why does it have to be wide spread?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-19-2006
why does it have to be wide spread?
10
Wed, 06-24-2009 - 8:40am

I have been wondering this for a while. Often when things are brought up like having some sort of consequence for having say a dozen elective abortions or having an elective third trimester abortion it is said that it doesn't happen often enough to warrant legislation.

This makes no sense to me. Leta say for example that child abuse was almost non existent (wouldn't that be nice) would it be OK to not make laws against it then.

Why does a problem have to be widespread for it to be addressed?

Photobucket
*
Follow me to the Unplanned Pregnancy board!Follow me to Hot Debates!Follow me to Abortion Debate!
Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-06-2009
Thu, 06-25-2009 - 1:29pm

Pragmatically, a problem has to be big enough to warrant dealing with. If a dozen children were being abused in the US every year, I seriously doubt there would be legislation against it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
Thu, 06-25-2009 - 9:01am

<<<>

Well, pretty much anything can be offered up for debate within the realm of the topic of this board. I guess I'm not sure where you are going with the question.>>>

I'm drawing a comparison between an woman abusing the system to give birth way more than many people think she should, with a woman that is ending way more pregnancies than they think that she should.

Both examples show women that are having way more pregnancies than they can handle, and are therefore "abusing the system" your words.

Why should the discussion about "punishment" be limited to the one who didn't intend to have all those pregnancies?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-15-2008
Thu, 06-25-2009 - 2:08am
<<

As for the woman who had 10 abortions - as I said, I'm sure that someone somewhere knows of someone that managed to get a limb or finger removed cosmetically, so if that was the case, would there be a similar offer of debate material for whether punishments for such abuse should be put into law?>>


Actually "Healthy Limbs" are routinely hacked off on infant males. It's called circumcision ;)


but as someone else said...another debate for another board ;)



PhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket

Powered by CGISpy.com
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-02-2006
Wed, 06-24-2009 - 4:53pm

<>


Well, pretty much anything can be offered up for debate within the realm of the topic of this board.

2010 Siggy
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
Wed, 06-24-2009 - 4:31pm

Again - isn't the Octomom abusing the system? Do you think that the argument should be offered up for her as well?

As for the woman who had 10 abortions - as I said, I'm sure that someone somewhere knows of someone that managed to get a limb or finger removed cosmetically, so if that was the case, would there be a similar offer of debate material for whether punishments for such abuse should be put into law?

Or would you just say that this person was such a rarity that it would be ridiculous to start crafting anti-amputation legislation? And if you didn't think that legislation was a good idea, would people say that you were supporting people just walking into doctor's offices (perhaps being coerced) and getting healthy limbs hacked off? That you were pro-healthy-limb-removal...

When someone introduces legislation banning something, they are insinuating that there is an abuse of it. That is why we don't legislate frivolously and waste taxpayer and law-enforcement time and money...

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-02-2006
Wed, 06-24-2009 - 1:52pm

<>


There is a regular poster on this board who knew someone IRL that had at least 10 abortions in her life time.

2010 Siggy
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
Wed, 06-24-2009 - 1:12pm

One other question - what is your source for the statement that there are women having a dozen or more abortions?

I mean who has that kind of money? Or that kind of tolerance for painful surgery? One would think that they would just spend the money and get tubes tied after 3.

Of course I'm sure that someone somewhere could come up with one person that asked for a limb to be cut off, and say that's proof that it's a problem that needs legislation to fix....

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-24-2009
Wed, 06-24-2009 - 12:19pm

Delurking...

Here's another way to put it...

Since women who seek late term abortions on healthy pregnancies are so rare, we assume physicians can deal with it, like we would if someone walked into a surgeon's office and demanded that a healthy limb be cut off.

Legislation banning, and criminal punishment required of amputation of healthy limbs would then put any surgeon recommending amputation (or emergency personnel at the scene of an accident trying to free a mangled limb) in a position to have to cover themselves legally, and perhaps consult with a lawyer in such a situation. It inserts law enforcement unneccesarily into what is clearly within the realm of a physician to deal with.

Since there is no physician consulted and utilized for 'child abuse,' do you now see how that is not an apt comparison?

Drs do not agree to perform late term abortions on healthy pregnancies, for ethical reasons, any more than they agree to perform amputations on healthy limbs. So, such legislation is unnecessary at best, and dangerous for those patients in urgent situations. (Yes, Dr. Tiller did turn away patients who had healthy pregnancies with healthy late term fetuses. He kept lists of people that wanted to be notified for adoption in those instances.)

It should be noted that restrictions and obstacles to affordable, accessible early abortion,increases the percentage of women (and especially minors) who have to delay it weeks or even months to save money, get childcare, get a hotel because of arbitrary state mandated waiting periods, etc. So if we want to decrease the gestational stage at which women have abortions, then we should remove those obstacles. It has been shown that increasing those obstacles doesn't dissuade women, it just delays them. In MS, a mandated waiting period increased the number of 2nd trimester abortions, and increased the number of early abortions in nearby states on it's borders without that restriction.

As for the women that have multiple early abortions: no, it's not illegal, and criminalizing it would violate Roe v Wade, and therefore be unconstitutional. There is also no way to enforce such a ban without violating medical privacy. You are not required legally to tell a physician about any medical procedures you have had.

And what about the women that have multiple children that they are not willing or able to take adequate care of? Is that any more moral than choosing not to bring a child into the world that you are not ready to deal with? The Octomom is one example. I think that she has mental issues, but no one stood in the way of her having 8 more kids. Andrea Yates - her husband convinced her to have another baby, even though she had a history of post-partum psychosis, her doctor advised against more children, then left her alone with all of them. There were no charges brought against him. Personally, I think that the IVF place that agreed to place more than 3 viable eggs into such a young woman (which is against guidelines) with such clear mental issues and Mr Yates are far, far, more deserving of punitive action than a woman whose contraceptive failed more than once.

Would you also support legislation punishing those that have babies than you think they shouldn't, along with women that don't have babies when you think that they should?

Do you see where this could lead?




Edited 6/24/2009 12:21 pm ET by mom_carmina
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2007
Wed, 06-24-2009 - 11:04am

Because in these times of economic distress, that money has to come from somewhere. And here in the U.S., when cuts have to come to the budget, they often come from programs that are designed to help the people who need it the most. Most recently, that has meant cuts to programs that provide health care to poor children.

So, in the context of our earlier debate, which would I rather have- punishment for women who have 10+ abortions and a nationwide database of everyone's medical records, or health care for poor children? It's not even a question in my mind.




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks to Heather (blessedmom0508), Keisha (mommy-la-roo) and Spencer (gespenst) for the beautiful signatures!
Lilypie 2nd Birthday PicLilypie 2nd Birthday Ticker
PhotobucketPhotobucket
Photobucket

Photobucket




Powered by CGISpy.com


Thanks

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-20-2009
Wed, 06-24-2009 - 10:11am
Because it would cost millions of dollars to address the issue of the woman having 10+ abortions. What she's allegedly doing might be disgusting and stupid, but it isn't illegal. So why would we allocate millions of dollars to address what she's doing? That doesn't make sense at all. Now, child abuse is always illegal, so even if it's only affecting a few people, it should be dealt with. The difference is legality. How can you justify spending millions of dollars to address an issue that is both legal and incredibly minimal when there are so many other ways that money could be spent?
Photobucket Lilypie Breastfeeding Ticker PhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket PhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket
Image and video hosting by TinyPicLilypie Breastfeeding Ticker