Beto O’Rourke on Third-Trimester Abortions: Should be Decision the Woman Makes

[MamaJewel]

Why don’t you agree that outlawing abortion would be a good thing?

I don’t agree that outlawing abortion would be a good thing.
The medical definition of abortion is the termination of pregnancy.
There are many reasons to terminate a pregnancy and not all terminations are done with fetal demise as the intent. Many are medically necessary, especially in cases of threatened abortion with missed abortion in early pregnancy.

A D&C for certain types of miscarriages can be considered elective abortion. Is a bleeding woman supposed to wait around a few weeks with dead tissue inside of her until doctors can 100 % confirm by ultrasound the demise of the embryo/fetus?

There are medical indications for abortion (termination of pregnancy.)
Like when a pregnant woman is partially dilated and slowly hemorrhaging, leaving her extreme pre-term fetus partially dangling into the birth canal in an intact amniotic sac.

Outlaw abortion and doctors in these scenarios will have to wait until the sac ruptures (and maybe after), the fetus miscarries (out of the birth canal), or the fetus dies inside of the woman before they can induce her labor. This waiting period has some very serious risks like infection, hemorrhage, sepsis, or even death.

Law maybe written in black and white, but it’s administered in shades of gray. Outlaw abortion and women with planned, wanted pregnancies that go wrong will die for lack of care. The medical case that drove abortion legislation in Ireland is a perfect example.

 

[Cathoholic]

MamaJewel.

There are many partial truths that you stated here. Many.

You are also wavering off the “Third-Timester Abortions”, which if you would look up at the title of the thread, you would be addressing.

The topic concerns third trimester elective abortions with pre-meditated murder in mind.

Like when a pregnant woman is partially dilated and slowly hemorrhaging, leaving her extreme pre-term fetus partially dangling into the birth canal in an intact amniotic sac.

This is an inappropriate example.

If the baby is dangling, deliver it and treat it.

WHY in the world would you even consider killing this baby here??

 

[MamaJewel]

There are many partial truths that you stated here. Many.

While I concede that post is off-topic from the original post, I responded to a general question about outlawing abortion. The question did not specifically mention third-trimester abortion, so I thought that it might refer to abortion at any stage. My apologies.

However, where are the partial truths you accuse me of?

In the example I provided, I wasn’t even considering the direct killing of the fetus within the woman’s body. Rather, I was thinking of an induction of labor, which would terminate the pregnancy (and potentially, indirectly end the life of the fetus).

Depending upon the statutory wording of an abortion ban, doctors could very well be kept from inducing labor to terminate a pregnancy in cases where termination is medically necessary.

And what do you mean by treating a baby? (And please don’t assume I’m saying that neonates should be killed).

Doctors have an ethical duty to do good (beneficence) and not to do harm (non maleficence). Some babies will not get treated because the active treatment itself outweighs the benefit. In those cases, I believe palliative care should be offered.

However, I don’t believe a pregnant woman should be forced to carry a terminal fetus until it possibly dies within her. There’s just too much risk for septicemia and other problems. A choice to terminate the pregnancy in these cases should be between the woman and her doctor.

 

[Cathoholic]

MamaJewel . . .

Depending upon the statutory wording of an abortion ban, doctors could very well be kept from inducing labor to terminate a pregnancy in cases where termination is medically necessary.

Any “termination” of preganacy in the third trimester should “terminate” in delivery. Not murder.

And what do you mean by treating a baby? (And please don’t assume I’m saying that neonates should be killed).

After delivering the baby doing everything medically possible to help it.

That does NOT include putting a live crying baby in a bucket or a platic bag and putting it in a refrigerator, and going home for the night.

 

[vz71]

While I concede that post is off-topic from the original post, I responded to a general question about outlawing abortion.

And the response is off topic.
I am reminded of an individual I worked with that would tell everyone he was pro-choice because he believed people had a right to choose where to eat lunch.

 

[Cathoholic]

MamaJewel . . .

However, I don’t believe a pregnant woman should be forced to carry a terminal fetus until it possibly dies within her. There’s just too much risk for septicemia and other problems.

Why do you think the woman’s choice or no choice (“forced”) has any relation to an in-utero baby having “septicemia” or not??

And what do you mean about a “terminal fetus”?

Do you mean it is at the terminal portion of gestation? (If that is the case, deliver it!)

That the baby has had undergone intrauterine fetal demise?

That the mother is “terminally” ill?

Something else (if so, then “what”?).

What do you mean here about a “terminal fetus”?

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

You are making an argument for a general rule based on rare exceptions. Let me demonstrate:

Less than 1% of abortions are performed because of threats to the life of the mother. If we are generous and include the numbers performed for health of the mother, which in the US can simply mean emotional stress, that percentage increases to only 4% of abortions. The majority of abortions performed for health of the mother are for conditions that are extremely unlikely to be exacerbated by a pregnancy or adversely affect the pregnancy.

Only 3 extremely rare conditions are known to result in a maternal mortality rate more than 20%. The maternal mortality rate in the United States is .0151% of all pregnancies and for all reasons.

Cases of fetal abnormalities account for less than 3% of abortions in the US. Of these abnormalities, only a very very few are life threatening to the child and can’t be treated- they account for approximately .005% of all pregnancies, not abortions, in the United States. These are the “terminal fetuses” you mentioned. The vast majority of abortions performed for fetal abnormalities are for Down Syndrome (over a third of abortions for abnormalities in the U.K., can’t find such specific statistics for US, though 67% of children diagnosed with DS are aborted and it’s climbing), spina bifida, cleft pallet, a few heart conditions, and other such completely survivable conditions that can be treated either in-utero or immediately after birth.

When it comes to late term abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimester, the vast majority of these are carried out for the same reasons (listed below) as 1st trimester abortions and are late not because of sudden complications of the pregnancy but because of a late identification of the pregnancy.

So, let’s say that we allow abortions for the life of the mother, for the health of the mother, and for any conceivable fetal abnormality whether it is life threatening or not. That accounts for approximately 7% of all abortions in the United States. The other 93% are performed because the woman either didn’t feel ready for children, didn’t want more children, didn’t feel she had the money for a child, didn’t want to interrupt school or hinder her career, didn’t feel mature enough to be a mother, had relationship problems, or other similar reasons. Would you be willing to outlaw these other 97% of abortions?

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Something else to consider: As stated above, roughly 3% of abortions are for fetal abnormalities. Almost all of these are for abnormalities that are not life threatening and/or can be treated in-utero or just after birth. But we allow these abortions because we don’t want a “reduced” state of life for the child or any increased hardship on the parents. Let’s say one of these abnormalities was not detected until after birth. Would it be ok to terminate the child after it was born if this abnormality was present, for the same reasons of reduced state of living or parental hardship? Let’s say it is one of the extremely rare, certainly fatal abnormalities, say anencephaly. It isn’t detected until after birth. Is it then ok to kill the child? Would it be ok to not treat the child at all and let it slowly die on the table? If not, why not? Food for thought.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Yeah I expected as much. Well, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously when you sidestep any and all questions. I know I won’t.

 

[MamaJewel]

The other 93% are performed because the woman either didn’t feel ready for children, didn’t want more children, didn’t feel she had the money for a child, didn’t want to interrupt school or hinder her career, didn’t feel mature enough to be a mother, had relationship problems, or other similar reasons.

These might not be valid reasons to you (regardless of your religious beliefs), but they are valid to those pregnant women with the reasons you stated.

While I wouldn’t have an elective abortion, or help procure an elective abortion, I wouldn’t outlaw abortion either. Too many women have circumstances with their pregnancies (like threatened abortion or missed abortion) and the medicines/procedures they receive as treatment are the very same ones used in elective abortion.

I know women who had threatened abortion that opted for medical abortion. The doctors were pretty sure (98%) that the embryo/fetus had passed, but because of limitations in technology, couldn’t be 100% positive. The treatment these women received was coded and billed as elective abortion. (And these TTC mommas were mighty mad about that). So the 93% figure on elective abortion could very well be inaccurate.

Also, I don’t believe one human being has the right to demand the use of another human being’s body for the direct maintenance of his or her life. We don’t force blood, tissue, or organ donations, so I don’t believe that a woman who truly does not want to be pregnant should be required to donate the use of her uterus and body systems to another human being?

truly meaning that carrying the pregnancy is absolutely unacceptable to the woman

(However, I think more women would carry to term if they actually had informed consent, better support systems, and enforceable laws that protected against pregnancy/motherhood related discrimination. Hardships on parents are real and quite often the woman bears the greater share of the burden because she is the mom.)

 

[Cathoholic]

So-called, therapeutic abortion always allows for civic depersonalization of a pre-born person. The preborn baby is not recognized as a person the state says in that instance.

With slavery it allowed for civic depersonalization of a black person. Black people are LESS THAN people . . . the state says in that instance.

With Naziism it allowed for civic depersonalization of a Jewish person. Jewish people are LESS THAN people . . . the state says in that instance.

MamaJewel . . .

While I wouldn’t have an elective abortion, or help procure an elective abortion,
I wouldn’t outlaw abortion either.

.

Others might say . . . .

While I wouldn’t own a black slave, or help with the sale of slaves,
I wouldn’t outlaw black slavery either.

Still others might say . . .

While I wouldn’t murder Jewish people, or help put them in ovens,
I wouldn’t outlaw murdering Jewish people either.

.

Still others say . . . .

While I wouldn’t have an elective abortion, or help procure an elective abortion,
I wouldn’t outlaw abortion either.

.

As I have pointed out earlier.

All of these paradigms have the common thread of . . . . arbitrarily defining persons as LESS THAN persons. And then murdering them while the State stands by in approval.

Which is just the attitude of Beto.

 

[MamaJewel]

Why do you think the woman’s choice or no choice (“forced”) has any relation to an in-utero baby having “septicemia” or not??

And what do you mean about a “terminal fetus”?

Do you mean it is at the terminal portion of gestation? (If that is the case, deliver it!)

That the baby has had undergone intrauterine fetal demise?

That the mother is “terminally” ill?

Something else (if so, then “what”?).

What do you mean here about a “terminal fetus”?

A terminal fetus is one with severe congenital or chromosomal anomalies or other conditions that usually result in fetal demise in the uterus.

When fetal demise occurs in utero, it increases the chances of the mother developing sepsis and other problems, especially if it goes undetected beyond a certain point. (Although fetal sepsis can occur in pregnancies as well)

When you say “just deliver it”, you’re assuming that doctors can wave a magic wand and induce a healthy labor and delivery. This isn’t always the case. Sometimes the mother suffers from a condition that makes induction or c-section contraindicated.

Btw, an induction of a terminally ill fetus would still be considered an abortion from a medical (and possibly legal) point of view, whether it resulted in a vaginal delivery or c-section.

After delivering the baby doing everything medically possible to help it

Not sure what you mean by this. Under the principle of non maleficence, doctors won’t necessarily perform all life saving procedures available because to do so could do more harm than good. Palliative care could be called for.

That does NOT include putting a live crying baby in a bucket or a platic bag and putting it in a refrigerator, and going home for the night.

I agree. Practitioners who do this should have their facility closed, lose their credentials, lose their license to practice, and go to prison. It’s medically unethical and against the law.

 

[Cathoholic]

A terminal fetus is one with severe congenital or chromosomal anomalies or other conditions that usually result in fetal demise in the uterus.

Then wait until the natural demise occurs.

Then it won’t be an issue.

And the “usually” ends up in fetal demise should be a “dead” giveaway for all of us.

Cystic fibrosis ends up in young person demise too.

Would it be OK to murder a 5 year old if the mother got cold feet then about raising the child?

Why or why not?

 

[Cathoholic]

Cathoholic . . .

That does NOT include putting a live crying baby in a bucket or a platic bag and putting it in a refrigerator, and going home for the night.

MamaJewel . . .

I agree. Practitioners who do this should have their facility closed, lose their credentials, lose their license to practice, and go to prison. It’s medically unethical and against the law.

Let me get this straight.

Those guys above should have all the consequences you just affirmed.

But if they pull the babies limbs off five minutes earlier and crush the child’s head before they pull it out, its OK?

 

[Cathoholic]

MamaJewel . . .

When you say “just deliver it”, you’re assuming that doctors can wave a magic wand and induce a healthy labor and delivery.

No. I am assuming we were going to be talking about what we were talking about.

MamaJewel (here) . . .

Like when a pregnant woman is partially dilated and slowly hemorrhaging, leaving her extreme pre-term fetus partially dangling into the birth canal in an intact amniotic sac.

.

If the baby is just “dangling” (even partially) WHY KILL HER?
Why even THINK of killing the baby??

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Ok, well don’t say “I oppose outlawing abortion because there can be medical complications”, because in actuallity you don’t really believe that. You don’t think any abortions should be restricted, and that any reason the mother thinks is valid, is valid.

As far as the numbers go for elective abortions, let’s say it’s true that some elective abortions were actually done for medical reasons. That is highly unlikely to influence the statistics by very much. I can equally argue that the CDC statistics and Guttmacher statistics actually highball the number of “medically necessary” or “health of the mother” abortions, because this is true. Many states have incomplete reporting and so many trends are extrapolated. I listed fetal anomaly abortions nationally at 3%. As an example, Florida is one of the few states that records the reason for every abortion in the state. In Florida, abortions for fetal anomalies are reported as less than 1%. 0.666% in fact. Some other numbers from Florida; 0.288% were conducted for the woman’s health (I gave you 3% nationally), 0.294% for the woman’s psychological health, and 0.065% were conducted due to a risk to the health of the mother (I gave you 1%). In total, 98.7% of abortions in the state of Florida are conducted for a reason other than a health risk to the mother or child. Point being, I would not assume that more complete national numbers would show a significant increase in the number of abortions conducted for medical reasons. All that said, don’t quibble over the CDC statistics because you have said you don’t actually believe medical issues are the only reason abortions should be legal. You are only bringing it up because you think it is a compelling reason to approve of all of them.

There is no real reason for me to address your argument that the baby has no right to exist in its mother’s womb. The real crux here is that you don’t believe an unborn child has any value, is not really a living human being worth protection, and it should be legal to “terminate” it for any reason. You are just using situations that everyone acknowledges are difficult to give emotional cover for that position.

 

[MamaJewel]

Then wait until the natural demise occurs.

Then it won’t be an issue.

And the “usually” ends up in fetal demise should be a “dead” giveaway for all of us.

Cystic fibrosis ends up in young person demise too.

Whose demise? The fetus, the mother or both?

Are you seriously saying that a grown living woman with a fetus that has a high probability of dying before birth because of a serious anomaly should carry that fetus until its dead inside of her, if she does not want to take that risk?

Seriously?

That has to be the woman’s choice. Whether she chooses to accept that risk or not. It’s her life and health on the line. She’s not an incubator and she’s not a tomb!

As far as a child with CF, the mother can place the child into someone else’s care.
She can’t do that with pregnancy.
It’s up to her body to maintain its own functions while maintaining fetal life.

I must be missing something here.

 

[Cathoholic]

MamaJewel . . .

Are you seriously saying that a grown living woman with a fetus that has a high probability of dying before birth because of a serious anomaly should carry that fetus until its dead inside of her, if she does not want to take that risk?

No. I am seriously saying that if we are talking about intrauterine fetal demise, then I should not have to keep repeating the whole phrase “intraunterine fetal demise” each time while we are on that subject.

You don’t kill the baby because you think it is OK in this instance. That is not how it works.

 

[Cathoholic]

To the people reading this thread.

Read what MamaJewel wrote and see how MamaJewel depersonalizes the baby.

MamaJewel ONLY talks in terms of the mothers life.

This subtle spoof attemps to ignore the baby’s life that MamaJewel thinks is an optional item for this scenario.

Not only “optional” but not even included in this taking life into consideration that MamaJewel just put forth.

MamaJewel . . .

That has to be the woman’s choice. Whether she chooses to accept that risk or not.
It’s her life and health on the line.

(Bold mine)

"It’s her life and health on the line." No MamaJewel. There are TWO PEOPLE whose life and health are on the line here.

TWO people! Two PERSONS.

It is BOTH their life and health on the line.

 

[Cathoholic]

MamaJewel . . . .

As far as a child with CF, the mother can place the child into someone else’s care.
She can’t do that with pregnancy.

Sure she can. By delivering it (if it is in the third trimester).

There is no “need” to murder this baby.