Post-abortion trauma

The BBC is reporting on a new study that counters the claims of pro-abortionists:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4520576.stm

Also, check out this story that was linked to the article above:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4500022.stm

The abortionists are busily reassuring everyone that they are much more careful now to make sure that such babies don't survive!

 

Amazing.

I mistakenly listed the same link twice, but I've now edited my original post. Click on the first one.

 

First, to the position of the OP, I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion. I have never once been told by any real-life acquaintance OR anyone online that they think abortion is a great idea. The issues are choice and harm reduction. Are you pro-death, since you apparently would prefer that both mother and fetus die in a back-alley abortion?

To the first article cited: Big fucking surprise!!! Again, I don't know anyone who would claim otherwise. The point is not that it is a good idea. The point is that legal regulated abortions are better than both mother and fetus dying from unsanitary back-alley abortions or from bleeding out due to a botched abortion attempt.

To the second article cited: That was 1977. Medical technology and regulation has come a long way. If there were no mitigating circumstance for a fetus to be aborted during the third trimester, then no legal abortion will be attempted. The article does not state any physical or mental defect other than cerebral palsy caused by the abortion attempt. However, detection techniques have come a long way, and any such problem would likely be known before 7.5 months. Therefore, we are left to assume that the abortion was allowed due to risk to the mother (or of course due to lax inforcement of regulations, which has been taken care of in the past nearly 30 years).
So you would prefer both mother and fetus die in childbirth than allow the mother to have an abortion? Either way, the fetus dies... So you wouldn't allow the chance to save one life?
Of course, that is a moot point, since, again, medical technology has advanced to the point that, in such a circumstance, they would likely either induce labor (if the danger is from allowing the infant to grow to full term in the womb) or perform a C-section. After all, the prognosis for infants born 1.5 months premature is significantly higher than it was for premies born in 1977.

 

Dawn,


I support legal abortion to save the mother's life, but not the amorphous "health" reasons currently allowed:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031002085542/www.roevwade.org/aod.html

Regarding "back alley" abortions, see:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031019012922/www.roevwade.org/myths2.html

and

http://www.ortl.org/life_in_oregon/00_12/back_alley.html

As for regulations, here in Oregon, we can't even get a law passed that would require abortion clinics to meet the same standards as other ambulatory surgical centers!

 

With the medical technology available these days, babies born weighing only a mere 1 pound can survive. I had a friend who delivered her baby at 24 weeks, and he was just barely over a pound. He was the size of a dollar bill, I kid you not. Tiny little thing, but man, was he a little fighter. He spent almost 4 months in the NICU, but was able to come home and did remarkably well considering his prematurity.

Now granted, the survival rate for infants that small and born so prematurely isn't the highest, I have the percentage rate around here somewhere, but it's amazing what they can do nowadays.

 

A girl I went to school with was born at 24 weeks and was 1lb 1oz. Now she is the tallest girl in the class!

 

the only difference between a "aborted fetus" and a "premature baby" is whether or not MOMMY wants it.

 

And so it should be... I've said it before and I'll say it again, the choice should lay with the mother as long as the baby is both fully dependant on her and physically attached to her. If -I know, impossible but hypothetical situation for argument's sake- I were to become attached to someone who then had to carry me around full-time & care for me, they should be within their right to kill me if they saw that as too great a burden. I'd rather hope they wouldn't, but they should have that *right*.

About the article: this also means 70% of the women who had an abortion did NOT have serious stress afterwards. And aren't these pretty low totals to base statistics on?

 

that's really seem sto be an incredibly silly statement. you are attached to someone and since they consider you a burden they have the right to kill you. so, any people who may feel burdened by your care today should have the right to kill you should your care become a burden? or is that something you only reserve for the helpless and speechless?

 

NO, of course not. When I say attached I mean literally attached -physically attached, not in the emotional sense. I know, it's not actually possible to happen after birth, that's why I said 'impossible, but hypothetical situation'. If someone needs care, even if it's full-time care (a one-day old baby, or an older person who is disabled) they may be fully dependent but they aren't *physically* attached to anyone. You can't leave a baby truly alone of course, but you can leave a baby in its crib for just a minute while you take a pee by yourself. You can walk around the room while it's asleep in its bed. I believe our bodies are ours; if anything is inside us, it's our choice whether we want it there or not.