Georgia Governor Approves Ban On Abortions After 20 Weeks With No Exception For Rape Or Incest

[ProSense]

Georgia Governor Approves Ban On Abortions After 20 Weeks With No Exception For Rape Or Incest | Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) signed a controversial “fetal pain” bill into law yesterday, which bans most abortions after 20 weeks with exceptions to save the life of the mother and if the fetus has extreme defects that make survival unlikely. The bill has no exception for rape or incest. Lawmakers based the legislation on the widely disputed claim that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks gestation, and Georgia is the seventh state to approve such a law. State laws already prevented most abortions in the third trimester. Deal argued the new law added “humane protection to innocents capable of feeling pain,” but Planned Parenthood officials said it would limit women’s access to health care.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/02/475121/georgia-governor-signs-abortion-ban/

[Lars39]

1. So that 11 year old who was raped has to carry to term.

No longer innocent....carnal knowledge and all that. Pro rapist pile o' shits. Thinkin' evil thoughts here.

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. No - it is not making abortion illegal (yet)

it is saying that one has to have one before 5 months.

[HockeyMom]

4. MY friend was raped at 11 years old

on her way home from catholic school in her uniform. I can tell you this much. Her parents would have taken her out of the country if they had to so she would not have to bear a rapist's baby. Of course, no PARENT would ever let their child have an abortion, rape or not.

[lacrew]

6. The abortion debate will never be solved with demagoguery

I don't know how many 11 year olds get raped in GA every year

I don't know how many of them are girls

I don't know how many of them become pregnant

And I don't know how many of them are unaware of pregnancy for the first 20 weeks

But I imagine its a very small subset. There was probably no need at all to exclude rape and incest (and not having read the bill, I don't know if it affirmatively excludes these exceptions, or they are merely omitted). There just can't be that many people affected by this, for it to even matter one way or another.

But, for the exact same reasons, coming up with an unlikely 'what if', in order to become outraged about it, solves nothing.

The record for earliest viable birth is 21 weeks 6 days, according to wiki. I'd say that at some point, the baby's human rights do come into play. If it can live at 21 weeks, outside of the womb, I see no controversy in the contention that it feels pain at 20 weeks. And, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect somebody to make the decision prior to 20 weeks, before that decision starts to trample on the baby's rights. (yes I know, somebody can drudge up a story or two about a teen girl giving birth, without even knowing she was pregnant...but these are incredibly rare, and do not change the fact that at some point in the term, the baby becomes, well, a baby).

Personal disclosure - I knew the wiki stat on the 21 week baby off the top of my head, because I looked it up last night. We were discussing my nephews, who were born at 23 weeks. They are perfectly healthy toddlers now, both survivors of such an early birth. Seeing how small they were, and yet able to survive, has caused me to seriously question my thoughts on abortion, and when the baby's rights and needs trump that of the mother's.

Feel free to flame away I don't care. But consider the statement: 'Pro rapist pile o' shits'...is that a helpful reaction? Do you really believe that? I have to tell you, I don't.

[get the red out]

7. Chip, chip, chip

Every law that limits choice chips away until it is easy to end choice completely.

[ProSense]

8. Good grief!

I don't know how many 11 year olds get raped in GA every year

I don't know how many of them are girls

I don't know how many of them become pregnant

And I don't know how many of them are unaware of pregnancy for the first 20 weeks

But I imagine its a very small subset. There was probably no need at all to exclude rape and incest (and not having read the bill, I don't know if it affirmatively excludes these exceptions, or they are merely omitted). There just can't be that many people affected by this, for it to even matter one way or another.

You don't know a lot, but hey stripping people of their rights is cool based on ignorance.

[ProSense]

14. So what

And, quite frankly, aborting a 39 week old fetus would be 'stripping' the rights of the baby. There has to be a half way point...a point in which we draw the line and say the baby's rights are at least equal with those of the mother. GA has made their line in the sand 20 weeks. I believe most states draw the line at 28 weeks...but as I descibed in my first post, we have babies surviving outside of the womb, much younger than that....making it not an illegitimate pursuit to ratchet back the half way point.

...you're saying is you're fine with "'stripping' the rights of the baby" as long as it's done at 20 weeks to 28 weeks.

I mean, how barbaric by the anti-choice standard. Still, what's even more barbaric is stripping away a woman's choice in the case of incest or rape.

[lacrew]

24. Actually no

I think I have been very clear - in my own anectdotal experience I have seen babies live at 23 weeks. Ergo, I think the 28 week standard in most states is based on outdated notions of viability, and should be ratcheted back to 20 weeks.

Yes the mother has rights, and it is terrible to even contemplate the rape or incest argument, but:

1) That is using an incrediby rare 'what if' to demagogue the issue and avoid genuine discussion

2) I said it was silly to not include these as exclusions (I AM AGREEING WITH YOU)...because it is so rare.

3) In my opinion, terrible as it is, at some point the baby has rights - even in incest and rape cases. The mother is an innocent victim of course, but so is the baby. If a baby at 23 weeks can exist outside of the womb, with breath, heartbeat, sensation of pain, and brain activity.....it is terrible to contemplate snuffing it out, in or out of the womb.

[laundry_queen]

66. BS.

A lot of prenatal testing is not completed until at least 24 wks (where I am) and thus defects that are incompatible with life often aren't detected until then. Can you imagine, a woman at 19 wks being told her baby has a horrific defect, and she is forced to decide what she wants to do, if she wants an abortion, then find the money to book and pay for the abortion all within a week or she'll be forced to carry the baby to term? Fucking disgusting imo. 20 wks is too early for a cut off. Period. And a 23 week-er who survives often has severe, severe developmental issues due to that amount of prematurity. A friend of mine had a 23 weeker and he's severely disabled (can't walk, can't talk, wheelchair bound, yearly surgeries, etc). Just because you CAN save a 23 weeker, doesn't mean you SHOULD. And there comes that annoying word again - choice. In that no-man's land between week 22 (most hospitals will NOT resussitate before 22 weeks, and some won't before 24 wks) and wk 26 where outcomes vary widely, it should always be a person/parents' choice. I know someone else who had a micropreemie who decided with her second if she once again had a micropreemie, she would prefer no treatment be done. She had seen her first suffer too much. And her choice should be respected, as should that woman who decides at 23 weeks she can't cope with the thought carrying a baby that has defects incompatible with life to term, and wants to have an abortion. 28 weeks is a measure of viability because it's at that point MOST babies can survive without severe long term effects. Just because 1 out of 50 23 weekers can survive, doesn't mean that's a measure of viability.

[lacrew]

80. Ah...BS

As I have consistently stated, the abortion discourse has devolved into a name calling contest....and you proved it.

As far as defects go, the article in the OP states that abortions will be allowed in cases where the baby has a low chance of survival, even after 20 weeks.

As far as how well a 23 week baby survives...it has nothing to do with the discussion. The fact that some premature babies, born at 23 weeks have severe problems has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they should be considered human at that point. The discussion was never about 'saving' a 23 weeker....but whether or not a 23 week baby is human. And, you confirmed it with your own anectdotal evidence that you have a friend with a real live human, born at 23 weeks.

And all this business about resussitation....this is not the discussion at all. I don't even understand where this is coming from. Again, the example of the 23 week baby is meant to only demonstrate the humanness of a baby at that age...it had nothing to do with whether or not to treat a premie...that is an entirely different discussion.

Now, you think 20 weeks is too early, because pregnancy may be difficult to detect by then. This is the crux of the matter - the whole reason medical ethics can be a very sticky wicket. My opinion: its going to get tougher and tougher, because babies are going to survive earlier and earlier. And ethically, most state constitutions obligate their governments to protect life. It is not unreasonable to assume a 23 week baby is 'alive'....and I would challenge anyone who wished to tell me which human experience a baby that age does not participate in - breath, brain activity, sensation of pain, heart beat, its all there. What about the mother? Well this law essentially says, if the mother's life is not in danger, there is no suffering she can go through, which would trump the 20 week fetus' right to live.

As I've said before, the state has to draw the line somewhere (oddly some on this thread have contested that statement, with the notion that a 39 week fetus has no human rights). GA is drawing the line at 20. I'm ok with that - its based on solid evidence about the human characteristics of a 20 week old fetus. You think its too early...based on the inability to detect pregnancy by that point. To me, that really is moot...it doesn't change the humaness of the fetus, or the state's obligation to protect it. I know this collides with the mother's rights....but sometimes there are no easy answers.

I predict many states will change from a 26 or 28 week standard, and go to 20....even very liberal states. To me, it has little to do with politics (except for some who would argue for abortion at the end of the third trimester). It has always been about where to draw the line, and medical miracles are demonstrating to us that the line is currently in the wrong place.

Now back to my original post, about demagoguing the issue (i.e. saying somebody's opinion is 'BS'). That is an all or nothing approach. You might just find that such an inflexible approach will put us back in the 'nothing' column.

[uppityperson]

83. And..BS

"oddly some on this thread have contested that statement, with the notion that a 39 week fetus has no human rights"

Who here has said that? Some of us contend that the live woman's rights trump that of a fetus, not that they have "no human rights".

"Now back to my original post, about demagoguing the issue (i.e. saying somebody's opinion is 'BS'). That is an all or nothing approach. You might just find that such an inflexible approach will put us back in the 'nothing' column. "

Since you have called somebody's opinion 'BS', that puts you right into the category you claim to abhor.

"As far as how well a 23 week baby survives...it has nothing to do with the discussion. The fact that some premature babies, born at 23 weeks have severe problems has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they should be considered human at that point."

Yes. It does. Since this discussion involves when a fetus is able to survive outside a uterus, it does have plenty to do with the discussion.

Define "human". Is it something alive with human dna? It is something able to survive on its own? What is "life"? What is "human"? These terms may seem obvious but they are often different to different people and assuming everyone agrees on their definition leads to misunderstandings.

[lacrew]

87. Since you have called somebody's opinion 'BS'

No. I. Havent.

"As far as how well a 23 week baby survives...it has nothing to do with the discussion. The fact that some premature babies, born at 23 weeks have severe problems has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they should be considered human at that point"

I don't know how I can explain this any further. This is not a discussion about the ethics of attempting to revive a premie...it is a discussion about limiting abortion to 20 weeks in GA. I brought up the case of surviving premies to demonstrate the humanness of a fetus at this age.

"Since this discussion involves when a fetus is able to survive outside a uterus"....if I were to hop in my car a drive to the hospital today, I would undoubtedly find people in instensive care, completely dependent on a man made machine to survive. And, I would still consider these people to be very human. Some people in this world have only survived by virtue of the implantation of another person's vital organ....and they are still human. So I am most definitely not going to limit my discussion to when a fetus can survive outside the uterus - some 40 week babies can't survive outside the uterus without human intervention. Its a completely irrelevant argument.

Definition of alive? Many are leaning towards the presence of brain activity (because the lack of it is being used as a condition for removing people from life support). And a 20 week fetus certainly has that. As stated before, using th ability to survive on its own as a litmus test does not pass muster. Using such logic, we would not attempt to revive people who have suffered severe trauma....or even use antibiotics to clear up an infection. But, even if I were to accept that litmus test, a limit of 20 weeks would fit into that quite well. The 50% survival rate breakover point is 24 weeks. Erring on the side of caution, 20 weeks does not seem absurd.

[uppityperson]

100. Huh, let me quote you "Ah...BS". That wasn't calling someone's opinion BS? Another sad misunderstand

misunderstanding then.

"Definition of alive? Many are leaning towards the presence of brain activity (because the lack of it is being used as a condition for removing people from life support). "

Are you saying someone on life support without brain activity is not "alive"? How odd. As a nurse, tending brain dead people, yes, they are "alive". Lack of brain function as precondition for removing someone from life support does not mean that person is not "alive". Maybe you are instead saying "many lean towards that" rather than answering the question of what YOU believe. If so, let me try again. What is YOUR definition of "alive"?

"I brought up the case of surviving premies to demonstrate the humanness of a fetus at this age."

What is your definition of "human"?

[lacrew]

113. I was quoting Laundry_queens well detailed response to me

You certainly did misunderstand.

As far as my definition of alive goes, I am not a philosopher or a medical expert....and this is not easy answer to give.

So I won't.

But I will say that a fetus with the ability to live outside the womb (even with artificial support) is most definitely alive in my book.

I could turn the question right around, and demand to know why you wouldn't think that is 'alive'.

[uppityperson]

121. You continue to use "live" & "alive" as qualifiers yet refuse to define the terms.

Gotcha.

[laundry_queen]

88. LOL, like 'BS' is name calling

Your whole premise is flawed, and is very anti-choice, hence the 'BS'. I wasn't calling YOU a name, but just pointing out your argument doesn't stand.

You point out that a 23 weeker is alive, therefore human, therefore all 23 weekers IN THE WOMB are humans and should not be aborted.

I strongly disagree with your premise. I'm saying, that just because a 23 weeker CAN survive, does not give the fetus autonomy over its MOTHER's body. Period. (I'd like to remind you that the mother is a living BREATHING human being who can feel pain, emotions AND has the capability to make conscious decisions).

It's apparent in this conversation you are enjoying being deliberately obtuse. You have stated that you think there should be a state mandated obligation to protect a 20 week old fetus. I call that anti-choice, no matter how you twist it. And don't include me in your 'us' since it's apparent you aren't 'us'.

[lacrew]

94. Yes, I am ok with 20 weeks being the limit

And yes I understand that the mother lives and breathes....and has the right to live.

At some point in the pregnancy, so does the fetus, does it not? A viable 39 week fetus has the right to life, doesn't it.

I hope your answer is yes...and if it is, the only remaining question is where to draw the line.

GA previously used 26 weeks. Now its 20 weeks.

As I stated before, I am OK with that....because I have witnessed babies live at 23 weeks.

Therefore, if a mother is carrying around a 25 week fetus, with no known health defects, I get very queasy at the notion of snuffing it out for completely elective reasons. This is because, in all likelyhood, that fetus could be induced at 25 weeks, and survive with the miracles of modern medicine. I'm gonna call that close enough to alive for me to say whoa, its too late.

Anti-choice? I guess it depends on how one defines choice.

Have you read Roe v. Wade?

It affirms abortion....until viability. You see, it doesn't define choice as anytime in the pregnancy.

Here's another tid-bit on the definition of viability, according to the court: "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid".....hmmm, pretty much in line with my statements.

And it goes further (keep in mind this was in an era of 1973 medicine) - "viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."....so the supreme court (using 1973 medical data of the era) states that a fetus as early as 24 weeks is protected, and has rights which should be compared with the mother's.

So am I anti-choice...or fairly in line with the original ruling?

[laundry_queen]

98. I have not read Roe v wade

I'm not an American. But agreeing with a court ruling that places limitations on abortions doesn't make you pro-choice. It makes you pro- "okay with abortions as long as they are done when *I* think it's ok".

As for when I think the fetus has a 'right' to live, I personally vehemently disagree with anyone that would get an abortion after 26 wks if not for medical reasons. I most certainly would never do that. Actually, I personally wouldn't get an abortion unless I was in dire circumstances.

However, that's the difference between you and me. I'd rather not legislate my opinion on other women. Have you ever been pregnant? Not easy. Imagine being forced to stay that way. And an abortion after 20 weeks is pretty much like giving birth, pain and everything. I can't even imagine how desperate a woman must feel to have to go through all that and feel she didn't have a choice but to take the route, and I'm not qualified to make those judgements. I suppose it's because I grew up in a country where even the staunchest conservative said about abortion, "It's between a woman, her doctor and her God." That's my view (god help me for agreeing with Ralph Klein).

[uppityperson]

103. "a fetus as early as 24 weeks is protected, and has rights which should be compared with the mother'

compared or comparable? Link to that line is needed please. And yes, I have read Roe v Wade. It is to give equal access to abortion, regardless of money or power. Those with money and/or power have been able to get medical abortions, Roe v Wade makes it so those without money/power also can. It also sets guidelines by trimester, and leaves some decisions up to the individual states.

You claim "a fetus as early as 24 weeks is protected, and has rights which should be compared with the mother's". I would like to see a link to that quote and what you mean by "compared" as you are saying "comparable".

[lacrew]

115. That's my line....wasn't in quotes, don't know why you think it is one

Here is the part of the post, which was in quotes. The source is the Roe v Wade decision (Section IX, B) :

"viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

I have no idea what you are talking about, concerning equal access, money, power, etc....you must have read this in some bizzaro universe. Here is the text of the actual case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113

BTW, a subsequent case has scrapped the trimester system, due to technological advances.

As far as 'leaves some decisions to the states' is concerned....the point at which a federal barrier can stop the action of an individual state is defined by 'viability'. Per the case:

"potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid"

and

"is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

The Webster case did away with these time/trimester based definitions, based on technological advancements in our ability to discern life functions in the fetus. From this point on, the former of the two statements has ruled the day....which is exactly in line with what I have been saying.

I have to say, you have been very opinionated on this thread...and you emphatically believe some things, built upon a fantastical view of what you think the current law is. The money and power interpretation is what really blew me over. Seriously, I do encourage you to read the actual case (and I have provided a link to a free site which has the text). It is a starting point, which sets the boundaries for the discussion. Without any knowledge of where we are now, it is very difficult to talk about where we are going. Please, read the case.

[Johonny]

39. More to the point anti-abortion laws go beyond the rights stripped

with exceptions to save the life of the mother and if the fetus

The point is to make narrow guide lines that due to increased risk of lawsuits, increases in insurance and possible jail time force doctors to cut their choices beyond the law. Sure you say the law has exceptions for abortions where the mother or fetus life is in danger but patients will find it very hard to find a doctor that will provide them service. The risk due to laws like this are too great. I also assumes somehow there are tons of doctors in the first place doing huge amounts of abortions beyond 20 weeks for other than medical reasons that made the law necessary in the first place. The whole point of the law is to make abortion so risky and expensive that no or few doctors can/will provide it. These people are "solving" problems that they never prove exist to basically make a medical procedure so impossible risky to perform that no doctor will do it thus in effect banning a right you are suppose to have. I don't see any difference in this crap and all the Jim Crow voter laws. The proponents always scream it solves some magic problem, but they never PROVE the problem needs solving, and the motives are clear. They want to ban abortion, they don't want the poor and minorities voting. The reasoning is just window dressing.

[lacrew]

89. The problem is not imaginary

The state has an obligation to protect life, and to find a balancing point between the self determination of the mother and the human rights of the fetus.

If women were having abortions at 39 weeks, would a law against that be 'magic problem'? I say no, no more than the murder of a one year old child is a 'magic problem'. The state has an obligation to protect the human rights of both.

Does the state have the obligation to protect the human rights of a 1 week fetus? There is great debate about that, so the answer is presently no. But somewhere in the middle, the state has to draw a line in the sand.

These are not abstract arguments, or made up problems. No 'proof' is needed to establish the state's obligation to protect life. There should be no argument about that. A discussion about where the line is drawn is merited...but back to the original post I responded to, where the poster said the sponsors of the law were 'pro-rapist'....that, in fact, is 'made up'. Nobody is pro-rapist, or trying to do a variety of other horrible things to anyone. Sure, I will agree that the sponsors of this bill probably do want to completely ban abortion...but the bill was passed in GA. It can't be that far out in left field (if the legislature of GA is representative of the people). Its an adjustment to the maximum gestation time, not an outright ban. To scream the sky is falling, every time a small change is made, makes you look alot harder for help when it actually does descend.

[adigal]

45. She has a choice - why in the name of God would she wait 20 weeks to make it???

No one is taking her choice away. Are you OK with her deciding to make this choice at 39 weeks?? I would appreciate a straight answer to this, not more snark. You don't see how most people would consider that murder???

If we want to keep sensible abortion rights in this country, we need to be sensible about where to draw the line. And there must be a line in the sand, or we are killing viable human beings.

[uppityperson]

17. I know the poster you are replying to said "11 yr old" but you continue to use that age in saying

not having a rape/incest exemption won't affect many women. What about 12-45 yr old women who get raped, or experience incest? It is true that probably not that many 11 yr olds will be affected, but what about women in their other 33 yrs of fertility? Won't this affect them?

I also do not understand why you add in "with no knowledge" of being pregnant.

Are you saying that a woman who is raped should either get an abortion immediately or else simply suck it up and go through with the pregnancy? That every raped woman or teen (or 11 yr old) is capable of dealing with the trauma of the rape and the resulting pregnancy within 10 weeks? That a woman, or teen, or 11 yr old, who is raped has no right to change her mind later when she decides she is incapable of continuing the pregnancy?

These seem to be what you are saying. Please clarify.

[lacrew]

26. 11 year old

You're right, I have been fixating on the 11 y/o argument, because an early poster made a riduculous example of a raped and pregnant 11 y/o...and accused the sponsors of the bill of being 'pro-rapists'.

My original response to this thread was that demagogue reactions like that are completely unproductive in the abortion discussion (even as I type 'discussion', the word 'debate' keeps coming into my head, because the issue has become so polarizing).

The 'no knowledge' comment has to do with the insinuation that this law would not allow an 11 y/o rape victim to have an abortion.

Not true.

It only applies after 20 weeks.

So, in order for this law to prevent an 11 y/o rape victim from getting an abortion, you would have to assume she was unaware of her pregnancy for 20 weeks...since there is an open time window from 0 to 20 weeks still available, even after passage of this law.

As far as 'no right to change her mind' goes....IMHO, it is not unreasonable to ask her to make up her mind before the 20 week mark, in light of the fact that we know a 22 week old baby can survive outside the womb. I would certainly not be in favor of her changing her mind at 39 weeks (and I hope you wouldn't be in favor of that either). And I would go lower: 38, 37....there has to be a middle ground. The state has a responsibility to protect both the mother, and (IMHO) a 39 week fetus...and the state has to figure out where to draw the line.

I'm ok with 20 weeks.

[TBF]

21. Did you mean to say "fetus"? nt

[obamanut2012]

27. I would bet no n/t

[TBF]

28. Yup, my point exactly. nt

[LadyHawkAZ]

10. I will probably agree more with you when:

...abortions are readily obtainable, in easily accessed clinics, anywhere in any given state.
...clinics can be accessed without threats, violence, harassment or any other kind of sidewalk shaming.
...sex education is required for any preteen approaching menarche so those mistakes don't get made.
...sex and babymaking are no longer so shameful that girls (or women) feel the need for denial.

Of course by then it will probably be a non-issue anyhow.

Meanwhile those small subsets are still live, born women and thus more important than a fetus. And they feel pain, too.

It's not always a matter of denial or shame either- neither of my term pregnancies registered on a test until I was well into my 6th month, neither did the miscarriage- ooh, guess what? Here's a factoid: Do you know hospitals won't treat you for a miscarriage if your urine dip is negative? Mmhmm, turn you right back out the door and tell you you're just having a bad period. I can't be sure, but I'd imagine women's clinics probably react the same to a woman with a negative pregnancy test asking for an abortion. Yes, I know, I'm part of a small subset, but are we unimportant?

Just stuff to think about. A small subset of ONE 11 year old, or 16 year old, or woman of any age, left out by a bill like this is still one too many in my book.

[lacrew]

13. Fair points

I assume your first paragraph means that some girls would not have access to a clinic before 20 weeks. I can't deny that.

As far as your factoid goes, they did treat my wife for a miscarriage in the same situation....one hospital's actions are not indicative of every hospital. Hospitals do not have monolithic policies.

I can't speak for why your dip test would not register...but you apparently knew you were pregnant, based on the symptoms you were experiencing....and the clinics have ultrasound machines (heck, in some states, a mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound is being pushed). I cannot imagine a scenario where you go to a clinic, tell them you have symptoms, have missed cycles, and believe you are pregnant...to be turned away without any further investigation. The people who work at these clinics are very aware of the local laws on late term abortion, and would certainly do ultrasound prior to the clock running out.

I don't think people have interpreted my initial point as I intended - an unknown pregnancy from rape or incest at 20 weeks is incredibly rare....so it is foolish to exclude an exception for them in the law. So I'm agreeing with people here.

But I also said it was completely unproductive to respond to this law with wild accusations that people are rapist lovers or some such nonsense.

But back to the live born women...who are more important than the fetus? I hope you would agree that this statement would not be true for a 39 week fetus. And if you do agree with that, you would have to agree that there is some point in the term of a pregnancy at which a fetus has at least an equal status as the mother...and the state has to determine a halfway point, to balance the rights of both parties. In my own personal observation, I have seen 23 week babies born and live...and very much able to feel pain. Based on this anectdotal evidence, I am not at all opposed at making that halfway point as early as 20 weeks.

[uppityperson]

18. "an unknown pregnancy from rape or incest"? What? Why "unknown"? Is this law for only "unknown" pre

pregnancies? What do you mean? You've written this a couple times "unknown pregnancy" won't affect many, but where or why do you get the "unknown" part?


"you would have to agree that there is some point in the term of a pregnancy at which a fetus has at least an equal status as the mother"

No. We do not "have to agree". Not at all. Why should a potential's status be equal to that of an actual person?

[lacrew]

22. The unknown part comes from the deadline

It sets a deadline for an abortion at 20 weeks...and some are fuming like this is a flat out ban on abortions. It is not....unless you postulate that the mother is compltely unaware of pregnancy at 20 weeks.

As for you last sentenc, I see we are not ever going to see eye to eye. I absolutely believe a 39 week fetus has equal standing as the mother...and 38 week...and 37 week. I thought the discussion was about where to draw the line....if you won't move your line in the sand one bit, you validate my original point about demagoguing the issue, by setting up an all or nothing construct.....well don't act surprised if one day it turns out to be nothing.

[ProSense]

25. But

As for you last sentenc, I see we are not ever going to see eye to eye. I absolutely believe a 39 week fetus has equal standing as the mother...and 38 week...and 37 week. I thought the discussion was about where to draw the line....if you won't move your line in the sand one bit, you validate my original point about demagoguing the issue, by setting up an all or nothing construct.....well don't act surprised if one day it turns out to be nothing.

...here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=638064 ) you stated that these are "babies" at 20 weeks an 28 weeks:

And, quite frankly, aborting a 39 week old fetus would be 'stripping' the rights of the baby. There has to be a half way point...a point in which we draw the line and say the baby's rights are at least equal with those of the mother. GA has made their line in the sand 20 weeks. I believe most states draw the line at 28 weeks...but as I descibed in my first post, we have babies surviving outside of the womb, much younger than that....making it not an illegitimate pursuit to ratchet back the half way point.

So you're fine with "'stripping' the rights of the baby," the "equal standing as the mother," as long as it's done at 20 weeks to 28 weeks.

It raises a question when you say "a 39 week fetus has equal standing as the mother...and 38 week...and 37 week." How far back does the fetus have "equal standing as the mother"?

This is where the self-righteous anti-choice crowd runs into problems. They try to convince others that life begins at conception, but are fine with what they describe as "murder" at some abitrary point, 20 weeks to 28 weeks.

I repeat: It's barbaric to strip away a woman's choice in the case of incest or rape.

[lacrew]

34. Obviously we are not going to come to an agreement

...but my original poitn was that the abortion discourse has devolved into a name calling contest.

And your use of the word 'barbaric' is an illustration of that.

I don't think its barbaric to discuss whether or not a fetus has survival rights at some point in the pregnancy. And quite frankly, using terms like that are meant to shut people up - and stop discussion.

As I told somebody else on this thread, that does nothing but set up a construct where the outcome can either be all or nothing....and do not be surprised if one day it turns out to be nothing.

btw, I'm not sure what the fixation is on the 20-28 week time frame. I thought I was very clear before...and you actually quote me, but interpret the exact opposite of what I said. 28 weeks is an old standard...GA is now ratcheting back to 20 weeks. I am ok with that, as babies regularly survive outside of the womb in that time frame....which makes a 28 week fetus very human in my book.

[uppityperson]

40. It is explained well here....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002637151#post36

[uppityperson]

43. I didn't get to declare my fetus on my tax return. :( I do have more rights and standing.

What about the case of a pregnant woman who discovers her fetus won't survive? She finds this out at 24 weeks. She is then made to continue the pregnancy, give birth and watch the baby die.

I met a couple who were pg with twins. She miscarried 1 and the other had enough defects that it would die also. Rather than waiting for that to happen, she had an abortion and they tried again, successfully, later to have children. It was heartbreaking for them, but for them it was their choice. To disallow this is wrong.

I would suggest to you that you spend some time researching WHY women have later term abortions than assuming it is a spur of the moment decision or that they didn't know they were pregnant, found out and "killed the baby".

Here is a link to a group making a movie about this issue "Trust Women".
http://trustwomenmovie.com/
Click on the links at the bottom for more information.

[laundry_queen]

67. Thank you

that's the point I was trying to make upthread. People act like women decide suddenly at 38 wks they don't want to be pregnant and they stroll into a center for an abortion.

Um, hahaha. Like that's EVER happened.

I also know someone who found out, at 25 weeks, that her baby had anencephaly. She immediately opted for termination. 6 weeks later she was pregnant again and gave birth to a healthy baby. For her, carrying that anencephalic baby to term would have been extremely traumatizing. She matters too, she's not simply some kind of vessel for a fetus. And every restriction imposed on abortion insinuates that that's all a woman is good for - her uterus.

[laundry_queen]

95. So you are using

an unlicensed POS to support your argument? Along with all the usual suspect talking points. Mmmkay. Have at it. Nevermind if there WASN'T a cutoff, this asshole wouldn't have had any clients. Just sayin'.

[lacrew]

112. Why does his license statur matter

You indicated late term abortions (for elective reasons) never happened. I gave you an example of an illegal abortion mill, in which just that happened. I don't think I could find a more appropriate example.

You last sentence intrigues me....using that logic, laws shouldn't be passed, if there is a good chance of them being broken?

[laundry_queen]

119. I'm not going to engage you any further.

Now that I know who you are and why you are here. Buh-bye.

[lacrew]

120. So you call 'bs' on me

...you say you're done talking to me?

Don't flatter yourself, trust me...I'm not disappointed. Don't save my number.

[uppityperson]

122. "an example of an illegal abortion mill". Exactly. What he was doing was illegal and what laws are

meant to prevent. You hold up someone breaking the law as an example of what lawful late term abortion providers do.

We understand you well.

[lacrew]

93. No

The law clearly allows for termination of a fetus with a low survival chance. This scenario has nothing to do with this discussion, as the law makes no changes in that area.

As far as the tax return comment goes - do you even understand why you get an exemption? It has nothing to do with the personhood of the child any more than a mortgage deduction relies on a house being human.

As far as why women get late term abortions go...a minority of them get them for very bad reasons. And that's what laws are for - to prevent the few bad apples from causing harm. I'm going to poitn you in the same direction I pointed someone else:

Kermit Gosnell: http://articles.philly.com/2011-01-20/news/27038788_1_grand-jury-abortion-clinic-patient-areas

He absolutely gave very late term abortions. This is not urban legend or internet rumor - its in the grand jury report.

Here are some quotes from the report:

"Kermit Gosnell had a surefire way of dealing with the unwelcome complication of a live birth: He'd allegedly plunge scissors into the squirming newborn's neck, killing it by severing the spinal cord."

"One premature infant wiggled around on a counter for 20 minutes before an untrained worker slit his neck - after first playing with him."

"Semiconscious, moaning women sat in dirty recliners and on bloodstained blankets. The air reeked of urine from the flea-infested cats permitted to roam the clinic. There was blood on the floor and cat feces on the stairs"

" Fetal remains filled bags, milk jugs, orange-juice cartons and even cat-food containers; some were stored in a refrigerator where staffers chilled their lunches"

"Gosnell joked that the aborted baby was so big he could "walk me to the bus stop""

"Gosnell and his staffers induced labor, which resulted in "scores" of live births that led to the gruesome "snippings" of their spinal cords,"

So...ummm, yep., it does happen. There are evil people in this world, and evil things do happen. I don't think its outrageous to have laws against evil behaviour, even if some don't believe it happens. The cutoff in Philadelphia was 24 weeks...the ONLY reason people would go to this guy was if they wanted an elective abortion (for non medical reasons) after 24 weeks....and he made MILLIONS

[uppityperson]

102. Wtf?

" I absolutely believe a 39 week fetus has equal standing as the mother...and 38 week...and 37 week."

"As far as the tax return comment goes - do you even understand why you get an exemption? It has nothing to do with the personhood of the child any more than a mortgage deduction relies on a house being human. "

Ah, so a fetus does not have equal standing as a live born child since it isn't...what? Human? Like the house isn't human? What?

Define "human".

Regarding Gosnell? He was operating outside the law, was breaking the law, was murdering live born infants and has NOTHING to do with keeping abortions safe, hygienic, legal. Let me say it again. What he was doing was criminally wrong and he should spend at LEAST the rest of his life in prison as should all who assisted him. And those in the state who were supposed to be monitoring what he was doing but dropped the ball, just let him keep on? So should they.

As the other poster you tried this with said "So you are using an unlicensed POS to support your argument?" and add in the criminal part.

[lacrew]

114. You completely miss the point on Gosnell

His actions are only half of the story.

The fact that he made millions of dollars, performing illegal abortions is instructive.

Who would go into his filthy lair?

A woman less than 24 weeks pregnant, and able to get a legal abortion in PA? - Nope, she could go to a legal clinic.

A woman over 24 weeks, but with a non-viable fetus, and still able to get a legal abortion? - Nope, could still go to a legal clinic.

So who were his customers? Women late in their term, who elected to get an abortion, with no compelling medical reason.

And there were alot of them....lots and lots of customers....which contradicts the ascertion that late term abortions are so rare, that laws are not needed and essentially amount to a violation of privacy.

I believe the babies who were alive outside the womb and had scissors shoved through their necks deserved protection by the state. In fact the state has an obligation to protect them. Moreover, I believe the ones who didn't survive, and were technically dead upon delivery deserved the same protections. This is where you and I differ - you seem to have alot of indignation over Gosnell's post delivery murders...but reserve none for when he kills similarly developed babies before they make it out of the birth canal. And Gosnell is not some isolated case, as evidenced by his large customer base. Gosnell is only an indicator - the large customer base is the most instructive part of his story.

So, once again, I will proudly state I am ok with a 20 week limit. And, I will proudly state that a 39 week fetus has every much of a right to live, as any other person. You obviously don't agree, and don't seem to fathom at all how extreme this seems, even to many on DU. And, as others on this thread have mentioned, that inflexibility will ultimately result in the other side's success in limiting your choices in the future.

[adigal]

48. Your last sentence is why anti-choice people are beating us

If you can seriously make the claim that a 39 week old fetus is just a "potential," and that it has no rights, and that the mother has more, that is going to anger people who would tend to support abortion rights. Heck, it angers me!! You are seriously OK with a 35 or 39 week old fetus being killed in the uterus and then sucked out?? Really? You don't think that is murder??

No wonder we are losing this debate. This is no longer an absolute issue, viable births are getting younger and younger. We have to take this into account.

[uppityperson]

50. Even at 39 week, I have more rights. Don't assume as much as you do about me or my opinions

Yes, a live woman has more rights than a 39 week fetus. I can't declare a 39 week fetus on my tax return. I have many more rights than my fetus does.

"You are seriously OK with a 35 or 39 week old fetus being killed in the uterus and then sucked out?? Really? You don't think that is murder?? "

First of all, late term abortions are not "being killed in the uterus and then sucked out". That is early abortions. Legal late term abortions use a different mechanism.

Secondly, wtf are you assuming about me and why? Late term abortions are EXTREMELY rare and done to save the life of the pregnant woman or for severe abnormalities that will make the born baby unable to survive. I am fine with that being the standard for late term abortions.

Are YOU seriously claiming that my 24 week old fetus has the same rights as I do? Seriously? If so, imo, that puts you in the anti-choice group, not the "us" pro-choice group. You want to limit the choice to a legal hygienic abortion to a pregnant woman with a fetus without a brain, considering that "murder"? How can you call yourself "pro-choice"?

[adigal]

56. Please don't label me either

Who are you to decide that if I am against abortion at 24 weeks, I am anti-choice? And again, it is absolutists who are going to make abortion an all-or-nothing part of life, with nothing being the outcome. Yes, your 39 week old fetus has as many rights as you do, notwithstanding your tax return argument. That is a fallible argument. And at 39 weeks, I do not believe there is any other way to get a fetus/baby out of the womb except to kill it. I just don't, and I think that is another fallacious argument you are making.

But you don't want to hear any opinion except your own, absolutist one and you want to make ad-hominem attacks on those with whom you disagree. This is why abortion is being chipped away at- no reasonable compromise with some people.

And your answer shows you are OK with killing a 39 week old fetus. Many people of all political stripes call that murder.

[uppityperson]

61. Providing info on late abortions, not arguing whether an abortion involves killing a fetus.

"35 or 39 week old fetus being killed in the uterus and then sucked out" is inaccurate. This is a 1st trimester abortion. Late term abortions involve a different mechanism as the fetus is too large to be "sucked out". That was my point there. If you are going to use overly dramatic inaccurate descriptions, I will call you on their accuracy and this is what I was trying to do. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

And of course if a fetus is alive, an abortion kills it. I am not arguing against that at all. If it has died and the abortion it to remove the dead fetus, however, the abortion does not kill anything.

In the EXTREMELY RARE situation that a 39 week fetus has no brain, or has other abnormalities that will not allow it to live after birth, or if the pregnant woman will die, and IF the pregnant woman so choses, yes. I am fine with aborting it. Murder? Nope.

Your logic is false in that this means I am ok with aborting any 39 week old fetus, your conclusion is wrong. I like the standards put forth in Roe v Wade. Early abortions have fewer restrictions, later ones more. If you want to continue to say I am ok with abortion on demand for 39 wk pregnancies, that has no bearing in reality.

As far as you being labeled anti-choice? If you are against a woman having the choice of a legal, hygienic, medical abortion, then yes, that is anti-choice. If you are trying to take away the choice of a hygienic medical abortion from a woman 30 weeks pregnant with a brainless fetus that will die? Then yes. That is anti-choice.

Do you see ANY instance when it would be ok for ANY fetus past 20 weeks to be aborted?

As far as ad-hominem attacks, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[cali]

127. oh dear. I hate to get into this one but

I don't think that you or I have more rights regarding the right to have our lives protected by the law than a 39 week fetus.

[uppityperson]

128. I do have more rights than a fetus. Including in many cases, right to have life protected.

I have lots more rights than a fetus does. If you are talking ONLY right to have life protected, still I have more rights. Laws are changing in instances like murder of a pregnant woman, but even a 39 week fetus has less rights overall than the pregnant woman does.

In the very rare case where it is my life or the fetus's, I have the right to mine. I may chose otherwise, but have the right.

That said, except for the rare psychopath like Gosnell, no reputable moral ethical health care provider would blithely kill a 39 week fetus. Including me. Losing an almost term fetus/baby is heartbreaking and except for those previously mentioned psychopaths, no one wants it.

[LadyHawkAZ]

85. Starting at the bottom of the post:

Last edited Thu May 3, 2012, 07:06 PM - Edit history (1)

No, I wouldn't agree. The pregnant woman is always the #1 patient, with the fetus being secondary: if saving the fetus involves irreparable harm to the woman, guess who I'm going to back saving? The whole "fetuses feel pain" meme is designed to tug the heartstrings and elicit an emotional judgement on abortion, and it does a very good job of that, while also making people forget that pregnant women are also quite able to feel pain. Beware of the talking points.

A good resource on preemie facts, btw:
http://www.preemiesurvival.org/info/index.html
The odds aren't actually all that good.

Re my hospital nightmare: I knew I was pregnant because I'd been pregnant before, I knew my period was not due for another two weeks, and I know the difference between a bad period and a miscarriage. I have found that ER doctors as a general rule are uninterested in anecdotal, patient-specific problems like "My pregnancies have never shown up on a urine test" and "I had regular periods through both term pregnancies up to month 5". They're insanely busy people and it's hard to condemn them for it, but there it is.

Can I imagine your clinic scenario? Yes, I can: these clinics have been targeted by anti-abortion wingnuts before, with the specific aim of getting them on tape doing something that might be fed to the public as pushing abortion on some poor innocent girl. Under those circumstances, I would most definitely find a woman asking for an abortion with no visible signs and a negative UA to be suspicious. While they may recommend an ultrasound, they are expensive- what happens to the women that can't afford it?

Like I said, we'd probably be a lot closer to common ground on late-term restrictions if the conditions surrounding them were closer to ideal. In the current climate, with clinics hard to access and abortion still grounds for extreme slut-shaming, it's just not workable or humane.

[yardwork]

16. Because you don't think this law affects very many people, it doesn't matter one way or the other?

You don't think it matters "one way or the other" that rape and incest isn't considered, because you figure that not that many people are raped or victims of incest in Georgia every year? Even though you admit that you don't actually know? You just figure that it's a small number and so it doesn't matter?

[uppityperson]

19. For some reason he is focusing on 11 yr olds that don't know they are pg until 20 weeks.

For the rest of women who are raped or incest victims, well, tough cookies since there aren't any 5 yr olds who don't know they are pg until 20 weeks either.

I don't get it either. Why throw out all the fertile females because an 11 yr old for some reason doesn't know she's pg 'til 20 weeks?

[lacrew]

23. What I said

Was that it was silly to not include the exclusion for these - I AM AGREEING WITH YOU. Now, the reason it is pointless to not include these exclusions is that these are incredibly rare events, rare enough to be handled on a case by case basis - no need for a broad brush law to close off anyone's options.

But, it is EQUALLY STUPID to accuse the sponsors of this law to be in 'pro-rapists'...because any discussion of the issue quickly becomes a schoolyard nanny nanny boo boo name calling contest.

[yardwork]

37. I didn't call anybody pro-rapist, but I am appalled that you think something doesn't matter

just because it may or may not affect few people (and you acknowledge that you don't know how many). Once these laws are passed, there is no opportunity to handle things on a "case by case basis." That is what pro-choice is for. Anti-abortion laws outlaw abortions, period. You might be interested in reading the accounts of women forced to bring dead or dying fetuses to term, at the danger of their own lives, because their state passed a stupid law like this.

Late term abortions are extremely rare. They are almost invariably done because of a dead or dying fetus, and/or because the mother's life is in severe danger. People should butt out of things that don't concern them, and leave these tragedies to be handled as the medical emergencies they are, between the women and their physicians.

[lacrew]

91. You are appalled because you are not reading what I am saying

Look at the post you replied to in your post 37. I think it was silly to leave out the exclusions, and somewhere on this thread, I have actually used your same language about 'case by case' basis. Don't be appalled - WE AGREE ON THAT POINT. (Now we agree for different reasons - I think the odds are extremely low that there would be more than zero people a year raped, impregnanted, and unable to determine they were pregnant and opt for an abortion in the first 20 weeks...so the whole thing is moot....but it doesn't matter, we both agree those exceptions should have been included).

Bringing dead fetuses to term? This law does have an exception for dead fetuses, or even fetuses with a low chance of survival....so that is not a problem with this law at all. It is not in this discussion.

So what is the law about? Protecting perfectly viable feteses from 20-40 weeks (an adjustment from the previous protections of 26-40 weeks). Is the protection warranted?

There are 17,000 post 20th week abortions every year (less than 2% of all abortions).

There are 17,000 dui fatalities every year...and we certainly have plenty of laws against that.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to offer the fetus some protection, some litmus test that it is not viable, some degree of regulation. We are talking about walking fine ethical lines...are we supposed to assume that all abortion providing doctors are 100% ethical and without need of regulation, yet demand regulation of all other professional groups? I'm ok with the state putting a line in the sand, and requiring a bit of paperwork, before a doctor makes an important decision like this. Merely telling the state to butt out (in any endeavour) rarely has a good outcome.

[Marzupialis]

130. It looks like lacrew was banned

He is no longer with us.

[uppityperson]

20. That is very poor logic, basing all fertile raped/incested women on the subset of 11 yr old

who is unaware of pregnancy for the first 20 weeks.

"There just can't be that many people affected by this, for it to even matter one way or another. "There can't be that many women who are raped or victims of incest? You want to legislate away the ability for a woman who has been raped to get an abortion because there what? Aren't that many raped 11 yr olds who don't know they are pregnant for 20 weeks?

How about being outraged about the 21 yr old, or the 45 yr old? You seem to be fine legislating away their health care because of some hypothetical 11 yr old. "There just can't be that many people affected by this, for it to even matter one way or another." Wrong. There are plenty.

Aside from the fact of wtf does "unaware of pg for the first 20 weeks" have to do with anything. Or when the FETUS's rights and needs trump that of the woman's.

[2pooped2pop]

32. i agree with u

have not read the bill and anything put forth by republicans is bound to be full of shit, but I too have to agree that at some point, the baby has the right to survive.

20 weeks is the medical age of viability.

i am pro choice but make that decision before 5 months.

[yardwork]

38. See my post #37.

[likesmountains 52]

109. 20 weeks is not viable...

[2pooped2pop]

116. it is the medical definition

and as so many want to point out it's 21 weeks and i just have to wonder if that week is really worth all of this.
from what I see here the worst thing wrong woth this bill is simply the drip drip drip effect of taking rights and installing right wing religious principles on the people bit by bit.

Other than that a doctor should have the ability to make decisons based on his expertease and patient needs not necessarily wants, but needs. but 5 months is way long enough for clinic abortions based on desire. or should we make that 5 months plus a week!

[maddezmom]

123. so in other words you are anti-choice?

[adigal]

42. I agree with you 100% - as babies are born younger and younger

and are saved, this is going to get more and more complicated. If you don't get an abortion by 20 weeks, I agree that the baby's rights have to come into play if a fetus was viable at 21 weeks. I cannot even imagine abortions at 6, 7, 9 months - if the mother's health is at stake, why can't the baby be born, and survive. Why not a natural/caesarean birth, as opposed to abortion. I think the reasoning for abortion at 9 months is BS, and it doesn't happen often, anyway.

[uppityperson]

47. Sometimes a c-sect or vag delivery isn't possible, in rare cases. Serious pg related health issues

like eclampsia, extreme hypertension, seizures, may make an emergency situation where "get the fetus out NOW" is utmost importance. Yes, this is very rare, as are late term abortions.

What about a fetus developing without a brain? This also happens, rarely. It can't "be born, and survive".

http://aftertillermovie.com/?page_id=8

What is a late abortion?

The phrase “late abortion” (or “late-term abortion”) refers to an abortion that occurs in the later stages of pregnancy. Different people define late abortions as starting at different times, but for the purposes of our film, we are considering late abortions to be those that are performed in the third trimester, at 24 weeks or later into the pregnancy.

To put late abortion in context, this is only a very tiny percentage of all abortions that are performed—according to the National Abortion Federation, fewer than 2% of all abortions are performed at 21 weeks and after, and abortions performed after 26 weeks are extremely rare.

Why would a woman need a late abortion?

Although it varies by state, across the country all abortions performed after 26 weeks must be medically indicated—ie, they cannot be “elective” abortions.

Many late abortions are performed because of fetal anomalies, such as a fetus developing without a brain. Often these pregnancies are not only planned, but very much wanted, making the decision to have an abortion even more difficult for the woman involved. Other late abortions might be performed if the patient is a very young girl, who might not have recognized the signs of pregnancy, or because the life or health of the pregnant woman is seriously in danger.

These are some possible reasons among many, but the bottom line is that there is a wide range of complicated medical and personal reasons why a woman might seek a late abortion.

[adigal]

49. I believe most reasonable people would believe that a fetus without a brain

is NOT a human being. Just like in a court of law, there is reasonable doubt as a benchmark.

We have to be careful, in this age of medical advances, that we don't support killing viable human beings. I am pro-choice, before a date. If a woman seriously might die, why can't they use pitocin? Why are they waiting with those serious medical issues until she gets into an emergency situation? It is not an easy issue, but once a baby is viable, it becomes even more complicated.

[NickB79]

51. You might be surprised

Look at the Terry Schiavo debacle (where a large portion of her skull was nothing but fluid-filled space), or the whole "personhood" amendment that is being fought in Oklahoma that would define a fertilized egg as a human with all the rights of a human.

I've met remarkably few "reasonable" people in my life. They're almost like Bigfoot or UFO's, rumored but never proven to exist beyond a doubt.

[uppityperson]

53. Exactly and thank you for your civil and rational post.

I appreciate it very much.

[adigal]

57. I said reasonable - even very pro-life people saw Schiavo as dead

You will always get the kooks and absolutists.

God help anyone on DU who doesn't fall into the "it is OK to kill anything that is not yet born, even at 40 weeks." It's crucifixion time - I had better go find my cross.

[uppityperson]

63. psst, there are very few people who say that. Most of us appreciate being able to get the health

care we might need.

[uppityperson]

52. 2 points. The "human being" definition. Eclampsia.

If a fetus without a brain is "NOT a human being", then at what point does a developing fetus become a "human being"? Also, is this the point where you are ok with abortions?

2nd point. Eclampsia kills women. This is why we pee in the cup, get our bloodpressure taken, be checked for other things throughout our pregnancies.

Sometimes women get pre-eclampsia and will be monitored. However, the change can happen suddenly.

It can happen suddenly, suddenly go bad. Blood pressure spikes, leading to strokes or heart attacks. Kidneys fail, leading to, well, kidney failure. Seizures happen, leading to brain damage. In rare cases, this happens and no, there is no time to use pit, no ability for her body to deal with the added stressors of labor.

It can happen suddenly, suddenly become an emergency situation. Rather like having a heart attack can happen suddenly to a person who had no clue it might be an issue. Emergencies happen.

And of course, once a fetus is viable, it becomes even more complicated.

[adigal]

58. So they kill the fetus, but still have to get it out of the woman

So how do they do that without the eclampsia killing her? Sounds like it would be just as risky as a live birth.

[uppityperson]

62. It isn't as risky. Labor is quite hard on the body. Some women have easier labor

than others, but still it can be very hard on a woman.

Yes, surgery is risky but no, it isn't as risky as labor/delivery in that very extremely few cases in which this situation happens.

FWIW, I am a RN who has worked in many places, including hospitals, surgeries and women's health clinics.

[Mariana]

82. Most anti-choicers aren't reasonable people. nt.

[adigal]

60. Question: if a c-section or vaginal birth isn't possible, what do they do with the dead 39 week old

fetus?? Does the fetus just rot in there until the woman is better?? I have wondered this for a long time: why is killing the fetus and removing it safer than a live birth? I just don't get that. Please explain, medically, because no one who uses this example has ever been able to tell me this.

[yardwork]

64. It's the pro-lifers who want the fetus to stay in the woman until they are both dead.

An emergency c-section is what is performed if the life of the mother is in imminent danger. No responsible medical practitioner would ever suggest leaving a dead fetus inside the mother's body unless she was immediately going into natural labor.

It is the so-called "pro life" crowd (not really very pro-life, imo) who require women to take dead and dying fetuses to term, even if it means that the mothers bleed to death in the process.

You have it turned around. It's the pro-life side that believes in letting women die to avoid any suggestion of an "abortion."

[adigal]

70. An emergency c-section should be safe for the fetus

so why the abortion?? This is where I don't get the logic used. I am not talking about letting a dead baby rot. I am saying that is a woman needs to get an abortion due to her health, and she cannot have a c-section or vaginal birth, as some here claim, how do they do the abortion?? Can't they just deliver the baby instead? And if not, why not?

[uppityperson]

73. Because her health care providers have decided due to their extensive education and experience that

having an abortion is safer for her than a live birth or standard c-sect.

This happens so rarely that passing a law limiting late term abortions more is like passing a law saying giraffes can only be walked with a muzzle on in downtown Anchorage.

Personally, I am more concerned with the limitations due to much prenatal and genetic testing not being done until 20+ weeks.

[yardwork]

75. I think there is some misunderstanding here.

Sometimes it is not possible to save the life of the baby. For various medical reasons, the baby is dead or going to die, and the c-section or vaginal birth is not going to save the baby. Believe me, no medical practitioner wants to let a baby die! They will do everything they possibly can to save the life of the baby, but sometimes it is not enough. The question then becomes whether or not it is possible to save the life of the mother. The technical term for delivery of a dead fetus is "abortion." This term is used whether or not it is a natural abortion or induced. These so-called pro-life laws make induced abortions illegal, even if the life of the mother is at risk. There are horrific stories of women who barely survived - and stories by husbands whose wives did not survive - the insistence of a "pro-life" hospital that a woman not receive emergency medical care (even though the fetus was dead or would certainly die soon) because it would be considered an "abortion" to remove the fetus soon enough to save the mother's life.

This is what we are up against. NOBODY casually decides to have a late-term abortion. NO practitioner will provide one "on demand" or at the whim of the mother. Late-term "abortions" are invariably done in cases when the life of the mother is at risk, and making them illegal is essentially saying that women's lives are unimportant.

[uppityperson]

77. Thank you.

I am sorry, my patience has run thin over the yrs.

[adigal]

86. And you didn't have an answer n/t

[uppityperson]

99. Sometimes it can be difficult to see who answers whom. You seem to have missed my answer. here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=640786

[uppityperson]

68. After an abortion, the fetus may go to pathologist, or be cremated, or given for burial.

Birthing can be very hard on a woman, can cause death. In a tiny number of cases, it is safer to abort the fetus than have her go through labor and birth. As I have explained to you elsewhere on this thread. Stroke. Heart attack. Kidney failure. Brain damage. Death. All can happen rapidly to a pregnant woman.

In an abortion, the fetus is killed and removed and generally either sent off to the pathologist, or cremated, or given to the woman to bury, depending on what she wants and is necessary. No reputable facility will just leave an aborted fetus to rot any more than they'd leave the 69 yr old who died of a heart attack to rot.

[adigal]

72. You are avoiding answering my question about abortion to save the mother

especially after 28 weeks or so.

If a woman is not fit to give birth, then how is she fit to have the dead baby removed through c-section or vaginal birth?? There is no other way to get the fetus out, so why does the fetus have to be dead to save the mother??? Maybe 100 years ago, before emergency c-sections, this was the case, but now?? Why can't the doctor give the woman an emergency c-section, remove the fetus, the woman is now saved, the baby is alive. You know why?? Because the woman doesn't want the baby. That is what I think. There is no other logical reason to kill that fetus, who has to come out one way or the other.

[uppityperson]

74. My apologies, I misunderstood. Because her health care providers have decided due to their extensive

I misunderstood your "Does the fetus just rot in there" as " talking about letting a dead baby rot". Excuse me for misunderstanding your question "Does the fetus just rot in there" as asking "talking about letting a dead baby rot".

Because her health care providers have decided due to their extensive education and experience that having an abortion is safer for her than a live birth or standard c-sect.

This happens so rarely that passing a law limiting late term abortions more is like passing a law saying giraffes can only be walked with a muzzle on in downtown Anchorage.

Personally, I am more concerned with the limitations due to much prenatal and genetic testing not being done until 20+ weeks.

[yardwork]

76. You don't want to recognize that sometimes the baby dies, no matter how much everybody tries.

Your suggestion that this is being done because the mother doesn't want the baby is deeply, deeply offensive. I invite you to do some research and read the many heart-breaking stories written by women who experienced this.

Your post is deeply offensive. Deeply so.

[uppityperson]

79. "Because the woman doesn't want the baby. That is what I think." Have you ever been around a woman

who has miscarried or had an abortion to save her life?

Sometimes death happens and for you to assume that these tragic situations happen "Because the woman doesn't want the baby" is very offensive.

There is no "abortion on demand" for later trimesters. These abortions are done to save the life of the pregnant woman or because the fetus will die or has died. "Because the woman doesn't want the baby" is very offensive. As yardwork has suggested, spend some time, do some research into the heartbreaking experiences women have had.

[adigal]

90. I had a miscarriage myself, you sure like to scold

If a fetus had died, it is a miscarriage, not an abortion. If a fetus is alive, and killed, it is an abortion. And I still have not heard of any medical reason a woman can have a fetus killed and then delivered, when it is deemed unsafe for her to deliver that same baby alive in late term pregnancies.

[uppityperson]

101. A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. Calling a highly offensive post highly offensive is "scold

"scolding"? Huh. Here, let me try again. Sometimes death happens and for a poster to assume that these tragic situations happen "Because the woman doesn't want the baby" is very offensive.

Not "scolding", just pointing out that this is very offensive, as have others.
---------------------

Next, let's provide some education as to the term "spontaneous abortion" aka "miscarriage"...

http://www.medicinenet.com/miscarriage/article.htm
Miscarriage
(Spontaneous Abortion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage
Miscarriage is an unscientific term for an abortion that is the natural end of a pregnancy at a stage where the embryo or fetus is incapable of surviving independently, generally defined in humans at prior to 20 weeks of gestation. Abortion is the most common complication of early pregnancy. [1][2] Spontaneous abortion is a frequently used clarification to distinguish this natural process from an induced abortion.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm
A miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. (Pregnancy losses after the 20th week are called preterm deliveries.)

A miscarriage may also be called a "spontaneous abortion." This refers to naturally occurring events, not medical abortions or surgical abortions.

http://medicineworld.org/obgyn/spontaneous-abortion-miscarriage.html
Spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)

Introduction
Abortion is the termination of pregnancy before the period the fetus reaches a viable stage, which is considered to occur at 28th week. However, for international acceptance, the limit of viability is brought down to either 20th week or fetus weighing 500 grams. The term miscarriage, which is mostly used, is synonymous with abortion.

The incidence of abortion is difficult to work out but probably 10% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.75% abortions occur before the 16th week and of these, about 75% occurs before 8th week of pregnancy.

Abortion is sub classified into the following types:
Spontaneous:
Threatened
Inevitable
Complete
Incomplete
Missed
Septic

[LadyHawkAZ]

110. The presence of other injuries causing heavy bleeding

or any other conditions where either the time and trauma of labor or the blood loss and trauma of a c-section would make either one unfeasable. That would be my thought anyway.

[adigal]

111. But they are going to remove the fetus anyway

Either dead or alive, so why does it have to be dead? This, I realize, is a medical question.

[Lars39]

118. This article should answer your questions:

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/avery/partial_birth_abortion_feel_good_bad_831.htm

[LadyHawkAZ]

131. I believe I just covered that

and it had to do with the incubator that's wrapped around the fetus (what us baby-killer types call a "woman&quot being in too much distress to survive either a drawn-out labor or being sliced open for a C-section.

Yes, it's a rare situation, but as I said earlier, ONE rare case being denied is one too many.

[Gormy Cuss]

126. Here ya go: the fetus is still living but not viable (as in, will not survive birth

or will die shortly after birth) and continuation of the pregnancy poses a grave risk to the mother's viability. That's a real life scenario -- it happened to someone I know. If you'd ever known a woman who had a late term abortion you'd have examples of your own, but most people don't because late term abortions are rare.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

54. You said,

"The record for earliest viable birth is 21 weeks 6 days, according to wiki. I'd say that at some point, the baby's human rights do come into play. If it can live at 21 weeks, outside of the womb, I see no controversy in the contention that it feels pain at 20 weeks".

I say, a baby born at 20 or 21 weeks cannot survive outside the uterus without massive help from modern technology, risk and expense. When babies are born at 20 weeks and can suckle from a breast and breath without help, then that's 'viable'. In the mean time don't tell me what should be going on inside my body.

[CreekDog]

78. Always interesting when a poster does a "I don't know about...but based on that I support..."

base your decision on knowledge, not ignorance.

[cali]

125. yes, it's probably a relatively small subset. Does that mean, that in YOUR mind, it's alright

for the 12 year old who is a pregnant incest victim should have to carry the baby to term? In any case, a 20 week old fetus is just that- a fetus.

That you have the unmitigated and disgusting gall to say that because it only affects a dozen girls or a hundred that it doesn't matter very much is just sick shit, honey. Really sick. and callous and grotesque.

Shove your fetus is a baby dog shit.

[uppityperson]

129. He's been sent back to freeperland.

Good post.

[2pooped2pop]

30. no she can abort anytime before 5 months

5 months is pretty far in and the fetus can survive at that age. it is a viable life by then.

[Lars39]

46. There's a good chance the pregnant child & the fetus would both die in childbirth.

[adigal]

41. I am so torn over this...she should tell someone, hopefully,

or someone should notice well before 20 weeks. If she has no one in her life who notices rape, that poor child will have bigger problems in her life than this.

A 20 week old fetus is getting close to viable -as we can save younger and younger babies, this is going to get more and more complicated.

[atreides1]

2. Just amazing.

Inbreeding is acceptable in Georgia...so far!

Wonder how many other religiously controlled States will pass these kinds of laws...isn't the number up to 8, and not all are in the South!

[Erose999]

5. The major sponsor of this bill was Athens' own representative Doug McKillip (AKA Douche McDickless).

McDickless ran in Athens as a democrat and then jumped ship with the rest of the turncoats and made GA essentially a one-party state gov't. For his troubles he's been given the honor of having his name attached to all this terrible "war on women" bullshit legislation.

McDickless has also been active in the redistricting and if he has his way Athens will be divided up between the heavily conservative surrounding districts, one of which he is hoping to win for himself.

[bluestate10]

9. In zombie like Nader speak. There is no difference between democrats and republicans.

Of course anyone that believes that claim believe there is no difference between fire and ice.

[NC_Nurse]

11. The REALLY nasty part of this bill is the so-called "compromise" for women whose fetus is non-viable

The compromise they agreed on for those who have the misfortune to carry a fetus that has no hope of living and will die within hours or days of birth and of course probably in pain and agony (the baby's and the parents) is that the mother has to go through premature labor anyway and give birth to the dying fetus and watch it die - just earlier. And this when supposedly the cutoff of 20 weeks was due to dubious assertion of the fetus being able to feel pain at that point.

These people are so blinded by ideology and their archaic religious beliefs that they don't even see what monsters they've become.

[Liberal_in_LA]

55. +1000

[yardwork]

15. But inflicting pain on children who seem to be gay is essential to good parenting.

I am at a loss to understand fundamentalists.

[2pooped2pop]

29. there does have to be a cutoff. 5 months is reasonable

Believe me I am way pro choice but there has to be a cutoff somewhere. 5 months is viable. The baby can be saved at that age. I mean if not 5 months when? 6? 7? 8? Full term? can i still abort my kids? they are over 25 years.
If u dont know ur pregnant by 5 months then u r just going to have to carry and have adopted. much longer than 5 months when the baby can be saved is sounding wromg even to me.

[Mariana]

31. I don't think there's been a single one that survived

after being born at 20 weeks.

[2pooped2pop]

33. well that was considered the age of viability 30

years ago when i was in nursing school. If they considered them savable back then, I would suspect many have survived at that age especially with modern tech.

[tammywammy]

35. There's never been a baby born at 20 weeks and survive.

21 weeks, 5 days is the earliest birth that has survived.

[2pooped2pop]

105. not a lot of leeway there

and solidifies the need to make it no later than 20.

[Mariana]

81. I suspect it shouldn't be hard to find many examples, then.

Please provide us with one.

[2pooped2pop]

104. provide ur own

i am not ur google. I stated a medical fact. Another poster has given additional info on that fact and a poster right here has first hand knowledge of witnessing the same.
Want more? look it up your own damed self.

[likesmountains 52]

108. No way was that viable 30 years ago. I have been an NICU nurse since 1978

and that is not true. Even now 24 weeks is considered the limit of viability. Where is your data?

[2pooped2pop]

117. my data?

Mrs. wilkerson OB nursing. that was considered the age of viability then and I believe it still is, thogh I dont know that for certain. U may look it up yourself if u wish. For some reason people on this site thinks everyone needs a sorce for fact or opinion.
So really u think it would be ok for abortion clinics to abort a 6 month term pregnancy? for choice not medical emergency? Really?.
Posters on this page have been witness to 21 week birth survival, though I suppose they will be called liars unless they produce the birth certificate and medical records lol .

[uppityperson]

124. " For some reason people on this site thinks everyone needs a sorce for fact". Well, yes, we do.

"For some reason". You stated a "fact", back it up or it is simply opinion.

[2pooped2pop]

132. fuck that. Call it what you want n/t

[2pooped2pop]

107. 21 weeks per another poster.

that one week is what u wanna stand on is it?

[tammywammy]

36. I think it's not your decision to make for others.

What if I find out I'm carrying a baby that won't survive after birth, and I find out at 4-1/2 months. I weigh the decision for a couple weeks and them decided that's it's best for my health to abort a fetus that won't survive. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do it?

You know even third trimester abortions are about the health of the mother, and not done on a whim. These aren't women that 'didn't know' they were pregnant.

I think this is a decision best left to a woman and her doctor and not anyone else, especially lawmakers.

[adigal]

59. We make decisions about moral issues all of the time in the law

What if a wealthy woman doesn't want a baby, and waits to do anything about it? What if her doctor goes along, for a nice bonus or vacation. They can make up medical issues for her convenience. I bet that happens.

[uppityperson]

65. That was 1 of the basis of Roe v Wade. Making healthcare more equal regardless of money/power

as rich/powerful could and can always find someone to pay to do whatever. It put restrictions on what could be done, legally, and made it equal for all regardless of money.

One of the things Roe v Wade is supposed to do is place restrictions to stop illegal abortions, whether by someone in a dark alley or a private physician in their sterile office. Neat, huh?

[adigal]

69. And I am sure they still do it n/t

[uppityperson]

71. Unfortunately. Rather like the rich/powerful have indentured servants and do all sorts

of illegal things. Rather like there are law enforcement people who break the law. There will always be people who are lawbreakers, the rich, the powerful. Still, I am glad there are laws like Roe v Wade.

[hamsterjill]

84. And I agree with you completely and totally.

This IS a decision best left to a woman and her doctor and NOT anyone else. Regardless of the timing in the pregnancy. There are too many variables possible to make a law that covers ever possibility; therefore, again - a decision best left to a woman and her doctor. This is a private matter; not a matter for the government.

[2pooped2pop]

106. the life of the mother has always taken

priority over the life of tne fetus or even the full term child. I imagine it will continue to do so. They will just call it something else much like some hospitals now perform s+c's but they dont call em abortions. Same procedure and same results though.

i will agree though that the final decision is the doctors and mother's to make in those cases but should not be abortion clinic medicine.

But 5 months is long enough for someone to "decided" not to continue the pregnacy without medical reasons.

[Hippo_Tron]

96. Umm, that's what we have doctors for...

Aborting a fetus at the viable stages, is a medically risky surgery and thus no doctor in their right mind would do it unless there's a medically necessary reason.

[librechik]

44. din't all the farm workers leave Georgia because of a draconian law there?

All the women should leave, too.

[Initech]

97. God damn them!!! They don't need to overturn Roe V Wade - it's officially become moot.