RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR

RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/19/2013 1:31:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Why are you assuming a vaginal delivery means an increase in the morbidity or mortality rate? Because its a vaginal abortion and not a vaginal natural birth....Physical trauma to the foetus. How is it more physical trauma to the fetus for a vaginal abortion at 24 weeks than it is a vaginal delivery at 24 weeks?

MariaB -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/19/2013 1:32:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And, in your mind, you cant fathom a single reason why a OBGYN might want to wait a day or two before doing a section? I'm not sure where your going with this. A woman who has every intention of continuing her pregnancy but suddenly finds herself faced with no choice but to give birth now, would prefer to take a chance than go through an abortion. With something such as serious pre-eclampsia its a matter of absolute urgency if they haven't managed to stabilize the mother Im not sure if you have ever worked with pre-eclamptic women but they are kept in silent dark rooms because their blood pressure is dangerously high. Of course they will try to stabilize the mother but they only do so because every day makes the foetus more viable. Of course there are reasons why a perfectly healthy foetus needs to be aborted from a very sick mother, cancer being one of them. What I am trying to say is, if the baby can be saved in such cases it will be. If it can't then late abortions sometimes need to be performed. I don't agree that late abortions should be performed on women that have changed their mind about wanting a baby.

tazzygirl -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/19/2013 1:39:58 PM)
quote: I'm not sure where your going with this. A woman who has every intention of continuing her pregnancy but suddenly finds herself faced with no choice but to give birth now, would prefer to take a chance than go through an abortion. With something such as serious pre-eclampsia its a matter of absolute urgency if they haven't managed to stabilize the mother Im not sure if you have ever worked with pre-eclamptic women but they are kept in silent dark rooms because their blood pressure is dangerously high. Of course they will try to stabilize the mother but they only do so because every day makes the foetus more viable. 10 years Labor and Delivery... I have worked with a few. quote: Of course there are reasons why a perfectly healthy foetus needs to be aborted from a very sick mother, cancer being one of them. What I am trying to say is, if the baby can be saved in such cases it will be. If it can't then late abortions sometimes need to be performed. You sound like you have some knowledge in this field... yet corticosteroids never once crossed your mind when dealing with a premie? And why would you believe an abortion would take the slow process of induction?

MariaB -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/19/2013 1:41:21 PM)
Because its an induced abortion and not a spontaneous abortion. Induced abortions take time and often end with dilation and extraction. I didn't think we were talking about corticosteroids? I thought we were talking about abortion here. If you want to talk about corticosteroids I'm happy to do so.

tazzygirl -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/19/2013 1:43:19 PM)
A D&E isnt the same as a c-section.

MariaB -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/19/2013 1:46:31 PM)
No, its hugely different.

tazzygirl -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/19/2013 1:47:35 PM)
So your objection is that physicians may feel the patient is better off with an induction over a c-section for an abortion?

DomKen -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/19/2013 2:03:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB The risk of death from abortion increases as pregnancy progresses. Abortion complications can result in maternal death. Since abortion was legalized in the United States in 1973, more than 400 women are known to have died from legal abortions.[4] The risk of death is higher in later stages of pregnancy. A study of national data on abortion-related mortality from 1988 to 1997 found that at 13-15 weeks of gestation, the rate of abortion-related mortality was 14.7 per 100,000; at 16-20 weeks, the rate rose to 29.5 per 100,000; and at or after 21 weeks, the rate reached 76.6 deaths per 100,000.[5] Medical knowledge acquired over the last four decades demonstrates that abortion is riskier than childbirth for women and justifies a prohibition at 20 weeks based on concerns for maternal safety. Existing medical data confirms that abortion is increasingly less safe than childbirth as pregnancy advances. (See Section I.) The long-term risks of abortion justify a prohibition to ensure maternal safety, in which the states have a compelling interest “once an abortion may be more dangerous than childbirth.” (City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. at 460 (1983) (O‘Connor, J., dissenting). http://www.aul.org/womens-health-defense-actlate-term-abortion-ban/ One thing I've learned over the years, all anti abortion groups lie all the time. For instance this stat is true, 400 women have died from complications of abortion since 1973. However they fail to put that into perspective. In the years since 1973 more than 56 million abortions have been peformed. 400/56 million = a rate of 0.0000007 maternal deaths per abortion or 0.7 per 100,000 that compares to 9.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the US. Abortion is roughly 10 times safer than giving birth in the US.

tazzygirl -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/19/2013 2:22:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB No, its hugely different. Im all confused now. I happen to know that very very few physicians will perform a late term abortion. I also know that in most cases, its either because the mother's health is in danger or the fetus is deformed in some aspect. I went over the numbers on another thread. You posted in response to that post I made about the late term abortion numbers. And you still have issues with the need? I would love to see some statistics on how many women get a late term based upon simple want of one. The rules are quite strict in most cases. Pre-eclampsia is but one reason among a host of many reasons... and one of the easiest to medically treat.

GotSteel -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/19/2013 3:36:26 PM)
"Science worshippers"? What the fuck? I mean what do you have against science? How else are you going to learn about reality, ouija board?

slvemike4u -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/19/2013 7:33:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel "Science worshippers"? What the fuck? I mean what do you have against science? How else are you going to learn about reality, ouija board? Right wing radio shows ?

pahunkboy -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/19/2013 7:58:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel "Science worshippers"? What the fuck? I mean what do you have against science? How else are you going to learn about reality, ouija board? Right wing radio shows ? I weep for the killed babies. They did nothing to anyone. They get killed- this is worse then putting a dog down. I support stricter abortion laws- if we have to have a command and control goverment- then let it impose my will on others which in this case is to protect those poor helpless babies who did not ask for anything- they did nothing to anyone to deserve to be killed. God Bless those who weep for the slaughtered babies.

tazzygirl -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/19/2013 8:14:38 PM)
whats even funnier is that the few people who can prove him wrong... and have done so.. he has on block. ignorance is indeed bliss.. especially when that ignorance feeds your political agenda

MariaB -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/20/2013 12:17:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB No, its hugely different. Im all confused now. I happen to know that very very few physicians will perform a late term abortion. I also know that in most cases, its either because the mother's health is in danger or the fetus is deformed in some aspect. I went over the numbers on another thread. You posted in response to that post I made about the late term abortion numbers. And you still have issues with the need? I would love to see some statistics on how many women get a late term based upon simple want of one. The rules are quite strict in most cases. Pre-eclampsia is but one reason among a host of many reasons... and one of the easiest to medically treat. Abortionists who work in private clinics will abort late term. It really isn't that uncommon tazzy. Its not about how many women choose and get late term abortions, its about the ethics behind it. I could of talked about 'placenta break' or 'gestational diabetes' but I spoke about pre-eclampsia because its a more likely culprit of a 2nd trimester birth. My objection is the suggestion of an induced birth with a high risk of dilation and extraction of a healthy and viable foetus, when there is an alternative, the 'C-section'. My objection isn't about an induced abortion of a second trimester foetus who is severely deformed. What I'm saying is, if labour is spontaneous, then without medical intervention, birth is usually imminent and this may result in a natural abortion but if labour is induced on a pre-termer, the mother will often end up having a c-section anyway because on a pre-termer, labour often doesn't move the baby down into the birth canal. I have nothing against the attempt to induce birth on a 23 week foetus if its medically necessary but if the foetus is healthy to date, then I'm opposed to that induced birth resulting in D&E. Whilst many believe a late term abortion on a healthy foetus should be the mothers choice, we must remember, its only whilst doctors are willing to do such abortions that we have a choice at all. If all doctors were to say, 'ethically I can't kill this healthy baby that could survive outside the womb' that choice would simply be taken away from us.

tazzygirl -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/20/2013 12:41:02 AM)
quote: Abortionists who work in private clinics will abort late term. It really isn't that uncommon tazzy. Its not about how many women choose and get late term abortions, its about the ethics behind it. I could of talked about 'placenta break' or 'gestational diabetes' but I spoke about pre-eclampsia because its a more likely culprit of a 2nd trimester birth. Late second to third trimester. quote: My objection is the suggestion of an induced birth with a high risk of dilation and extraction of a healthy and viable foetus, when there is an alternative, the 'C-section'. quote: Whilst many believe a late term abortion on a healthy foetus should be the mothers choice, we must remember, its only whilst doctors are willing to do such abortions that we have a choice at all. If all doctors were to say, 'ethically I can't kill this healthy baby that could survive outside the womb' that choice would simply be taken away from us. Whoa... who believes a late term abortion should be on demand?

calamitysandra -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/20/2013 2:15:30 AM)
n.m.

tazzygirl -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/20/2013 2:43:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: calamitysandra If I am understanding her right, and there is no guarantee that I am, Maria is making the point that there are cases in which an option other than abortion exists, even if the health of the mother is in danger. She questions the reccomendation of an abortion in cases of severe, pre-term preeclampsia over a delivery via c-section coupled with all possible efforts to safe the baby. I think she may be mistaken. An abortion for pre-eclampsia is not the expected outcome. The delivery would be for maternal health. Severe pre-eclampsia can lead to seizures or even death. By the time it becomes severe, there is no choice but to deliver. A decision to induce is based upon the condition of both the mother and the fetus. Once either starts to deteriorate, for any reason, then a section is called for. Making a blanket statement that all pre-eclamptic women should be delivered by section is overkill (1) Labor induction should be considered a reasonable option for patients with severe preeclampsia at </=34 weeks' gestation because 48% of patients given the chance were successfully delivered vaginally. (2) The Bishop score on admission is the best predictor of success, although the chance of successful labor induction increases with advancing gestational age. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9822502 48% sucessfully delivered. Why put both mother and fetus in danger with surgery when that many delivered vaginally? A c-section is always the last consideration unless the mother is in severe condition and there is no other option. With an earlier pregnancy (typically before 37 weeks) many physicians will start giving corticosteriods with the intention of maturing the fetuses lungs in preparation for need for a section, should the situation worsen. Its not always possible to save the fetus. Calling it an "abortion" is extremely misleading. However, the RFT'ers see it that way. On December 8th, a resident walked into my hospital room. I will never forget it. Mr. Spit and my mum had gone home, to eat and shower and pack some things. I was in the room with my midwife. She'd given me a shower, the Magnesium Sulfate was hooked up. And this resident walked in my room. She took her surgical cap off. She sat down and picked up my hand. She said "I need you to sign a consent form to be induced. I have to tell you that in all likelihood your baby will die. I have to tell you that at this point, given his gestational age and weight, and given the pre-existing complications, he will die. Most likely before he's born. Do you understand?" I nodded. She handed me the pen. I signed my name. I, (name redacted for TOS). I signed my name. I gave full, free and informed consent. I had options open to me, and this is the choice I made. I consented to kill my child. I had an abortion. http://mrsspitspouts.blogspot.com/2009/03/abortion.html The clue here is the mention of magnesium sulfate, which is used to treat pre-eclampsia. She didnt have an abortion, there was no option for the woman unless she wished to die. That was the only option, have the delivery or die. Abortion is about choice... this situation isnt a choice.

Hillwilliam -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/20/2013 6:13:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel "Science worshippers"? What the fuck? I mean what do you have against science? How else are you going to learn about reality, ouija board? Some people in the Republican party would rather have our laws written in order to set up a theocracy based on the values espoused in a centuries old holy book. The Taliban wants the same thing.

MariaB -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/20/2013 9:41:12 AM)
woah, hang on a minute! what is it then that you don't understand and why do you keep twisting my words to mean something I didn't actually say. Every contribution I have made so far has been about 2nd trimester mothers (13 to 28 weeks) because we were and have, I thought, been talking about 2nd trimester abortions. I already explained that second trimester inductions often don't result in a natural birth because and Ill quote, the foetus doesn't move down into the birth canal. This is why second trimester inductions take 3 to 4 days and often result in C-section or more tragically in some cases, a D&E. I'm not sure where your going with this but you just posted a load of stuff regarding 3rd trimester induction. Third trimester induction is more often than not a quick and easy procedure to make labour start instantly. There is no such ease with a 2nd trimester induction and well you know that. The mother will have to be given large doses of synthetic Oxytocin (Pitocin) and Pitocin's side effects are quite disturbing. http://chriskresser.com/natural-childbirth-vi-pitocin-side-effects-and-risks . fetal heart abnormalities (slow heart beat, PVCs and arrhythmias) . low APGAR scores . neonatal jaundice . neonatal retinal hemorrhage . permanent central nervous system or brain damage . fetal death A 2nd trimester and early 3rd trimester mother who faces an imminent early birth will be given corticosteroids to help mature the little ones lungs. Its normally given 24 to 48 hours before birth and providing onset of natural labour can be stopped or the mothers life isn't in imminent danger, then waiting a few days is the way to go. The thing is, providing its not a micro preemie where things become much more complicated, there are things that can be done to help a babies lungs once outside the womb. Whilst I agree that the prefered route is to administer corticosteroids at least 24 hours before birth, corticosteroids can be given during labour.

DomKen -> RE: 20 weeks abortion bill passes the HOR (6/20/2013 10:15:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB A 2nd trimester and early 3rd trimester mother who faces an imminent early birth will be given corticosteroids to help mature the little ones lungs. Its normally given 24 to 48 hours before birth and providing onset of natural labour can be stopped or the mothers life isn't in imminent danger, then waiting a few days is the way to go. The thing is, providing its not a micro preemie where things become much more complicated, there are things that can be done to help a babies lungs once outside the womb. Whilst I agree that the prefered route is to administer corticosteroids at least 24 hours before birth, corticosteroids can be given during labour. And they'll do next to no good. You seem to be under the belief that babies born prior to the start of the 3rd trimester have high survival rates and low incidence of severe life long complications. Nothing could be less true. The fact is that 2nd trimester preemies are very unlikely to survive and those that do ever leave the hospital suffer from a multitude of physical and mental problems. I really doubt anyone presented with the actual facts on the matter would rationally decide it was better to actually deliver the baby and fight to keep it alive.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875