Justus For All

Good.

Well, the real issue is whether a ban dilation-and-extraction abortions should have an exception for the health of the mother. This is a procedure that’s overwhelmingly used for post-first trimester abortions. Most women who carry a pregnancy beyond the first trimester want to carry to term; in any case, if they didn’t for a reason besides a health concern, a ban with a health exception would prevent that.

And why would this procedure be used rather than another later-term abortion procedure? Because it’s safer for women than other procedures, like inducing early labor which can last from 6 to 48 hours according to today’s majority opinion. So it should be legal, especially given that the result will be the same anyway, and that there’s serious doubt about the sentience of fetuses of less than six months (I agree that the later in the pregnancy, the harder it is to justify the procedure. I understand that the current federal ban contains an exception for the life of the mother).

It was my understanding that the federal ban did NOT contain an exception for the health of the mother and that was the issue here. and that is my issue with the ban. Its absolutely ludicrous that it doesnt contain that exception.
If I’m wrong on that account, I stand corrected though.

I believe it contains an exception for the ‘life’ of the mother, but not the ‘health’ of the mother.

I have a hard time with this one, so I personally have some empathy for one of the women I read, who had this procedure when she was pregnant. One of the babies was already dead- the other, dying. They could not control her blood pressure (meaning labor put her at about a 100% chance of a debilitating stroke) and her kidneys were failing- her bosy was rapidly shutting down. I know she believes, and her medical team at the time believed, that there was no other way to preserve her life than to perform the procedure which has been banned. Certainly, I think it was the best option in a bad situation.

Added to above- I should clarify, the question is, was her LIFE threatened, or merely her HEALTH? You can survive a stroke…and you can live without kidneys, with dialysis. Where is the line?
I know she feels, emotionally, that this basically devalues her life. I think it’s a very hard issue, and it’s hard to tell the impact, until I see the statute in action.

FYI-here’s the link to her site, where she has done some posting on this..
http://zia.blogs.com/wastedbirthcontrol/

This is where I started getting a bit p-o’d by these debates.

It seems that no one is able to put together two facts -

First, sometimes an abortion is a necessity for the health and survival of both mother and baby.

Secondly, it is now routine for a premature baby to survive after 25 weeks gestation. NZ hospitals (reputedly third world standard) are investigating the long term consequences of birth at 23 weeks gestation.

On the basis of that, an abortion after the 25th week should not involve the death of the fetus.

For that reason alone, I for one can support abortion in the first 12 weeks of gestation, but can count post-25 weeks abortion as murder.

The Court decision is right. Why is there debate about it?

First, sometimes an abortion is a necessity for the health and survival of both mother and baby.

Haha. Did your mother have any children that lived, Probligo?

I have absolutely no problem, Probligo, with the idea that a fetus has rights. But so do the women who carry them. Sometimes, you have competing interests- I guess I feel strongly that the rights of the mother, healthwise, have to come before the right of a child not yet born. And also-let’s not forget that most frequently this procedure was used to remove a fetus that had died in utero or could not survive outside the womb. There was no way to deliver a living child. So, the viability part, for women after 25 weeks, is really a moot point- the procedure is performed to give them the best recovery chance possible, BECAUSE THE PREGNANCY IS NOT VIABLE. Roe v. Wade, btw, already made abortion illegal at viability-which is defined at 24-40 weeks. No additional laws need to be passed. the difference is only in an exception for the health of the mother, vs. the life of the mother.

Stephanie,

I believe that Roe holds that it cannot be illegal to prohit abortion before viability, it does not mandate that after viability abortion be illegal, that is still left up to states, and the federal government.

This law also does not ever apply to a fetus that has died in utero, as unless the fetus is intentionally killed the law doesn’t apply to it. Also opponants argue in the cases where the fetus would die anyway, after it was delivered, why not deliver it and let it die naturally if it cannot be saved rather then pause during the delivery to kill it?

Stephanie, make the connection…

A mother is in danger of miscarrying. The doctors will strive to extend her pregnancy as long as possible, but there comes the point where the fetus is born and becomes a baby; let us say at 27 weeks. The doctors then strive to keep that baby alive and (in NZ at least) survival from 27 weeks gestation is better than 90%.

A woman reaches 27 weeks and is in danger of stroke and death because of blood pressure problems. Same deal…

A woman decides at 27 weeks to abort her fetus. So we have arguments about the legal niceties of “death in utero”, RvW, etc etc. Why can that pregnancy not be terminated WITHOUT killing the fetus? Why not put the same resources into saving that baby. Why can that baby not then be adopted by another mother?

No. There is somethng quite wrong with the idea.

Probligo,

At 27 weeks, no serious health issues, I agree with you. Point of fact, though, I only know/have read of 1 truly voluntary (no reason other than the mom didn’t want it) abortion (self performed, using medication to cause an abortion). The baby was born alive (25 weeks) and died a few days later. Actually, I take it back, it does appear in the news every now and again…in all cases, the “mother” did something herself to try and cause an abortion.

Dave,

That’s why I am slightly on the fence-because letting a terminal child be born first is possible. Sometimes the parents are concerned that a live birth would be more painful. I understand that some feel D and X is the best option, but there are other ways. I’m mostly hanging back to see how this will be implemented, and what the effects will be. Am concerned, though, and uneasy. I wish women could be trusted to make their own decisions about what’s best for them with their medical council. But apparently we’re not considered able to do that.

Stephanie,

While obviously abortion is only applicable to women, I think it is unfair to say that women are not trusted to make this decision, there are many regulations we have about medical treatment and legitimate and unlegitimate practices. There is also the fact that we are talking about a second life here, at this point in development the fetus has independant brain function and is a living being.

I would guess that very few responsible women would choose an abortion at this point in pregnancy unless it was a life threatening issue. The fact is though, not all people, women included are responsible. Mothers sometimes kill their children. We certainly don’t accept that as their own decision and the state has a right there. Defining and otherwise viable life as simply a peice of tissue, simply property of the woman just because of a few inches of difference in location strikes me profoundly immoral and something that society as a whole as a right and duty to regulate.

I have some friends who had a child born at 24 weeks. Granted, abortion was never a question for them, they very much wanted a child, but the boy is now 2 years old, healthy, beautiful and happy. That he wasn’t a person a couple of minutes before he was born is a premise I cannot accept.

I can appreciate that-it’s all a matter of worth, and which is worth more-and that’s everyone’s bandwidth. I just have trouble accepting that a child’s potential survival (since 24 weeks is still fairly chancy) is worth more than a woman’s health.
Now- I do understand that the “health” definition is rather broadly defined, but I wish they’d have chosen to more strictly define that, then decide to do away with a health exception altogether.

The ‘merciful death’ idea is also up for definition- I believe in euthanasia, which not all people do. That factors in as well.

Well, in this case ‘health’ has been given a more limited definition to be ‘life threatening’ risks. My guess is that rarely if ever would a doctor be challenged upon making this determination, and only in the most extreme examples would a court second guess that. In practice, I expect that what you think of as ‘health’ is exactly what this bill still allows.

Choosing euthanasia for yourself is one thing, choosing it for another is quite a bit different. It is also different between choosing merciful death for an elderly person, who even if they overcome the immediate difficulties will not have long to live, and choosing it for a very young person who may, if luckly, overcome and live a long life.

One aspect of the abortion debate that bothers me, although only tangentally related to partial birth abortion is aborting children who are in some way ‘defective,’ the huge abortion rate of Down’s syndrome effected fetuses being a prime example. Doubtless the Mothers in this case beleive they are practicing something which is similar to euthanasia, but I worry about our values that say a being that is not ‘perfect’ is worthless. That said, in the first trimester I am willing to cede this judgement to the woman, as time goes on though and we can more certainly say that the fetus is becoming a person other interests weigh in.