idork

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...al-birth_x.htm


yay for reproductive rights today!

pacifierrocks

Good job federal judge!!!

Enigma, I.C.

This is a positive development in reproductive rights

n e r b l e

now we can go back to killing babies!

migamoo

I think it's good to challenge the law mostly because it's vague. Personally, I don't agree with this type of abortion, or abortion in general, but I don't want it banned. A woman does have the right to choose and just because I'm against the act doesn't mean I need to stop people from having them. But back to the ruling, like I said, I agree with it because the law is vague. But I also disagree because I don't think this type of abortion is all that necessary unless the mother's health is at risk.

Ashley

ceilirose

I'm glad the federal judge made this ruling. We had this discussion on the board last fall when the law was signed. It's a rare procedure and done mostly when the mother's life is in danger. The decision has to be with the mother and her immediate family and not in the hands of the government. It's her health and her life.

JohannafromIHJ

I love this logic.

'Cause, you know, let's just ignore that most of these abortions are performed because the baby is already dead, days away from dying, horribly deformed and in danger of beaking the uterus, or because the woman has cancer and needs to begin treatment right away (big reason for second term abortions).

But no, it's all about the evil women who kill babies so that they can survive.

There is no "we" when it comes to abortions. An abortion is an individual choice, made by a woman, not society.

Semmer

My opinion on abortion is that it is a personal choice. Personally, I don't think I could ever do it, but I would never tell someone they can't. The day abortion becomes illegal is the day the government starts making everyone's medical discisions for them. And that's not right.

n e r b l e

i have a challenge for all of you. find me one, just one case where an abortion was nessisary to save a woman's life. all i ask is that it be a specific case, not something where an abortion or pro abortion doctor say that's why it's happening. just something that talks about one specific person, how far along they were and what the problem was.


i keep hearing about how that's why the partial births are mainly done but i've never heard a specific case. it's a fairly easy request if it is true and it'll definitally help you in future arguments.

JohannafromIHJ

You ask, I deliver:

http://www.eileen.250x.com//Main/SafetyForceRights.html (Mainly: hours of agonizing labour trying to deliver a giant-headed fetus that would not come out. Thanks to that modern medicine -- she was about to have a caesarian section when the vacuum thingy finally sucked the fetus out -- she survived. In a different time or place, there would have been no baby, and she would have been dead. One of those little double tombstones so common in cemeteries from a century ago, and still not uncommon elsewhere in our world.)

http://www.ppacca.org/real/read.asp?ID=41 (Mainly: Lee suffers from cardiomyopathy, a life-threatening heart condition. When Lee became pregnant after her contraception failed, she sought help from the Louisiana State University medical Center (LSUMC) in Shreveport.

On a waiting list for a heart transplant, Lee has a defibrillator, a device implanted in her chest that sends electric shocks through her body if her heart rhythm becomes irregular. Doctors had warned the young mother that carrying another pregnancy to term could kill her.)

http://www.prochoice.org/Voices/Pati...d/Sullivan.htm (Very touching story about on of the most common reasons for late term abortions, necissary to ensure the safety of the woman and her future fertility).

http://www.prochoice.org/Voices/Patients/old/Koster.htm (Not so much life saving as sanity-saving).

I also read an article quite recently, but I can't remember which newspaper it was published in (though it's in Swedish, so you probably wouldn't understand it). The thing was though, a woman got pregnant, was very happy, told her two other kids they were going to get a new brother or sister, discovered a lump in her chest, found out it was breastcancer and had to go on chemo right away (fetuses can't survive cancer treatment), so she had to have an abortion.

Aside from that I had a teacher who had and abortion in her seventh month of pregnancy because her baby's head and liver was so full of water that it would have got stuck on the way out, which would have caused her uterus to burst, which would have killed her.

And this is a very interesting look at facts surrounding abortions: http://www.prochoice.org/Facts/Factsheets/FS7.htm

There are just SO many possible complications, it would take too much time for me to list them all.

n e r b l e

sigh. not one valid medical entry (eg from a medical website or even a national news agency like the nyt or washinton post). it's like you go to a place to find info about the taliban from the pro taliban website. here we go.


http://www.eileen.250x.com//Main/SafetyForceRights.html
first off the first was a personal testimony. and wierd at that. it sounds like she's said that the baby survived, which is not an abortion, that's standard giving birth to a child. second one was the same thing. she had issues but gave birth and her and the child lived. i'm confused how this non abortion saved her life? The third was a woman who presumeably WANTED the child and died of bloodloss. Are women just supposed to skip getting pregnant w/ wanted children now? I'm confused.


http://www.ppacca.org/real/read.asp?ID=41
THis sounds more like supid medical stuff than an abortion saving her. First off she should have been able to get the transplant no question. Top of the list b/c there were two lives involved. Also, even a normal by the books abortion can be very dangeorus and almost the same as giving birth in terms of the shock the body goes through. This is especially true w/ other medical conditions involved. So this woman was in danger of dying, it was not the pregnancy but the heart conidtion that was the issue. It could also have been solved much easier by allowing the heart transplant than the abortion.


http://www.prochoice.org/Voices/Pati...d/Sullivan.htm

You said:
Very touching story about on of the most common reasons for late term abortions, necissary to ensure the safety of the woman and her future fertility

Actually it did nothing to save the woman. No one said that she would risk death carrying the baby to term. Nor did they say that it would risk her fertility. And the information they recieved would have been gotten through carrying the baby to term.


http://www.prochoice.org/Voices/Patients/old/Koster.htm
This one said that they baby would die anyway. So the abortion wasn't nessisary, it was going to die anyway.


The only thing that you posted that was kinda sorta what I asked for was the woman w/ the heart condition. And it still didn't do it b/c if she had gotten the heart transplant and not had stupid people make dumb desicions she would not have had a problem. In addition I could go to a pro life website and dredge up all kinds of stories about women that killed themselves after abortions and other propoganda. The point is to get an outside valid source and pro abortion websites or pro choice websites are not. However I still await an article from a nation news agency or medical journal. It should be pretty easy to find.

StellaSlight

n e r b l e, I could give you tons of medical articles about cases of abortion for therapeutic reasons, or testimonies made by experts from justice courts (at times when women were punished for practicing abortions for non-therapeutic reasons), but I really doubt it'll help, because you obviously don't want to believe them, considering how you dismissed Johanna's articles.


You should read the article more closely. The article stated that pregnant women are not eligible for heart transplants. In her case, either she kept the child, and would not get a heart, and would likely to die in the birthing process because of the effort (along with the child); or she proceeds to abortion, and would patiently wait for the heart that'll save her.
The second problem was that she had a defibrillator in her chest that sent eletric waves through her bodies and that causes damages on the foetus.

Therefore it was a case of therapeutic abortion because otherwise she would not have survived.

And seriously, you need to get realistic. Even if pregant women were eligible for heart transplants, she wouldn't get her heart on top of the list. That's definately not the way it works in hospitals; you're on the list, you wait for your name to be next, no matter what gender, age, condition. You would think that a five year-old kid would get priority on a 80 years old man? No.

Last remark, you said that in this case, it wasn't the pregnancy that was the issue, but the heart condition. But the pregnancy WAS the issue, because her heart wouldn't survive the birthing. I really hope not, but maybe her heart will not last long, but at least she doesn't have that nine-months deadline anymore, and now she can have a heart transplant if the chance presents itself.

idork

It's fairly obvious that whatever is shown to you, medical or not, you'll find some reason not to believe it.

http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/late_term_abortion.htm

JohannafromIHJ

I did a quick search on Google, and that's what I found after wading through loads of general babble. If you want medical records and what not (though aren't those usually confidential?), you're going to have to go look for your self. I do have a fulltime job and a deadline, which I have to prioritize (though perhaps someone else here would like to help you, if you don't know how to work an internet search). Or perhaps you could go to an abortion clinic near you and ask them to give you a general example?

I've found a lot of specific articles in Swedish. It's too bad the English-speaking bit of the net is so cluttered with housewives and fundies from the US whining about the evils of abortions, because it makes serious articles much harder to find. Though I think you won’t find a lot of specific examples written by doctors, as they don’t like to blab about what is, in fact, their patient’s business. They’ll most likely discuss on issue, like those pregnancies where the egg attaches itself in the wrong place and the like, and not “Well, Christie Swenson came into my office, and I said, ‘Christie, you’ve got cancer, time to abort so we can start treatment…’”

Thing is, there is no question abortions can save lives, both in a medical and social sense. Abortions can also kill, mainly due to PASS, or infections. And, of course, back alley abortions have killed about 80,000 women. On the other hand, in Afghanistan a woman dies every thirty minutes from pregnancy complications. Plus, there are large numbers of girls (in Africa, usually) who get pregnant while their bodies are not capable of it, resulting in a rather painful death or life-long health-problems. There was that story of the nine-year-old girl who’d been raped a while back.

I'm not sure if the baby with the giant head survived in that story, mainly because those children have brains full of fluids, which is quite lethal.

Also, you might want to change your signature, as it makes you look kind of fanatical and some liberals might take a death-threat personally.

It was. Having to carry a dead foetus to term can be severely psychologically damaging. She was only four months along, I think, so walking around with a dead foetus for five months could also damage her health.

For everyone: I though this was a rather interesting article http://slate.msn.com/id/2090215/

pacifierrocks

I don't really think that you could get a real medical file of a patient who had to get an abortion to have her life. Because there is that pesky confidentiality thing. Testimonials from people who have done it can be found, but i doubt that you would consider that valid.

Abortion i think is a person's own choice. I have no problem with people getting them. Although, i think if you're going to get an abortion because you don't want a child, then you should make the decision when you find out that you're pregnant. Not wait around. Partial birth i have more of an issue with, but if its to save the woman's life, then they should be able to have that option.