | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:14 PM
I think abortion is o.k. to choose if it's in the early pregnancy stage. I also think it should remain legal later in pregnancy if the mothers life is at stake. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:16 PM
Are women going to be forced to carry full term and die. Are women going to be forced to give birth to a child that will have a horrible existance? So deformed they have no arms or legs? No eyesockets? I am talking about very extreme handicaps and deformities which none of us would probably want to live with. 

Name: winnmom | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:16 PM
I am not for abortion.....I am pro life.....buuut there are situations that come up......and even people with the best of intentions, some times take this route...... 

Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:19 PM
I do not think it is right to force a women to carry a child to full term, knowing that the child will have such severe handicaps that their life will be filled with pain. Horses are put out of their misery if they break a leg. Why should a child be forced to bear a lifetime of pain because of this ban? 

Name: lindalu | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:30 PM
I do not think it is right to force a women to carry a child to full term, knowing that the child will have such severe handicaps that their life will be filled with pain. Horses are put out of their misery if they break a leg. Why should a child be forced to bear a lifetime of pain because of this ban? =

M I do agree, I feel the exact way. 

Name: atomicsnowflake | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:32 PM
I think that it's just the technique that they're banning - not late abortion full stop. There are other methods of terminating pregnancy this late. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:34 PM
I think it stops all late abortions-- regardless of the threat to the woman's life or the severity of the child's handicaps. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:34 PM
I am not sure--but that is how I understand it. 

Name: homemommichele | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:37 PM
This procedure was used a lot more than just for those purposes. If you look in the phone book it says up to 22 weeks and this is the procedure most commonly used. This is hideous and I say Thank God.

As for the life of the mother? Doctors have said that is rarely the case. If so, deliver the baby at 22-23 weeks and give it a shot!! As a former neonatal nurse I have seen many that young go on to live full lives, and at least it would have a chance. 

Name: homemommichele | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:41 PM
It is a child, not a choice. Had you actually held and cared for a 23 weeker, you would not be able to refer to it simply as a "choice" as then you can plainly see it is a human being. 

Name: Randi | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:49 PM
I just looked it up... this is what I read. I think it's sick. Since I have had my son everything bothers me a lot more. That little person has a future and a developing personality. It makes me want to cry.

During the first year after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was introduced in mid-1995, many opponents of the bill, such as NARAL's Kate Michelman and syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, insisted that anesthesia given to the mother painlessly kills the babies before they are pulled feet-first from the womb and stabbed through the back of the skull. But in congressional testimony in 1996 -- virtually ignored by the news media -- this myth was emphatically refuted by the heads of the two major professional societies of anesthesiologists. Other experts testified that the babies are alive and fully capable of experiencing great pain during a partial-birth abortion. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 4:57 PM
This is what happened when medical treatment is denied:
**************************8

March 20, 2007 - The European Court of Human Rights held today, for the first time, that governments have a duty to establish effective mechanisms for ensuring that women have access to abortion where it is legal. The case centers on the tragic story of Alicja Tysiąc, a Polish woman who nearly went blind because she was forced to continue a pregnancy that threatened her health. Numerous doctors had advised Tysiąc that pregnancy and delivery posed the risk of irreversible eye damage, but they refused to issue a certificate authorizing an abortion. She was left with no choice but to carry her pregnancy to term, with devastating consequences.

By law, Poland allows women to have abortions when their health is in danger. For Tysiąc, the state clearly failed to meet its legal obligation. The mother of three is now unable to work, wholly dependent on public assistance, and in need of constant care for day-to-day activities and for her children. The court awarded damages specifically in recognition of her "anguish and suffering."

"Today the European Court joined other international human rights bodies in sending a clear message to governments that where abortion is legal they have to make sure that women can get them," said Pardiss Kebriaei, Legal Adviser for International Litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights.

In the Center's case KL v. Peru, the U.N. Human Rights Committee ruled in 2005 that the rights of a 17-year old Peruvian woman had been violated when health officials denied her a therapeutic abortion. In March 2006, as a result of another case brought by the Center, the government of Mexico admitted that it had violated the rights of a 13-year-old girl who became pregnant as a result of rape and was denied an abortion. 

Name: momof3 | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 5:00 PM
This is one of those tough topics. I have always held the postion that I won't judge someone for that action. It is hard to imagine the situation that person is in. I just don't know! 

Name: homemommichele | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 5:00 PM
M. You are comparing the US to backward third world countries. No one is saying medical care will be denied. Just this hideous procedure. Go in and look in a neonatal ICU. Look at a 23 weeker, and then stand there and declare that it is okay. People have to live with what they do, however I thank God that these children will be spared. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 5:02 PM
This ruling is the beginning of an effort to ban all abortions. Watch--you will see. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 5:06 PM
homemommichelle--did you read above about the lady in Portugal who was denied treatment and went blind? Do you believe that she should have been denied an abortion? 

Name: T-rabbit | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 5:08 PM
In my opinion I think abortion should be the womans decision. My husband and I have this debate all the time. If it were the mans responsibility to carry and care for the child alone they would agree that it is our decision. I don't think it should matter why because it is our body. I do realize that it is "a living" person, but If a woman is not ready you end up with a psycho mother drowning her kids. Abortion should not be allowed as birth control over and over by one person. Every one makes a mistake and you can be as cautious as you want and still get impregnated. If you are not ready and a woman has had mental breakdown giving a child up for adoption could really damage their well being. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 5:12 PM
I agree t-rabbit. Much worse things than an abortion can happen to a child when given life. It is sad--but true. I wish it was as simple as right or wrong--but it isn't. 

Name: T-rabbit | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 5:19 PM
We had a psycho mom that drowned 5 kids one by one in the tub. 

Name: homemommichele | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 5:19 PM
M please read what you cut and paste. It says POLAND a backward eastern European block country. No one is withholding medical care. They are just not wanting to butcher babies. 

Name: M | Date: Apr 18th, 2007 5:20 PM
Homemommichelle--I do not mean to sound callious to you. I do not think I could go through with a partial birth abortion even if my life was in danger or if the child was severely deformed. I can talk about it very easily because I know it is a decision I will not have to face. However, I have enough empathy to put myself in the shoes of a woman who is facing this kind of difficult decision. Who wants to die and leave behind a family that depends on you? Who wants to give life to a child that will live a painful life? I have often wondered about some people who defy all doctor recommendations and go through with pregnancies that will result is severe deformities. Are they selfish to do this? Sometimes I think "yes." Life at all costs is sometimes not worth living IMO. 

Copyright 2021© babycrowd.com. All rights reserved.
Contact Us | About Us | Browse Journals | Forums | Advertise With Us