crisis pregnancy centers as portrayed on Full Frontal

[hornblower]

I don't understand something - If you really believe in personhood from the moment of conception, shouldn't you hold funerals and death benefits for each miscarriage, no matter how early? 

[SKL]

Sorry, forgot to link. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

 

It comes to the same conclusion as your Washington Post reporter:

 

"Planned Parenthood’s chart shows that abortions made up 3 percent of its total services. Another way to measure the group’s abortion services, however, is to divide the total number of abortions by the number of clients. For example, Planned Parenthood said that it “provided nearly 11.4 million medical services for 3 million people†in 2009. Its 2011 fact sheet says it performed 332,278 abortion procedures in 2009. That would mean that roughly one out of every 10 clients received an abortion."

 

Wait.  Based on the language used here, it seems that one out of ten received an abortion from PP.  It does not include people who were referred for abortions because the PP office in that particular place did not perform abortions.

 

[SKL]

I don't understand something - If you really believe in personhood from the moment of conception, shouldn't you hold funerals and death benefits for each miscarriage, no matter how early? 

 

Some people do have funerals and headstones and other memorials for miscarried babies.  And this is not new either, though I think it is more common than it used to be.

 

[Murphy101]

The entire personhood vs humanhood seems like nothing more than self justification nonsense to me.

 

Human = person.

 

I don't think location, size, intelligence, or physical form makes one human a person and another one not a person. Or makes one human more of a person than another human.

 

There's nothing but historically seriously tragic and scary implication to that kind of justification of who deserves to live, who deserves to be viewed as fully people.

 

I see absolutely zero reason to believe that reasoning would be restricted to the unborn either.

[Murphy101]

Some people do have funerals and headstones and other memorials for miscarried babies. And this is not new either, though I think it is more common than it used to be.

 

This is true and there's actually some old prayers and rites for such situations within the RCC. For the most part, it's not that people don't grieve, it's that they are not given anything to bury. And also, funerals and such are expensive. Goodness. Many people can't afford them for a spouse or grown child or parent.

 

However, our diocese does have a place where a mother can add their m/c child to a graveyard tomb. And many people do have funerals if they are given remains to do so, especially once into the second trimester.

 

For that matter Rachel's vineyard is both a support network and we also have a "grave" area that is for those who regret their abortions and seek a way to grieve their loss.

[hjffkj]

I don't understand something - If you really believe in personhood from the moment of conception, shouldn't you hold funerals and death benefits for each miscarriage, no matter how early?

Some people do hold funerals for their miscarriages. My sil's 2 miscarriages, 1 first trimester and 1 second trimester, are buried next to my grandparents. I didn't have a funeral for my first because I was not mentally stable enough to go through that. But as I sit here playing the waiting game on whether or not I'm miscarrying now I'll likely have a funeral service or memorial if it comes to that.

[heartlikealion]

A lot of times funerals are seen as something for the living. The mourning are surrounded by loved ones that can offer comfort and share memories. If someone miscarries, they may not have told many/any people so who would they invite? It might have been private. Things like a eulogy would not make sense. I'm not saying there would be zero reason for a funeral, but I could easily see a family deciding against one.

 

Some people do have funerals and headstones and other memorials for miscarried babies.  And this is not new either, though I think it is more common than it used to be.
 

 

I remember seeing this in a movie.

The Help

 

[MercyA]

Now for the younger kids, we did IVF as we experienced secondary infertility.  And since I responded so well to the drugs I made 20 eggs, and we ended up with 12 embryos.  And since that was far more than we were ever going to have, after a year of storage I told the doctors to stop storing them.  So is that abortion too? No one knew I would respond that well to the drugs, or that that many embryos would be created, as my husband's sperm was pretty dilapidated at that point. But 12 fertilized and we only needed two.  Would it require me to actually carry 12 babies to term to ethically not abort any of them? 

 

Embryos can be adopted.

http://www.embryoadoption.org

https://www.embryodonation.org

 

ETA: Although I'm not in general a supporter of IVF, I think this is a more ethical solution than throwing out already created embryos or using them for research.

Edited May 13, 2016 by MercyA

[poppy]

I think, historically, the baby considered life at the quickening.  A lot of people thought that was when the soul was imparted and stuff like that. But that's because they didn't have the scientific means to see conception, or to know that a totally different human being with unique DNA is created at the moment of conception.  Luckily science has progressed to the point that we don't have to rely on flutters to know that a human being is in there.  But, yeah, obviously before people had a concept of the microscopic they couldn't really consider conception at all.  Or DNA.  But they didn't know about germs either so they didn't wash their hands a lot. Now we know better in many repects.

 

I don't the women have ever needed flutters to know they were pregnant.  For millennia.

As you probably know, abortion was legal in colonial America until quickening.  But even then there were challenges to that as early as the 17th century.  The questions we are having here aren't new at all. 

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't the women have ever needed flutters to know they were pregnant.  For millennia.

 

I don't know whether women necessarily thought that a baby was alive until they felt it moving, even if they knew that they were pregnant.

 

As you probably know, abortion was legal in colonial America until quickening.  But even then there were challenges to that as early as the 17th century.  The questions we are having here aren't new at all. 

I think this is sort of 'partially true'.  But the general knowledge, and the ultrasound evidence of early heart beats, development, etc., and the DNA evidence for when a distinct human being forms are relatively recent.  The Life Magazine pictures of babies in the womb were radical and novel during my lifetime.  We know better now.

[EmseB]

I don't the women have ever needed flutters to know they were pregnant. For millennia.

As you probably know, abortion was legal in colonial America until quickening. But even then there were challenges to that as early as the 17th century. The questions we are having here aren't new at all.

I think you missed my point. Yes, it was legal before the quickening because there was no science to tell them that the baby was alive long before then. There were a lot of non scientific opinions about medicine in general. I'm sure what we know now about how life starts is the tip of the proverbial iceberg, but we do know better than colonial times about when a unique human being is created.

[Ausmumof3]

I don't the women have ever needed flutters to know they were pregnant. For millennia.

As you probably know, abortion was legal in colonial America until quickening. But even then there were challenges to that as early as the 17th century. The questions we are having here aren't new at all.

Prior to poas if you had irregular cycles and minimal pregnancy symptoms or hadn't been pregnant before so didn't recognise the symptoms it was harder to be sure. I think though without scan to tell when there was an issue with the pregnancy and a high rate of miscarriage it was more that it felt safer not to consider it a child until it was more likely to be carried to term. Sort of a "not tempting fate" way.

[poppy]

I think you missed my point. Yes, it was legal before the quickening because there was no science to tell them that the baby was alive long before then. There were a lot of non scientific opinions about medicine in general. I'm sure what we know now about how life starts is the tip of the proverbial iceberg, but we do know better than colonial times about when a unique human being is created.

 

I understood you were trying to say science proves life starts sooner than they used to think, I just do not agree with your chronology. Abortion was legal in at least parts of the US except for roundabout the 1870s-1970s.  From what I understand, the rise of the pro-life movement is closely tied to the rise of The Religious Right in the late 70s during the desegregation debates.  There was not much interest outside of the Catholic church in the idea of "right to life" prior to Roe V Wade. Then it become part of a movement that was popular for reasons not reeeeeeally about pregnancy.  Or science.

 

It's murky and weird and political.

 

If it is purely science, let's leave the questions about these issues to the scientists (physicians) and their patients.

[Ausmumof3]

It was also generally believed that newborn babies didn't feel pain so anaesthesia wasn't required for newborns procetill relatively recently.

 

I think until we are certain scientifically that something is incapable of feeling pain it's best to err on the side of caution.

[Ausmumof3]

I think those of us who have said 'no moral issue' have been referring to the the first trimester. If that makes me dangerously out of touch with reality, at least I'm in some good company.

 

I'd venture to say that having had terminations, I'm pretty IN touch with the reality around that.

 

China's one child policy and forced abortions is the more accurate comparison to those who think there should be no abortions ever and that women lose their reproductive freedom upon conception.

Although they now have a two child policy.

[Carol in Cal.]

I think those of us who have said 'no moral issue' have been referring to the the first trimester. If that makes me dangerously out of touch with reality, at least I'm in some good company. 

 

 

 

 

I'd be very surprised it that were true of American posters.  Here the call is for 'abortion on demand and without apology' and 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are obtainable.

[Ausmumof3]

I know. That's kind of not the point.

Yeah sorry just an aside that makes me happy.

 

One other thing I have some concerns about is that where China shapes population by legislation we tend to shape it by social pressures. It bothers me that some will choose abortion because it's not considered socially acceptable. Abortion is an easier option on society than providing adequate social services for the child. I really don't want to see a place where we don't provide services that should be provided because ya know you should have either not got pregnant or you should have had an abortion.

 

Abortion regret is apparently rare but it seems that a common thread in the stories where it exists is that the woman felt pressured or coerced to do it for the sake of the father or even for her own benefit when it went against her heart decision. I think counselling needs to be super neutral.

 

This is one reason I have issues with terms like "a bundle of cells". We are all a "bundle of cells". It doesn't make us less a person. I am happier with the use of a medically correct term like foetus as that's exactly what it is.

[Murphy101]

It was also generally believed that newborn babies didn't feel pain so anaesthesia wasn't required for newborns procetill relatively recently.

 

I think until we are certain scientifically that something is incapable of feeling pain it's best to err on the side of caution.

The concept of pain relief in general in new. I wouldn't say they didn't think babies felt pain, many did think babies felt pain. But really there just wasn't much they could safely do about it regardless, so tended to have a no point in dwelling on it or iat least it's only brief attitude.

 

And the development of pain relief for surgerical means was and still is one of the riskiest parts of surgery. We take it for granted that we won't have ill effects of it, but anesthetic is still considered one of the riskier aspects of surgery and most Drs still want to avoid it as much as possible until the baby is older.

 

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with abortion though.

 

It doesn't matter whether the fetus can physically feel or not.

It doesn't matter whether the adult born person can feel or not.

It's not like a person is less dead or it's okay to end a life as long as we can convince ourselves we did it painlessly.

[Murphy101]

I'd be very surprised it that were true of American posters. Here the call is for 'abortion on demand and without apology' and 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are obtainable.

There is a heavier and heavier push for that in the states too.

[Ausmumof3]

The concept of pain relief in general in new. I wouldn't say they didn't think babies felt pain, many did think babies felt pain. But really there just wasn't much they could safely do about it regardless, so tended to have a no point in dwelling on it or iat least it's only brief attitude.

 

And the development of pain relief for surgerical means was and still is one of the riskiest parts of surgery. We take it for granted that we won't have ill effects of it, but anesthetic is still considered one of the riskier aspects of surgery and most Drs still want to avoid it as much as possible until the baby is older.

 

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with abortion though.

 

It doesn't matter whether the fetus can physically feel or not.

It doesn't matter whether the adult born person can feel or not.

It's not like a person is less dead or it's okay to end a life as long as we can convince ourselves we did it painlessly.

No it was actually believed that babies under a year didn't feel pain and heart surgeries were performed without anaesthetic even when it was available.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_babies

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'd be very surprised it that were true of American posters.  Here the call is for 'abortion on demand and without apology' and 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are obtainable.

 

Third trimester abortions are only obtainable in most states when certain criteria are met.  Second trimester abortions also have various restrictions.

 

90% of all abortions are before 13 weeks.

 

I also believe in abortion without apology.  A woman choosing an abortion has done nothing wrong, and doesn't need to apologize to you or anyone else.

[Tanaqui]

I'd be very surprised it that were true of American posters.  Here the call is for 'abortion on demand and without apology' and 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are obtainable.

 

That's not really true.

 

I know somebody who had to have a third trimester abortion. The fetus had died, and it was a health risk to leave it in there. She had to fly across the country to get it, because there are only four doctors in the US who perform that procedure. If she hadn't had the money to do this, she would have been out of luck.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There is a heavier and heavier push for that in the states too.

 

That seems unlikely considering more often legislation being passed in an attempt to restrict abortions.  I believe you may be mistaking "heavier push" with an attempt to protect existing rights.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That's not really true.

 

I know somebody who had to have a third trimester abortion. The fetus had died, and it was a health risk to leave it in there. She had to fly across the country to get it, because there are only four doctors in the US who perform that procedure. If she hadn't had the money to do this, she would have been out of luck.

 

Four doctors and they only serve a handful of clinics.

 

Yet a few in this thread seem to think women are lined up around the block for third trimester abortions, politely (though impolitely would be more accurate) ignoring that third trimester abortions are generally for medical reasons.  These same kind souls also not only want women facing a difficult time to have trouble finding a doctor, but they have attempted to pass legislation requiring multiple medical consults to get permission for the termination.  What kind souls they are. 

[Ausmumof3]

This is sort of a separate issue, but I've started saying I'm pro-abortion. I think the left has ceded the moral high ground on this issue by buying into the rhetoric from the right that abortion is a "horror." I don't think removing an embryo, which is just a bundle of cells, is a horror by any stretch. And I think there are many moral reasons to be for abortion, like being for wanted babies and women having control over their bodies and against coercion of women or against poverty.

 

And... let the flames really begin in earnest.

This was the bundle of cells post sorry.

 

It's hard to keep track in a long thread

[ktgrok]

I think those of us who have said 'no moral issue' have been referring to the the first trimester. If that makes me dangerously out of touch with reality, at least I'm in some good company. 

 

I'd venture to say that having had terminations, I'm pretty IN touch with the reality around that. 

 

China's one child policy and forced abortions is the more accurate comparison to those who think there should be no abortions ever and that women lose their reproductive freedom upon conception.

 

Someone in this thread actually said up until 20 weeks. Only one person though, and I admit it shocked me a bit. 

[Farrar]

I'd be very surprised it that were true of American posters.  Here the call is for 'abortion on demand and without apology' and 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are obtainable.

 

I was one who said I was completely fine with abortion and I definitely meant 1st trimester. When you get into the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, I feel differently. However, I have deep problems with how the debate has made it dangerous for the health of women who have serious medical problems. The story Tanaqui referenced is so sad. If there's a need for a medical procedure, especially one so tragic as having to have a dead baby removed from a womb, then a woman should be have access to it and not be forced to "carry a child to term" just to prove someone's point and prolong her heartbreak.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I was one who said I was completely fine with abortion and I definitely meant 1st trimester. When you get into the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, I feel differently. However, I have deep problems with how the debate has made it dangerous for the health of women who have serious medical problems. The story Tanaqui referenced is so sad. If there's a need for a medical procedure, especially one so tragic as having to have a dead baby removed from a womb, then a woman should be have access to it and not be forced to "carry a child to term" just to prove someone's point and prolong her heartbreak.

 

My issue with those who protest 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions is that a woman requesting an abortion that late will have very good reasons for doing so, as it is not an easy procedure and is not easy to access.

 

I also don't kid myself into believing that if these types successfully control access to 2nd and 3rd trimester procedures (even more than they do already) that they have any intentions of stopping there.

[Murphy101]

That's not really true.

 

I know somebody who had to have a third trimester abortion. The fetus had died, and it was a health risk to leave it in there. She had to fly across the country to get it, because there are only four doctors in the US who perform that procedure. If she hadn't had the money to do this, she would have been out of luck.

*confused* Why wouldn't they just induce labor? It's generally believed this is the safest and healthiest means for the mother to deliver a stillborn. Usually once you reach the third trimester they don't even call it an abortion. It's an induced labor delivery of a still born. If for some reasons inducing wouldn't work, they would likely suggest a cesarean. I've known 4 women who needed such in the last trimester and never were they told they needed an abortion. They were told they needed to deliver.

 

ETA: Also, for a fetus that has already died, a D&C for a spontaneous abortion is not at all a problem to obtain even in early pregnancy. If my baby has already died, no one is freaking out that I need an abortion. I don't. There is nothing to end. Nature already did that. I might need a D&C though if nature does not also help me pass the remains.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Murphy101

[Farrar]

My issue with those who protest 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions is that a woman requesting an abortion that late will have very good reasons for doing so, as it is not an easy procedure and is not easy to access.

 

I also don't kid myself into believing that if these types successfully control access to 2nd and 3rd trimester procedures (even more than they do already) that they have any intentions of stopping there.

 

Totally agreed. Once you get beyond the 1st trimester, at some point you do a cross a line from my admittedly poor choice of words with "bundle of cells" to a fetus that is a viable life. However, there are still reasons to have abortion be an available medical procedure during that time. And it should be up to doctors to decide if it's necessary or a legitimate medical option.

 

By trying so hard to limit easy access to 1st trimester abortions, I sometimes think we've made the likelihood of women seeking 2nd trimester abortions go up. If you're poor and underage and live in a town in the deep south and it takes you months to find a way to get across several state lines to get to care (and, yes, that's something that can happen) then it's increasing the chance you'll seek a back alley style solution.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

nm 

 

Edited May 14, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix
Stop picking a fight.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Totally agreed. Once you get beyond the 1st trimester, at some point you do a cross a line from my admittedly poor choice of words with "bundle of cells" to a fetus that is a viable life. However, there are still reasons to have abortion be an available medical procedure during that time. And it should be up to doctors to decide if it's necessary or a legitimate medical option.

 

By trying so hard to limit easy access to 1st trimester abortions, I sometimes think we've made the likelihood of women seeking 2nd trimester abortions go up. If you're poor and underage and live in a town in the deep south and it takes you months to find a way to get across several state lines to get to care (and, yes, that's something that can happen) then it's increasing the chance you'll seek a back alley style solution.

 

That is exactly what has happened in many states.  They pass laws restricting 2nd term as much as they can get away with, and then focus on putting up barriers for those seeking 1st trimester abortions.  It is no coincidence that states with few clinics available are also doing everything they can to lengthen waiting times.

[Murphy101]

Are you basing your response on your extensive medical background?

I'm basing it on my own numerous miscarriages and the four people I personally know who have suffered having to deliver stillborn babies between 24 weeks and full term.

 

I have never had an OB suggest I needed or they needed an abortion for those circumstances and we never had any of those OBs suggest they could not treat us or any other woman whose unborn baby had died at any stage of the development. Granted myself is one state. But three of those women lived in other states. So it just seems odd to call delivery of a stillborn an abortion to me.

[MedicMom]

I used to be vehemently prolife. Then I got pregnant with my third child. Most of you have followed the story, but in short---it was a very, very risky pregnancy. The chances that neither one of us were going to make it were high. I had no idea that getting pregnant was even a remote possibility, but there I was, pregnant. It was bad timing; my husband was dealing with an injury, I had just gone full time at work, we were in the middle of dealing with evaluations and therapies for my oldest son.

And, oh yeah, all the specialists told me I was going to die if I did not terminate.

 

suddenly everything wasn't so clear anymore. Not so black and white. I had a 4 and 2 year old who needed their mommy. I had a family that needed my financial support, not nine months of bed rest. And--we were very happy with the family we had.

 

I don't know that I have it in me to fault a woman who would terminate in that situation.

Even my staunch Baptist fundamentalist husband told me it was my choice and he would support whatever I chose to do.

 

The baby is now 1. We are close to financial devastation over his multitude of hospital bills and the stresses the pregnancy and birth brought to our life have put a lot of strain on my marriage. I wouldn't change a thing and I am thrilled he is here. I am glad I chose to carry that pregnancy.

 

But until you've faced that horrible, horrible choice...I just no longer have it in me to respond with anything but love and compassion. And yes, I am still prolife, but I am less inclined to picket abortion clinics and much more inclined to listen, to cry, to offer babysitting and diapers.

[Tanaqui]

Regarding my friend, it's possible I'm misremembering and the fetus had some deformity incompatible with life rather than already being dead. I'd have to ask her. You will forgive me for not exactly wanting to drag all this up again.

 

At any rate, the point remains that there are precisely four doctors in the US who perform late term abortions. So you really can't just walk in and get one done, even if you happen to live in a city they serve.

 

About 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester - mostly within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. Nearly all the remaining abortions are performed before 20 weeks. There are only a small number of states with NO restriction by age on abortion, and while a pregnant person can theoretically travel to one of those states to have the procedure done, in reality they probably can't.

 

And while I'm reluctant to share my personal opinions too much, I will say that I put my personal cut-off of "not for elective reasons" at the point of viability without extreme assistance - around 24 weeks. This is pretty rare already, but of course there are all sorts of reasons somebody might not be able to have an abortion earlier. Heck, my own mother didn't even know she was pregnant with me until four months along! (And the doctor who took out her IUD suggested that he could make the pregnancy go away at the same time, there being no legal abortion in the country she was in at the time.) I'm not terribly grateful she said no. I mean, I like being alive and all, I guess, but if she'd said "Yes, please" then I wouldn't exactly be around to complain about it, so the whole thing's sorta moot. Being grateful for that would be like being grateful my parents had sex sometime in April, 1982! I don't dwell on it, I mean.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Tanaqui

[MercyA]

Just to be clear, Pam, when I use the term "innocent" it is not at all in the context of an "innocent" baby versus a "guilty" mother. To be honest, I was surprised and a little taken aback when people took it that way, although I can understand why they did. The language of innocence, for me, has everything to do with humans being summarily executed without regard to their rights, and nothing to do with other actions the mother may or may not have taken.

 

Re language:

 

Brownie points to posters for avoiding 'baby murderers'.

 

Slap on the wrist for : 'Killing your child', 'summary execution of innocents' and 'innocents' itself.

 

Benefit of the doubt only goes so far. That kind of language is deliberate, which is fine, but own it. 

 

 

Sadie, I wasn't lying when I posted the above in response to Pam. I wasn't using the term innocent to contrast the baby with the mother, and in fact it didn't cross my mind that anyone would take it that way. I admit to being obtuse at times, and I apologize for that. 

 

The use of the word innocent was deliberate, as I explained, but I think people (understandably, I suppose) assumed things about my thought processes that just weren't there. 

 

As far as other terms go, I've tried to be measured and polite while still calling it like I see it. One of the things I like about this forum is that we are mostly thoughtful people and it's usually not necessary to tiptoe around issues, as long as everyone stays pleasant. 

 

I own everything I've said in this thread, but I can't be totally responsible for other people's assumptions. We all express ourselves the best we can at the time, I think.

 

(One more thought--I think I would use the term "innocent" less if I weren't still of two minds regarding the death penalty for criminals.)

[lauraw4321]

There was a woman whose blog I followed. She was pregnant with very wanted, very planned boy twins. One twin died in utero and she developed severe HELLP at 21 weeks. She had to terminate the remaining pregnancy to save her life. They could not induce labor because her blood pressure was so out of control. C-section also seriously increased risk of bleeding out. While they were medicating her for the procedure, she tried to run away. 

 

It was a tragedy. It would be a worse tragedy for her to be dead as well. How, when and where should the government have been involved in this?

[Murphy101]

I used to be vehemently prolife. Then I got pregnant with my third child. Most of you have followed the story, but in short---it was a very, very risky pregnancy. The chances that neither one of us were going to make it were high. I had no idea that getting pregnant was even a remote possibility, but there I was, pregnant. It was bad timing; my husband was dealing with an injury, I had just gone full time at work, we were in the middle of dealing with evaluations and therapies for my oldest son.

And, oh yeah, all the specialists told me I was going to die if I did not terminate.

 

suddenly everything wasn't so clear anymore. Not so black and white. I had a 4 and 2 year old who needed their mommy. I had a family that needed my financial support, not nine months of bed rest. And--we were very happy with the family we had.

 

I don't know that I have it in me to fault a woman who would terminate in that situation.

Even my staunch Baptist fundamentalist husband told me it was my choice and he would support whatever I chose to do.

 

The baby is now 1. We are close to financial devastation over his multitude of hospital bills and the stresses the pregnancy and birth brought to our life have put a lot of strain on my marriage. I wouldn't change a thing and I am thrilled he is here. I am glad I chose to carry that pregnancy.

 

But until you've faced that horrible, horrible choice...I just no longer have it in me to respond with anything but love and compassion. And yes, I am still prolife, but I am less inclined to picket abortion clinics and much more inclined to listen, to cry, to offer babysitting and diapers.

I agree. A woman who has been in crisis knows the last thing a mother in crisis needs is more jerks in her life. If the goal is to save a life, I've never understood how making a woman wish she were dead would be expected to work. I mean if she is truely some hell bound murderous wretch, I'm pretty sure expounding on that is not going to make her less so. Everyone I know that stands outside the clinic has the same view. And they back it up with services, most of which are freely offered.

 

That said, picketing is a legal right of free speech and I see no reason an abortion clinic should be any more protected from demonstrators than any other building. Distance, not being allowed to physically accost or to prevent access into the building are all laws already. I can strongly disagree with how some people picket in many venues, but that's their right just the same.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I agree. A woman who has been in crisis knows the last thing a mother in crisis needs is more jerks in her life. If the goal is to save a life, I've never understood how making a woman wish she were dead would be expected to work. I mean if she is truely some hell bound murderous wretch, I'm pretty sure expounding on that is not going to make her less so. Everyone I know that stands outside the clinic has the same view. And they back it up with services, most of which are freely offered.

 

That said, picketing is a legal right of free speech and I see no reason an abortion clinic should be any more protected from demonstrators than any other building. Distance, not being allowed to physically accost or to prevent access into the building are all laws already. I can strongly disagree with how some people picket in many venues, but that's their right just the same.

I would say basic human decency would be a reason. Edited May 14, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Murphy101]

I would say basic human decency would be a reason.

Which matters not bc disagreeing opinion doesn't determine what is or isn't decent picketing or acceptable demonstration of free speech.

[Xuzi]

I had a change of heart on late-term abortion after watching a friend of mine go through with one. At her 20 week u/s it was discovered that the baby had no brain, as well as many other abnormalities that hadn't been spotted at the "finding the heartbeat" u/s she received at 8 weeks. Second and third opinions agreed with the first diagnosis, and there was no chance that baby was going to survive past birth, if it even survived the pregnancy. Due to already having small children at home, and a husband who was a long-haul truck driver, they decided to end the pregnancy on their own time-table by doing an early induction at 22 weeks (it was considered an abortion because the fetus was not yet deceased, but also not at a stage of viability, even if it had been a normally-developed fetus). This allowed the husband to be there for the delivery and recovery, as well as allowed them to hold their baby as it passed away. The mother also expressed relief at at least being able to know *when* the baby was going to pass, instead of waking up every day (as she did during the weeks between diagnosis and abortion) wondering "Is today the day the baby dies?" It allowed them to move out of a very painful "limbo" and onto the grieving and recovering stage of their loss. They went on to have a healthy, normal pregnancy just over a year later.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Xuzi

[MercyA]

But nobody gets a second or third trimester abortion without some seriously tragic situations at play. Nobody. 

 

I'm sorry, but this is just not true. I remember reading an interview with the late abortionist George Tiller, and he said many of his late-term abortion patients were teenagers who had managed to hide their pregnancies from their parents for months. (I apologize that I can't find the source at the moment.) This is backed up by testimony from one of his former staff members who is now pro-life: "I started doing all the filing on the medical records. In over 95% of these babies, and it's probably more than that, there was nothing wrong with those babies at all—nothing—and these were third trimester abortions."

 

Also, according to the authors of a study done by the Guttmacher Institute (formerly part of Planned Parenthood, still a pro-choice organization), wider â€œdata suggests that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment." Source: Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2013,45(4):210–218, doi: 10.1363/4521013.

 

ETA: I believe it was actually Peggy Jarman, spokesperson for Tiller and member of the Pro-Choice Action League who stated that "about three-fourths of Tiller’s late-term patients were teenagers who denied to themselves or their families that they were pregnant until that fact could no longer be obscured." Source: Alan Bavley, “Abortions Late in Pregnancy Push Public, Doctors to Moral Dilemma.†Kansas City Star (Aug. 26, 1991): B1.

Edited May 14, 2016 by MercyA

[zoobie]

I'm basing it on my own numerous miscarriages and the four people I personally know who have suffered having to deliver stillborn babies between 24 weeks and full term.

 

I have never had an OB suggest I needed or they needed an abortion for those circumstances and we never had any of those OBs suggest they could not treat us or any other woman whose unborn baby had died at any stage of the development. Granted myself is one state. But three of those women lived in other states. So it just seems odd to call delivery of a stillborn an abortion to me.

I believe they're different medical procedures entirely. If the woman can't have a vaginal delivery of the fetus, the doctor would have to perform a Caesarean section versus an abortion. I lost a tube each time with my last two of four c-sections due to an issue with scarring and adhesions. I nearly needed a hysterectomy after my 3rd c-section. In a situation that's already horrible--a woman facing a much-wanted pregnancy loss, these laws have very real repercussions on their lives and future childbearing abilities. A c-section is major surgery even when it goes perfectly. It's expensive. It requires greater recovery time. That shouldn't be foisted on women.

[hornblower]

So, who is getting terminations post 20 weeks 

 

Actually, at least one study is pointing the finger at lack of access earlier. https://www.guttmacher.org/about/journals/psrh/2013/11/who-seeks-abortions-or-after-20-weeks

 

"Later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays (e.g., difficulty finding a provider and raising funds for the procedure and travel costs), which compounded other delays in receiving care. Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."

[umsami]

There are tons of organizations working beyond diapers and free clothes. The waiting list to adopt is miles long. An organization that does some things does not have to do all the things. That's a silly case to make. A soup kitchen does not also have to provide health care for its ministry to be worthwhile. A suicide hotline doesn't have to provide lifelong therapy for it to be a good thing to have in the community. A CPC does not have to be the place where a 13 year old goes to get help because his mom chose to have him. But, at the two I've worked at, follow ups were attempted for many months, years and years even, after initial contact, even if mom decided to end the pregnancy. We had some people come visit with their young elementary aged child on more than one occassion. The staff would bust their butts to get women the help that they needed, even if it meant showing them where to go and how to get what they needed from places that specialized in different types of care. There was no one there who stopped caring about the baby or the mom after birth. But this idea that because they advocated for life meaning they are now solely responsible? No other charity or our government organization is held to that standard.

 

But, even so, if the ideal alternative is to end the life before it begins because circumstances are less than ideal, or even bad...that is truly frightening.

 

The waiting list to adopt healthy Caucasian babies under two years is miles long.  The waiting list to adopt children of color, older children, children with disabilities, sibling groups, children of abuse, children of alcoholic and drug-dependent Moms, etc....not long at all. 

 

 

Abortions have existed since time began.  Keeping them safe and legal saves women's lives.  While I'd like to think that both sides would work for better sex education, increased access to low-cost long-term effective birth control, etc.... that doesn't seem to have happened.  The only thing that seems to answer for it is that there are some (not necessarily all...but definitely a very vocal segment) who couple pro-life with abstinence only.  I think that is a big problem because abstinence before marriage 1) is not a belief everybody shares and 2) abstinence-only has a horrifically high failure rate.  I also see a lot of disparaging comments towards women who have multiple-children, perhaps from more than one partner, and yet haven't they done the "right" thing by having these children? Apparently not.  They are vilified.  There is very little aide or help offered to them willingly.  They are called moochers and welfare-queens. 

[umsami]

I know....late to the party...

 

On when life begins arguments and when abortions should be legal..... I think many people go by when a foetus can survive outside the womb as a marker.  So roughly <22-24 weeks.  I'm not saying it can survive without help, but survive... even with the best or prenatal care.  No doubt, this will move earlier and earlier.  

 

In Islam (just for curiosity's sake), there is a belief that angels or God (can't remember which to be honest) breathe a soul into the baby at 120 days (4 months).  So for those who believe abortion is acceptable, usually it is only acceptable up until that point. 

 

I am worried about the lack of access to emergency contraception, to early abortifacients like RU 486/cytotec which are very effective in the first trimester.  I see us moving in a direction where women are going to have to order them over the Internet, rather than have access to qualified medical professionals who can help her through that, make sure it's complete, etc... as well as council her on other options. 

 

 

[MercyA]

If that is the study I am familiar with, "later terminations" was anything over 16 weeks.  16 weeks is generally not what most are thinking of when they are discussing late term abortions.

 

I think you might be thinking of the 1988 Guttmacher study. The more recent one addressed abortions 20 weeks and over.

[EmseB]

The waiting list to adopt healthy Caucasian babies under two years is miles long. The waiting list to adopt children of color, older children, children with disabilities, sibling groups, children of abuse, children of alcoholic and drug-dependent Moms, etc....not long at all.

 

 

Abortions have existed since time began. Keeping them safe and legal saves women's lives. While I'd like to think that both sides would work for better sex education, increased access to low-cost long-term effective birth control, etc.... that doesn't seem to have happened. The only thing that seems to answer for it is that there are some (not necessarily all...but definitely a very vocal segment) who couple pro-life with abstinence only. I think that is a big problem because abstinence before marriage 1) is not a belief everybody shares and 2) abstinence-only has a horrifically high failure rate. I also see a lot of disparaging comments towards women who have multiple-children, perhaps from more than one partner, and yet haven't they done the "right" thing by having these children? Apparently not. They are vilified. There is very little aide or help offered to them willingly. They are called moochers and welfare-queens.

It took some friends of ours over a year to adopt an African-American child. Another couple I know adopted several special needs kids, and while those kids were waiting, my friends had to wait too in order to even get on a list to be able to get a referral for a placement. All of which is neither here nor there because the list to adopt infants is miles long, and that's the issue I was referring to as it pertains to abortions. A pregnant woman can have her entire prenatal care and hospital bill paid for, living expenses too, and when it's all said and done, she can decide to keep her baby with no responsibility to the adoptive parents. That is the risk I and others are willing to take in order to save a life that is otherwise thought of as sub-human. I mean, maybe I live in a bubble, but I know a lot of people willing to take on the "hard cases" exactly because they think, despite society's insistence that those kids are expendable, that they should not be snuffed out of existence because they have hard circumstances. It's the basis of all human rights.

 

And, since this thread started about CPCs, they are offering help to moms, they aren't even remotely calling anyone a moocher or welfare queen. They exist to help people find resources.

 

And abortion only saves women's lives if you don't count the millions of baby girls killed (some simply for being girls!) in the process.

Edited May 14, 2016 by JodiSue

[EmseB]

I think you might be thinking of the 1988 Guttmacher study. The more recent one addressed abortions 20 weeks and over.

That, and one only has to read the grand jury report in the Gosnell case to know that many healthy, late term infants are being aborted. It was one clinic in one major city, and he was aborting many healthy babies every week. So healthy they survived the actual abortion itself. We really want to think he was an anomaly so we don't lose our humanity.

 

ETA: I believe Dr. Carhart was on tape as saying most of his patients were healthy infants. I've had two friends get ananencephaly diagnosis for their babies, and their abortions were done in hospital by their own OB. They didn't have to go on some expedition across state lines, they didn't have to seek out any special clinic. But that is far different than elective abortion without restriction up to anytime before birth, which is what NARAL, PP, NAF advocate for, and it's is sickening that they use cases of actual tragedy to do so.

Edited May 14, 2016 by JodiSue

[LucyStoner]

I'd be very surprised it that were true of American posters. Here the call is for 'abortion on demand and without apology' and 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are obtainable.

Where are ELECTIVE abortions in the 3rd trimester available? 20 weeks is not 3rd trimester...the third trimester starts at 27 weeks.

 

Also just as it is a mistake to equate all prolife people with zealots who don't support abortion in ANY circumstance or criminals who gun down doctors and bomb clinics, it's a mistake to equate all pro choice people with the tiny handful of people who support abortion all 9 months with out any qualms. I've heard people make the argument that a 38 weeker is "just a lump of cells" and the mother has an absolute right to abortion at any point in the gestation up to labor. These people are not common nor do I take them seriously (how could I with a son who was born at 35 weeks gestation?) I will hazard a guess that most of the prochoice people on this thread probably think that position is looney tune bananas.

Edited May 14, 2016 by LucyStoner