new here with question

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-08-2006
new here with question
155
Sun, 01-31-2010 - 10:58pm

I've been an occasional lurker here just because I love a good debate, but I rarely get involved because I can get caught up in it and never leave...;) There is a question that I have for all the pro choicers out there.

psalm.png picture by gautreaumom

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2009
Sun, 01-31-2010 - 11:21pm
I'm pro-choice because women are intelligent, capable persons who deserve to make their own health care choices. A woman's autonomy doesn't change simply because she is pregnant. If a woman decides at some point in time prior to viability that she no longer cares to be pregnant, for whatever reason,
Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-08-2006
Mon, 02-01-2010 - 12:03am

Thanks but that really didn't answer my question.

psalm.png picture by gautreaumom

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Mon, 02-01-2010 - 12:25am

<<>>

Because doing that isn't "simple" at all.

Babies born at 24 weeks have poor odds for survival. If they do live, they need to stay in a high-level NICU for *months* in order to ensure any kind of quality of life. They may be blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped in myriad ways.

Furthermore, the cost of maintaining such a baby in a NICU, and any after-care needed once released, can be astronomical. Insurance companies will not necessarily pay out to cover these kinds of treatments, if a family has insurance at all.

Do you know much about preemies and their odds?

http://www.preemiesurvival.org/info/index.html

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1157.asp

I had both of my babies right at 37 weeks, the universal "full-term" marker. Both have health issues that I believe are directly related to the fact that they did not get to spend enough time in the womb.

A baby born 3 months prematurely, if she survives at all, is in for a very rough ride, in all likelihood. Denying a mother the right to choose whether to carry through with a pregnancy hurts a lot of people, including the baby herself in the long run.

Photobucket



Lilypie Second Birthday tickers



Lilypie Fifth Birthday tickers



Photobucket
Photobucket

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2009
Mon, 02-01-2010 - 12:36am

If

Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-08-2006
Mon, 02-01-2010 - 12:57am

Actually I was immersed in knowledge of preemies when my Dad's girlfriend got pregnant at the same time as me.

psalm.png picture by gautreaumom

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-08-2006
Mon, 02-01-2010 - 1:07am

psalm.png picture by gautreaumom

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Mon, 02-01-2010 - 2:54am

<<>>

OK

<<>>

Yes she made a very risky and bold choice how nice she lives in a country that allows her that right.

<>

Let's first assume the mother in question wants this.

<<>>

First of all not wanting to take the energy one is given in a lifetime and pin it all on the feeble hopes that a baby that sick and that weak may live is NOT selfish in fact,not wanting to put a baby through the months of rehabilitation it would take and the financial drain it too would have to endure with it's parents is not selfish. IMO it's a responsible act to stop a situation from reaching that point.

<<>

I would say that it is the mother's CHOICE {yes i know you don't like that word} to either carry the baby or no and if she chooses not to do so at 24 weeks or after then that is her CHOICE. If it's possible ok, but there are far too many questions about the baby's viability at that point besides you have to wonder who will pay for all of this interesting,some people would pay to support a child's astronomical medical bill but won't pay for women to choose abortion lol.

priceless.

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-16-2009
Mon, 02-01-2010 - 3:16am

Just to clarify first re: the Tebow story, abortion is against the law for any reason where she conceived and carried him and gave birth.

~due to her health stating that she probably couldn't carry the child full term. And I'm sure this diagnoses was made when she was in her first trimester~

No. In the first trimester, the supposed recommendation was for another reason, ie. they expected that the fetus had sustained severe damage due to medications.

It was when she developed placental abruption (which occurs week 20+) that supposedly it was recommended to her to abort because of the danger she was incurring then (ie. not just if she carried to term).

~So if problems would have arose, why not let her carry the child for as long as she can and if possible, after the age of viablitiy, take the child?~

Sometimes women develop conditions that preclude waiting until then without risking their lives.

Kate

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-16-2009
Mon, 02-01-2010 - 3:26am

~choice how nice she lives in a country that allows her that right~

Just to clarify, I'm not sure that she had a choice, because she was in the Philippines (where it's against the law for any reason).

Also, if the OP wants to use that story as the example, I should mention that her life became endangered when she developed placenta abruption (which happens at 20+ weeks), so possibly before viability.

~I would say that it is the...~

I would, too.

Kate

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Mon, 02-01-2010 - 8:33am

<>

What is a partial birth abortion? There really IS not medical procedure or term by that name. Were you referring to an intact dilation and evacuation?
Did you realize the vast majority of those are done for sever fetal anomaly? And that it is the SAFEST procedure for the woman in most cases as well. Safest. THAT would be the reason why it should be a valid choice if the circumstances dictate.

<>

What if that method presented more risk to her? What if that had been a risk and process with which she did not agree to assume? I fully support the choice she made- but vehemently disagree with the restriction of the rights of others to the choice as well.

For example, were I in a situation where they told me the embryo/fetus had a very high likelihood of having significant issues, while I was in the fist trimester- I'd choose t abort over the wait-n-see. Why? Because waiting until the stage that fetal viability most often occurs would mean a FIFTH c section for me- a risk I am absolutely UNWILLING to assume.

<>

And since I HAD one of those children with severe brain damage and experienced firsthand that kind of DEFINITE and very REAL "medical costs" and "emotional" AND spiritual AND physical AND psychological AND marriage AND effect on siblings TOLLS; I can say that it can be the SMARTEST kind of selfish to abort for fetal defect if you know beforehand. If someone wants to accept martyrdom for themselves, that is their choice (though I'd question the effect on every other family member made on their behalf as well); but to inflict that across the board, and berate them or restrict their choice? I think not.

<>

Then in those cases the procedure that holds the best risks the woman wishes to assume and can be performed by her medical care professional is the one that should be utilized.

.
.
.



Pages