Fetuses may be concious before age where abortion is banned

Not after the abortion, they're not. Problem solved.

 

A noteworthy story, to be sure. 24 weeks is definitely pushing it.

But are you now willing to allow abortions when the fetus is unconscious? Of course not.

 

Alex, when can we expect consciousness from you?

 

Sometimes, when AFLette's on her fertility drug cycle, she likes to pop in an RU-486 and just let 'em battle it out...y'know, for kicks.

 

Mike, you mean we're supposed to take posts from Axis Alex seriously???

 

If only Roe v. Wade had said something to distinguish different stages of pregnancy...like, for example, a trimester system.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Something like this. That way, states could regulate abortion in cases when the embryo is past the third month stage.

Come on, Mike. The vast majority of abortions are done in the first trimester. The vast majority of the rest are done for pretty compelling health reasons. In any case, I've yet to see a pro-life draft legislation that allows for the life AND HEALTH of the mother.

I suppose I should start gearing up for the whole "partial-birth abortion" sham argument, but until then, well, I'm sorry, but to use this story to justify banning abortion when the health of the mother is at stake (and clearly that is the discussion) is not serious.

 

That's all fine and dandy except that there is NO magical transformation of a fetus when exiting one trimester and entering another. You have successfully poked holes in your own argument, since there is no medical basis for the Roe v Wade decision to discuss trimesters in its faulty ruling.

 

no the vast majority of abortions are conducted in the first trimester - and are done for the convenience of the mother .... not for health reasons.

most are performed on behalf of .. not inner city black unwed mothers ... but white suburban teenage girls ....

it is all about convenience and college and "messing up" lifelong plans -

the trimester argument is a red herring for the true debate and discussion - taking responsibility for ones own actions.

 

And what if one takes precautions and they don't work? What happens is one is on the pill and happens to get pregnant anyway?

What about rape? Incest?

Furthermore, why should the state force white suburban teenage girls to have babies when they are not ready to do so?

Whether or not to become a parent is a decision a person has to deal with for the rest of their lives. It is a very personal decision, and the government has no business whatsoever legislating that decision.

 

Mike - it is pointless to get into a long term debate about pro choice versus pro life - I understand your comments about parenting et. al.

I am simply pointing out facts from various surveys of women that have had abortions - that the majority of those having undergone the procedure are white suburban women/girls who did it for the primary purpose of convenience - the "unwanted fetus/child" was not in keeping with their plans. All of the other arguments in my view are superfluous when you really examine why abortions happen - some women/girl and guy screwed up and abortions occur to rectify the mistake/surprise. Rape/incest/health reasons are all minor in comparison to the dominant reason for abortion - convenience.

The sad thing is that there are many married couples in this country that are willing to adopt. I have a good friend that had to go to an Russian orphanage to adopt a baby girl because it was so difficult to do so in this country. Seems to be a little out of whack IMO.

 

Back in 1990, my wife and I had an abortion. Why? Well, because my wife is bi-polar and takes medication that

1) reduces the effectiveness of birth control pills (which we did NOT know at the time) and

2) causes major damage to the development of the fetus, resulting in severe birth defects.

She was about six - eight weeks pregnant at the time, and we struggled with the decision, consulting her psychiatrist and her ob-gyn. Since she was taking Lithium, Wellbutrin and I can't remember what else at the time, the ob-gyn decided it would be very likely that damage to the fetus would've been caused from the medication, and actually recommended an abortion to us.

Also, if we decided to go ahead and have a baby, she would've had to go off of all her medication immediately, something that was certain to drive her into a life-threatening depression. We opted for abortion, and it was a difficult personal decision that the two of us made.

It was the most difficult decision either of us have ever made, but we decided to go ahead and have an abortion. After that we adjusted her birth control pills to a prescription that is stronger than the one she was taking at the time.

So please don't talk to me about surveys, statistics and trends, ok?

Bottom line is that if abortions are made illegal in this country, which is something I think the current administation wants to do, then people like us will be unable to make a personal decision.

I reiterate - there are NO circumstances in which the government should be able to tell any person that they have to bring a baby to term if that person gets pregnant.

 

You need to go back and re-read the part you quoted. Dan didn't say anything about the reasons for first trimester abortions. Only 2nd trimester ones.

 

"Some men, you just can't reach. So you get what we had here today. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it."

 

I am truly sorry for what happened with you and your wife .... I understand your position about abortion. I happen to be pro life and anti death penalty - as terrible as it was for you the fact is that MOST abortions occur for convenience. My oldest son is type 1 diabetic and was diagnosed when he was 2 years old (now 15) .... it really sucks that we had to give injections and monitor the blood glucose level of a toddler who is looking up at Mommy and Daddy as we were sticking him with sharp objects. I am not going to lecturre you on data and statistics. My wife and I weekly discuss our son's medical status and long term prognosis for complications. I would love to be able to see medical advances from stem cell research (from aborted fetus tissue) - but it likely won't happen and I understand all the bio-medical-ethical reasons why. Truth is - my son is a very small minority group population of type 1 diabetics. You obviously had a very horrific time with your wife's situation. By the same token - my brother in law and his wife tried for twenty years and finally with the help of medicine and alot of money - were able to have a girl when his wife was 46. As I said before my friend had to go in hock up to his eyeballs and go to Russia to adopt a baby girl because adoption in the US was so difficult. And yet - as horrible as your situation was - most abortions in the US are simply convenient. I am simply trying to harp on the need for men and women to be responsible.

 

yup - I was simply pointing out the reasons/causes for the majority of abortions period - most occur in the first trimester - and Dan did discuss 2nd trimester ones.

 

Regardless of what the administration wants - I think the political reality is that the only possible area that there might be consensus to change anything now is in the area of partial birth abortions. Anything else is so politically charged that nothing will likely change for a long time - or at least not without significant national debate and studies.

 

I think that Bush wants to make overturning Roe v Wade part of his "legacy," and is doing everything he can to ensure it happens.

A "partial birth abortion" ban is just the begining.

 

I would classify myself as a conservative .. but .. I just don't think it will happen anytime soon. Too many other issues in front of us right now which are more important to the American people ... national security, deficits, economy, Medicare, Social Security - ...

I think he determined after 9-11 what he thought his legacy should be and that is where he is headed. Have my doubts if he/we will get there .... but in any case - I think he is going to punt on anything except partial birth abortion ... there is just no consensus. Frankly - the Republican base cares a heck of a lot more right now about deficits and the economy and national security than anything else.

If he goes after partial birth - it is because that is likely the only thing he thinks he can get through the Congress ... and with Pelosi leading up the opposition - I question if even partial birth ban is winnable.

 

Just in case he missed it the first time.

 

Is it possible he actually just believes it to be wrong and wants it changed?

 

Shouldn't he have said that during the campaign if he felt so strongly about it?

 

Ian, bro, don't listen to them. Post all you want. The shorter and more often, the better. Don't let the man keep you down. Psychological nudity is a good thing.