<p>That woman’s story about late trimester abortion had nothing to do with saving the life of the mother, it was to do with aborting a defective fetus. There are other ways to perform a late trimester abortion.</p>
<p>Probably are, and doctors will continue to perform them, just as they are continuing to perform this procedure. The “Kennedy exception” opens up a new legal option by which they can perform this procedure, one that they haven’t had in the past several years.</p>
<p>CM:
From where did you obtain your medical degree? I am in awe of your ability to know more about Ms. Jaroslaw’s condition than either her or her physician.</p>
<p>The arguments here are dealing with saving the life of the mother with a partial birth abortion. The article was dealing with more the health of the mother and the fetus. The article was posted to illustrate the way that a partial birth abortion could be used. It was not used to save the life of the mother. </p>
<p>There are other ways to perform 3rd trimester abortions, this is well-documented. The objection to this method is that the baby is partially born then destroyed. Please read the descriptions of this particularly brutal way to perform an abortion. No baby deserves this, even one who has the unfortunate condition of anencephaly.</p>
<p>The other discussions about abortion in general have been relegated to another thread, which has not been started yet.</p>
<p>CM–did you read this part of the article?
</p>
<p>Perhaps you don’t think this is important, but obviously this woman and her doctor did.</p>
<p>The court made the distinction between saving the life of the mother and preserving the health of the mother. There are other methods available for this that are safe that do not involve the partial delivery of the fetus. Although I have sympathy for this particular woman’s case with a defective fetus, there are so many others who used the method for convenience. Perhaps if these hadn’t occured, then someone like this woman who have more options. </p>
<p>As it is, she would now have another type of second trimester abortion, which also would have a good safety profile. This abortion was at 17 weeks, which is earlier than the third trimester fetal ages that has been referred to, as there would be no chance for fetal survival. The later abortions where the baby could be viable are the ones that there has been so much protest about.</p>
<p>THis was not a case of “needing” the abortion. It was a decision to end this life because it would not survive. I find it interesting that the so desperately wanted child turns into a “fetus to be removed” because the baby is incompatible with life outside the womb. I have personally seen families allow anencephalic babies be delivered and hold them while they die, celebrating their short lives.<br>
Yes, this baby wouldn’t live but how many women will abort babies with much less severe problems because they are not perfect. And, when the woman has the medical history that this woman does, it is then a “need” to have a PBA that is being denied rather than a choice to deliver a baby who isn’t perfect</p>
<p>But if they are, they are already doing so under the law. The law has already been in effect for several years, with no observable change to medical practice, and not a single legal case brought anywhere. All that happened under the decision was to widen the door with the “Kennedy exception”.</p>
<p>mini–I’m confused. I thought that due to all the challenges, the law HASN’T gone into effect. Now with the case decided, it will go into effect in 25 days. Or something. 
</p>
<p>She might of been a rare case, but I saw a mom on TV showing her beautiful baby girl that wasn’t supposed to live. They told her she would have part of her skull missing, not live long, etc. and she decided, being Catholic and pro-life, to have it. They were wrong and she was born with a fixable skull abnormality and is fine now. She had the medical papers, tests, etc. and it shows how sometimes things can look one way and they aren’t. My friend years ago was told her early pregnancy tests showed abnormalities also (and this was at yale) and also had a normal and very healthy daughter.
I can’t put my beliefs on others, but if my life wasn’t in danger, and my children were going to be left motherless, I couldn’t abort it late because it was “defective” and would die. Especially seeing that procedure done. The zealots that would let both mother and baby die, baffle me, but that is why we will always have widely differing opinons on this subject.</p>
<p>“I can’t put my beliefs on others”</p>
<p>So then you’re pro choice? 
A woman should have a right of choice over their own body, otherwise they’re property of someone else. </p>
<p>Besides is it not lost to you that a woman can choose life? Free will and freedom of choice are valuable things. The right to do or not do should be protected.</p>
<p>“mini–I’m confused. I thought that due to all the challenges, the law HASN’T gone into effect. Now with the case decided, it will go into effect in 25 days. Or something.”</p>
<p>I will have to go reread; it was my understanding that the law was in effect until a stay was issued so that a case could be heard. I don’t honestly think it matters though, as with the Kennedy exception virtually every physician now has the explicit langauge to use on a tape in order to CYA. It was not a common procedure before, and I doubt there will be much difference as a result of the decision.</p>
<p>And, as I said, I’m not sure how I feel about that. (And, when I don’t, I tend toward the side of choice, letting others walk where I am not yet ready to tread. If I had my way, in some future world, ALL fetuses will be raised to viability outside of the womb, and I would, as a matter of principle, mix up all the babies in the hospital. It would put an end to 95% or race-and-ethnicity problems in the world.</p>
<p>If I’m not mistaken, this is a Federal statute. So, in order for there to be a prosecution, it would have to be brought by a US Attorney’s office…oh, wait…nevermind.</p>
<p>
Ok, let’s say a woman is eight and a half months pregnant with a healthy baby and her husband leaves her and returns to his home country. She cannot support herself and her child and decides she must abort her child. Every person with common sense tries to persuade her to take some other action, but she is certain she wants to abort the child especially since she knows the child will remind her of that horrible husband/father. Under your view, the woman would be free to choose to kill her child because the decision involves her property. Right?</p>
<p>“Ok, let’s say a woman is eight and a half months pregnant with a healthy baby and her husband leaves her and returns to his home country. She cannot support herself and her child and decides she must abort her child. Every person with common sense tries to persuade her to take some other action, but she is certain she wants to abort the child especially since she knows the child will remind her of that horrible husband/father. Under your view, the woman would be free to choose to kill her child because the decision involves her property. Right?”</p>
<p>Jumping in here…
You won’t find a legitimate doctor to perform such a procedure, and in the US there are laws surrounding late term abortions anyway. Any woman who would do this would also think nothing of leaving a newborn in a dumpster or killing it upon birth, but we can’t use that as an excuse to take away a womans right over her body.</p>
<p>If some religious conservatives have their way, a woman’s body will be no more than a vessel, a womb owned by the government, very much like those in The Handmaid’s Tale.</p>
<p>Scary thought</p>
<p>“If some religious conservatives have their way, a woman’s body will be no more than a vessel, a womb owned by the government, very much like those in The Handmaid’s Tale.”</p>
<p>This issue really goes way beyond “religious conservatives” and includes a lot of people who have a variety of political and religious (or atheistic) viewpoints. I think it has to do with the rights of the unborn, who exhibit signs of life, such as heartbeats and feelings of pain, as well as vision and hearing, and other markers that go along with life. From a very early age of gestation.</p>
<p>We’re getting off the subject. Thoughtful people can disagree til the cows come home on the whens & whys of abortion, but what we were discussing was the right of congress to practice medicine. And they have as much right to do that as any red-blooded American. With a medical degree.</p>
<p>“We’re getting off the subject. Thoughtful people can disagree til the cows come home on the whens & whys of abortion, but what we were discussing was the right of congress to practice medicine. And they have as much right to do that as any red-blooded American. With a medical degree.”</p>
<p>I think the debate will get to the rights of the unborn, as well as to whether the 14th Amendment was written to define abortion rights. The will of the people also ties into this, which will be reflected in the next Presidential election.</p>
<p>“Ok, let’s say a woman is eight and a half months pregnant with a healthy baby and her husband leaves her and returns to his home country”</p>
<p>razor that’s pretty dull isn’t it? Is that before or after the space aliens come and land? 
</p>
<p>Why does the man have to return to his home country, why can’t he be from texas? </p>
<p>Why does it always have to be extreme and far fetched to make a point?</p>
<p>How about a daughter at 19 get’s pregnant. Since she has no visable means to support a child and doesn’t know who the father is. She’s two months along and she knows if she tells her conservative parents, she’ll be shunned because they’ve spent most of their sundays telling the congregation of their daughter’s virtues. Maybe even her father will beat her like he did when she was younger. If he knew she was pregnant, he might hurt her again. What should she do? What ever she decides. </p>
<p>See I can be far fetched too. However, my example might be a little closer to reality.</p>