Controversial topic - You have been warned

[treide]

This has been in the news quite a bit, but for those not aware, the US Supreme Court has passed a law against \"Partial Birth\" abortion that goes into effect in the near future.

I find this appalling as it essentially puts legislators between women and their doctors when they need to make difficult decisions about pregnancy and reproductive health.

Decisions about what medical procedures are appropriate for patients should be made by the medical community, not by legislators, judges or special interest groups.

I know this topic will get blood boiling, but I am truly interested in what others here think, as I am impressed that the majority of regular posters on this forum make an honest effort to be civil even when they disagree with one another.

 

[uberdark]

i would love to reply but first show me the article that talks about this.

 

[treide]

There may be a site that includes all the details, but here is a news report.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/scotus.abortion/index.html

 

[GreenOne]

Another pointy issue...

The new makes me sad, like you said.. appaling. The legal actors will now make profit out of life and birth :|~

This being said, I will watch these proceeding from a safe distance...
*Puts on protective eyewears*

 

[Evil Dave]

umm..what\'s stopping them from making decisions about their pregnancy and health in the first or second trimester?
(In fact, why are women today still getting accidentally pregnant when there are so many friggin\' ways of preventing it?)
No evidence has been found that are any more health reasons in the third trimester than in the previous two.

One of the judges even said that if they could show medical evidence that he would change his mind.

This is merely blocking late term abortions in which the fetus is pretty much formed.

Edit: At what point would YOU make the cut off date? A day before birth? one month? Two?
Babies have been known to survive two to three months premature, hence the third trimester cut-off date.

 

[treide]

The law bans this procedure during the middle second trimester, so it does apply to women trying to make this decision prior to the third trimester.

The main reason women may need to make this decision so late in the pregnancy is that may be when they discover there is a problem.

\"Accidental pregnancy\" is not the issue. Some women may face this decision who actually wanted the pregnancy but then find that there are unanticipated problems with the pregnancy.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by treide
The main reason women may need to make this decision so late in the pregnancy is that may be when they discover there is a problem.

May need is a kind of open statement. An open statement that has been abused before by doctors in the past. Is the problem mental? Physical? A case of cold feet? Going through a bad divorce? Lost your job? Just don\'t think you can raise a child in today\'s cruel world?

The lawyers fighting it had their chance to cite specific medical reasons why it should be allowed and could come up with nothing.

 

[treide]

OK, what about a malformed fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb?

 

[StarFyre]

and once again....

I am so glad I\'m not in the states...

Yet another reason why having a Canadian flag on my bag is a good thing

Stupid stuff like this makes the citizens look bad, regardless how smart they are.

Sanjay

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by treide
OK, what about a malformed fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb?

OK, what about a terminal cancer patient dying in intense pain? Can a physician make the call to euthanise?

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by StarFyre
I am so glad I\'m not in the states...

Yet another reason why having a Canadian flag on my bag is a good thing

Stupid stuff like this makes the citizens look bad, regardless how smart they are.

Sanjay

And exactly how is it stupid?
From Treide\'s info it says she is a physician.
Please site us physical medical reasons why a mother\'s life would be endangered if the pregnancy goes full term and not have been spotted in the very beginning of the pregnancy.

 

[treide]

If you are asking me whether I think it is appropriate to end the suffering of a terminal cancer patient dying in intense pain, then yes I think it is appropriate.

I similarly think it is appropriate for a woman with a malformed fetus that has no hope of surviving to decide to terminate her pregnancy. Unfortunately there is now a law which limits her options to do so.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by treide
I similarly think it is appropriate for a woman with a malformed fetus that has no hope of surviving to decide to terminate her pregnancy. Unfortunately there is now a law which limits her options to do so.

The reason you cited was the mother\'s physical well being.
How does a malformed baby endanger the mothers life? And how can it not be readily apparent by the first trimester?
Hell, they can tell if you\'re going to have a baby with Down\'s Syndrome before the first trimester is even half way over.
You\'re telling me that they cannot detect an aberation , yet can detect Down\'s Syndrome?
Sonogram anyone?

 

[treide]

Several examples:

Placental abruption - the placenta comes away from the uterine wall resulting in potentially fatal hemorrhaging

Chorioamnionitis - bacterial infection of the membranes around the fetus that can spread to the woman\'s blood stream and lead to sepsis or death.

I am sure there are many other reasons, but as I am not an obstetrician, I would have to do some reading to identify them.

Also, the longer a woman waits to undergo an abortion, the riskier the procedure. I agree if there is a reason to have an abortion done, it should be done as early in the pregnancy as possible. Some problems are not detected until later though.

 

[treide]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

How does a malformed baby endanger the mothers life? And how can it not be readily apparent by the first trimester?
Hell, they can tell if you\'re going to have a baby with Down\'s Syndrome before the first trimester is even half way over.
You\'re telling me that they cannot detect an aberation , yet can detect Down\'s Syndrome?
Sonogram anyone?

Sorry for the double-post. It is difficult to keep up with Evil Dave\'s responses!

For the first question, a baby with hydrocephalus (enlarged head) can endanger the mother\'s life due to prolonged labor and inability of the head to pass through the cervix. It may not show up until later in the pregnancy.

Your other point about detection of Down\'s syndrome is not completely accurate. There are tests that can demonstrate a high likelihood of Down\'s syndrome in the first trimester, but a more definitive test (amniocentesis) is required to be certain, and that procedure often cannot be performed until well into the second trimester when enough amniotic fluid has been formed to safely obtain it.

Oh, and I am a man (you referred to me as \"she\" above). Not that I consider that an insult, of course.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by treide
Several examples:

Placental abruption - the placenta comes away from the uterine wall resulting in potentially fatal hemorrhaging

Chorioamnionitis - bacterial infection of the membranes around the fetus that can spread to the woman\'s blood stream and lead to sepsis or death.

Both examples I googled and found that they are treatable, and none of the treatments suggested abortion.

I am sure there are many other reasons, but as I am not an obstetrician, I would have to do some reading to identify them.

And I\'m also sure that you realize that those helping uphold the supreme court case were also obstetricians. It wasn\'t just Doctors vs. Lawyers.

Also, the longer a woman waits to undergo an abortion, the riskier the procedure. I agree if there is a reason to have an abortion done, it should be done as early in the pregnancy as possible. Some problems are not detected until later though.

I think you may be a little behind on Obstetrics. 30 years ago a baby was born that was three months premature, and had to have an open heart surgery upon birth. By your definition a fetus that could not survive on it\'s own.
I married her.
And they could do that 30 years ago.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by treide
Your other point about detection of Down\'s syndrome is not completely accurate. There are tests that can demonstrate a high likelihood of Down\'s syndrome in the first trimester, but a more definitive test (amniocentesis) is required to be certain, and that procedure often cannot be performed until well into the second trimester when enough amniotic fluid has been formed to safely obtain it.

Nope, sooner. My little sister is pregnant and just had the test done and confirmed, she is still within her first trimester.
And my little brother\'s wife is pregnant as well, I\'m knee deep in the baby stuff and tests right now.

 

[treide]

It is true that there are treatments that can be pursued for placental abruption and chorioamnionitis, but if they fail and the mother\'s clinical status deteriorates, abortion may be necessary to save the mother\'s life.

Certainly premature infants can survive. In fact I think there are reports of survival at as early as 20 weeks gestation. This assumes the baby is otherwise healthy and not suffering from some serious malformation or genetic abnormality.

As far as the first trimester tests, you are probably referring to a combined blood test (alpha fetoprotein) and ultrasound test (nuchal translucency). If those are abnormal, then a confirmatory test can be performed to determine the presence of Down\'s syndrome. Amniocentesis is the preferred test, as it carries less risk of endangering the pregnancy. The other test, chorionic villus sampling, can be done in the first trimester, but it is riskier to the fetus. Anyway, sometimes there is not enough amniotic fluid to perform amniocentesis until later in the pregnancy, sometimes well into the second trimester.

 

[Jericho]

I know it sounds harsh, but I honestly think abortion wouldn\'t be necessary in a large majority of the cases if people had a healthy respect for the consequences of sexual activity.

Birth control methods aren\'t 100% effective. Even visectomy isn\'t gonna work every single time, I know people who have had kids more than 9 months after the procedure (yes, it is for sure their kid ). So no matter how careful you are, consentual sex involves an acceptable risk.

I mean if there\'s a clearly life and death medical implication for the surgery, then that\'s one thing (maybe), but if it\'s just people being irresponsible and not being ready to accept responsibility for their behavior then abortion is no different than murder if you ask me. You\'re taking a human life.

The attitude most people have towards sex these days is really frustrating to me, it\'s just so immature. I\'ve had a number of guy friends absolutely going nuts when their girlfriends/whatever were possibly pregnant (or like when a condom breaks or whatever) and I just tell them \"If you can\'t deal with this, then maybe you shouldn\'t be having sex in the first place.\"

OK I usually have more supportive stuff to say in addition to that, but still

 

[tomusannonymous]

i think abortion is wrong, if the parents just didn\'t use protection then they should wear the consequences, if they did its just bad luck, or good luck... i\'ve heard ppl say that its just killing a couple of cells if its done early and that its not nearly as bad as killing thousands of cells when u pick your nose.. but the cells in your nose don\'t grow into a human being do they????