https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-30/termination-for-medical-reasons/102954838 I have lost felt concern about the impact of the abortion discussion on families who have faced termination of pregnancy on medical grounds. The “blame game” means that many will face the grief alone afraid to speak out in case they are accused of “murdering their baby”. Whether or not some want to accept it - not every conception ends with a perfect “Gerber baby” in the abortion debate there has to be room for compassion
from the article Ms Courtney said her pregnancy had gone as planned until 14 weeks when they had a routine scan. More tests followed, and eventually they were given the devastating news her baby had a rare condition and could not urinate, which meant there would not be enough amniotic fluid to continue the pregnancy. "He was not going to be able to survive much longer on his own," Ms Courtney said. "There was nothing else we could have done." Stacey Courtney delivered Sonny after she and her partner terminated the pregnancy just before the 18-week mark in 2022. Bowerbird, you are aware this issue could have likely been surgically corrected? I understand the point you are trying to make, that sometimes there are severe medical issues, which might warrant an abortion, or even a "mercy killing" of a baby in the womb... but this story does not seem like the best example. The doctor told her she "needed" an abortion, yes, but would any doctor have ever recommended such a thing if this was a baby that had just been born? Of course not. 18 weeks is pretty far along. There is definitely "a baby" in there, by that time point, as far as I'm concerned. It would have been possible to save that baby, if they had really wanted to. If they had had the money, and if they viewed that unborn life at 18 weeks the same way they view a baby after it is been born. You know what this reminds me of? How they will usually kill a horse after that horse breaks one of its legs. related story from Australia: Australian couple aborted at 28 weeks because fetus had deformed left hand And how many of these abortions overall even involve an actual medical problem? Bowerbird, I've presented evidence before suggesting that the majority of abortions performed at up to 19 weeks in the United States are likely not being done for medical reasons. (Not that any statistics or medical records are even being kept now on the reasons for these "terminations")
That doesn't include "natural terminations", does it? I hope that figure in that statistic is not including miscarriages.
No it doesn’t include natural miscarriages - that statistic is much much much higher and may be up to 20% - 25%. We aren’t sure because the very early (late menses ) miscarriages are never counted
Could it? Sorry don’t own a crystal ball and magic wand like you obviously do if this were your sister/ mother/ significant other would you be talking to them this way? If you do I hope you have the Prozac on hand The pregnancy was non viable on the opinion of an expert as to the linked story - it is one case in the entire world and it is from 9 years ago and yes that mother SHOULD have been given counselling and THAT is my point
If this were your sister/ mother/ future significant other in the womb, would you be talking about them in this way? You seem to be talking about the fetus as if it were a horse with a broken leg.
"Non-viable" can be a relative concept, in situations like this. I've discussed this in the abortion section before, where women are told by a doctor they "need" to abort and it isn't absolutely true. There do exist surgical options if they really want to save that baby (likely true in this case). But many doctors find it easier to just terminate.
How do YOU know what “surgical options” are available?? You are obviously assuming that it was a problem with the ureters, badder or urethra but what if it was that the kidneys themselves had failed to form? Even IF it was say failure of the urethra to form we are talking about a 14 week foetus already suffering from oligohydramnios https://www.childrensmn.org/service...e the following,the baby's bladder or urethra.
And that adds up to all of 0.5 - 1%. If what you are claiming were true then that percentage would be higher. Btw what would be more expensive - intrauterine surgery or termination?
I know you say the fetus was not going to survive, but tell us again why she absolutely had to have the abortion. If the fetus had died, in the womb, normally that would result in a natural miscarriage and the fetus would come out. Even if it didn't, no one is going to object to an abortion procedure if the fetus is already dead, due to natural causes. What you are saying is the woman has to preemptively kill it because it is going to soon die.
Would it? Once again your lack of knowledge in this field……… I saw some research the other day where women who have been told the foetus is non- viable will terminate the pregnancy a large proportion of the time. To carry a wanted child whom you know will die…….. This is why psychological help should be available no matter the decision
What about that 1% of the time where they're certain it's going to die but the baby ends up surviving?
Modern medicine is not perfect. The same is true with other health issues, and the reverse is also true - when doctors are sure someone will live, and they they throw a clot that causes a stroke. You can't use that as an excuse for denying bodily autonomy. The very fact that risk is always involved makes it even clearer that patients must be allowed their own decisions.
You can not use the word "normally". For example, fetal death does not always result in natural expulsion. Besides, people have totally legit differences in their religious beliefs. Choosing YOURS as the law of America can not be justified.
Got proof of that? And I am betting you will show a picture of a surviving microcephalic as an example
