• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Setting the record straight on late term abortion

Waddy said:
Thanks. You really make my point. BTW; any woman could give the baby up for adoption and go on with her life. Inconvenient for a few months, but do-able.
Click to expand...

Except that she might die or have her health permanently damaged and be disabled. She can take good care of her family and responsibility if she's dead or disabled right? :doh That's 86,700 women every yr in the US.

And she can also lose her job, lose her home in a safer, more secure neighborhood where she provides a home for her children, elderly or disabled dependents.

Your idea of 'inconvenience' is strange...I guess you believe that keeping a good job, living in a safe place, not going on welfare, taking care of your family, meeting your obligations and commitments to your employer, community, society...those are all 'conveniences,' right? Yes or no?

And then you recommend she add another unwanted, unaffordable child to the 100,000 in the US already waiting and hoping to find families? Depriving one of them, as they get older, a home? :doh Yeah, I can TOTALLY see how that is ethically and practically 'better.' NOT :roll:
 
Lursa said:
Except that she might die or have her health permanently damaged and be disabled. She can take good care of her family and responsibility if she's dead or disabled right? :doh That's 86,700 women every yr in the US.

And she can also lose her job, lose her home in a safer, more secure neighborhood where she provides a home for her children, elderly or disabled dependents.

Your idea of 'inconvenience' is strange...I guess you believe that keeping a good job, living in a safe place, not going on welfare, taking care of your family, meeting your obligations and commitments to your employer, community, society...those are all 'conveniences,' right? Yes or no?

And then you recommend she add another unwanted, unaffordable child to the 100,000 in the US already waiting and hoping to find families? Depriving one of them, as they get older, a home? :doh Yeah, I can TOTALLY see how that is ethically and practically 'better.' NOT :roll:
Click to expand...

Except that she won't probably die. The VAST majority of women manage to survive childbirth. And what's a lost job compared to saving a life? They won't starve. And actually, there is a looooong waiting list for healthy newborns. But, yeah, it's difficult to place on of those 100,000 older kids you mention. And once again, thanks for making my point on the tissue issue.
 
Waddy said:
Except that she won't probably die. The VAST majority of women manage to survive childbirth. And what's a lost job compared to saving a life? They won't starve. And actually, there is a looooong waiting list for healthy newborns. But, yeah, it's difficult to place on of those 100,000 older kids you mention. And once again, thanks for making my point on the tissue issue.
Click to expand...

It's not up to you to make decisions regarding a woman's probability of survival, or to what degree her life will be impacted by childbirth. Only she can know her own situation and capabilities, and only she can decide whether she will carry her pregnancy to term.
 
Waddy said:
Except that she won't probably die. The VAST majority of women manage to survive childbirth. And what's a lost job compared to saving a life? They won't starve. And actually, there is a looooong waiting list for healthy newborns. But, yeah, it's difficult to place on of those 100,000 older kids you mention. And once again, thanks for making my point on the tissue issue.
Click to expand...

But she may...and the risk is significant and cannot be predicted. Nor prevented..otherwise all those women wouldnt actually die. Aside from the draft...name one other time where the govt forces its citizens to assume such risks against their will? And we've ended the draft.

And if you choose quantity over quality of life, that's up to you. But you cant assume that for everyone, esp. not the unborn.

Fact is, people choose to prioritize other things over life all the time...they give it up for family, religion, principles, their country, etc. You dont get to decide...or assume...for anyone else.

Me? I choose quality of life over quantity.
 
Waddy said:
Thanks. You really make my point. BTW; any woman could give the baby up for adoption and go on with her life. Inconvenient for a few months, but do-able.
Click to expand...

C-section is major surgery. Exactly when do you think a C-section should be performed in order to prevent an abortion?

Survival Rates of:
Babies born at 23 weeks have a 17% chance of survival
Babies born at 24 weeks have a 39% chance of survival
Babies born at 25 weeks have a 50% chance of survival
From 32 weeks onwards, most babies are able to survive with the help of medical Technology [EPICure data]

Outcomes
1 in 10 premature babies will develop a permanent disability such as lung disease, cerebral palsy, blindness or deafness.
50% of premature babies born before the 26th week of gestation are disabled, a quarter severely so. (Fowler GA. Preemie problems: the sobering statistics. US News World Reports 2000; vol 129: pp56.)
Of children born before 26 weeks' gestation, results in 241 of the surviving children at six years (early school age) indicate a high level of disability as follows:
22% severe disability (defined as cerebral palsy but not walking, low cognitive scores, blindness, profound deafness)
24% moderate disability (defined as cerebral palsy but walking, IQ/cognitive scores in the special needs range, lesser degree of visual or hearing impairment)
34% mild disability (defined as low IQ/cognitive score, squint, requiring glasses)
20% no problems
This study also showed a greater risk of severe disability and lower cognitive function results for boys compared with girls. This supports the theory that male sex is an important risk factor in extremely preterm infants.
Cognitive and neurological impairment is common at school age amongst extremely preterm children. [N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 9-19.] Epicure data

There is something seriously ignorant on so many levels, about a man advocating women get a C section instead of an abortion.

According the the above statistics only 17% to 50% of premies survive and of those that survive only 20% are with out mental or physicals impairments. The irony of killing a born child because of a premature C-section instead of aborting early in the pregnancy and not killing a born child apparently escapes the those that advocate for C-section alternative.

The illogic of claiming anti-abortion meddling is all in the interests of the woman's health while simultaneously advocating a major and debilitating operation to avoid a non-invasive, relatively risk free 1st trimester abortion also seems to have escaped them.

Inconvenient? Get back to us after you've had your first C-section.
 
Waddy said:
Except that she won't probably die. The VAST majority of women manage to survive childbirth. And what's a lost job compared to saving a life? They won't starve. And actually, there is a looooong waiting list for healthy newborns. But, yeah, it's difficult to place on of those 100,000 older kids you mention. And once again, thanks for making my point on the tissue issue.
Click to expand...

Inquiring minds want to know, Waddy. Other than tapping on a keyboard, and attempting to impose your opinions and morality onto women you know little to nothing about, what have you done in the past, are currently doing, and will continue to do for the unborn. How much actual skin and effort do you really have in the game ?
 
Waddy said:
Thanks. You really make my point. BTW; any woman could give the baby up for adoption and go on with her life. Inconvenient for a few months, but do-able.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been pregnant?

If you think being very healthy then having several life threatening complications as well as surgery is "inconvenient" you are wildly misinformed. If you think having residual health issues 25 years after giving birth is inconvenient, you are wildly misinformed. The bottom line is that not every pregnancy has to go that way, but if someone who is very healthy like I WAS can have a pregnancy like that, anyone can. Luckily I had the resources to achieve early diagnosis and early treatment. I had resources so I did not go homeless when I had to take 6 months off of work. Most women who chose abortion cannot say that.
 
Lursa said:
Except that she might die or have her health permanently damaged and be disabled. She can take good care of her family and responsibility if she's dead or disabled right? :doh That's 86,700 women every yr in the US.

And she can also lose her job, lose her home in a safer, more secure neighborhood where she provides a home for her children, elderly or disabled dependents.

Your idea of 'inconvenience' is strange...I guess you believe that keeping a good job, living in a safe place, not going on welfare, taking care of your family, meeting your obligations and commitments to your employer, community, society...those are all 'conveniences,' right? Yes or no?

And then you recommend she add another unwanted, unaffordable child to the 100,000 in the US already waiting and hoping to find families? Depriving one of them, as they get older, a home? :doh Yeah, I can TOTALLY see how that is ethically and practically 'better.' NOT :roll:
Click to expand...
Hey, what happened to my answer to the bold? Yes or no?
 
forthecause said:
The study linked below seems to be widely regarded as the best information on the topic of late term abortion. In it you’ll find some inconvenient truths for the pro-abortion camp. Among those are: 1) there are (at least) several thousand late term abortions every year in the US conducted for flippant reasons, i.e. not having to do with fetal anomalies or the life of the mother being at risk; 2) at least a few thousand late term abortions are performed each year in the US simply because the mother is already a single mother and doesn’t want to be raising another child on her own. (The reasons for the other half of the unnecessary late term abortions aren’t any better); and 3) there is no shortage of abortion clinics offering late term abortions. (Women seeking a late term abortion contacted 2.2 clinics on average before finding one that would perform their procedure as opposed to 1.7 clinics for women seeking first trimester abortions).

—-https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013—-


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Problem with late-term abortion analysis, regardless where you stand on the issue: not enough data to support any one stance.

I just looked at pro-life analysis of late term abortions (April 2019) and the only consistent fact was that data is largely under-reported to make any real conclusions so they made do with hypothesis after hypothesis due to lack of evidence one way or the other. If memory serves correct, only three states had enough stats to make list of reasons for late term abortions.

The link you provided even alludes to this problem of lack of data.
 
Lursa said:
Hey, what happened to my answer to the bold? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Compared to saving a life they are mere inconveniences.

Most abortions aren't to prevent premature births. The mothers going full term are quite healthy and the childbirth goes just fine. Many women who have abortions suffer complications. It isn't the safest of medical procedures.

BTW; my daughter has two adopted kids now and my wife is a volunteer counselor at an abortion support group for women dealing with the regret of abortion. The anniversary of an abortion is always their worst days. Not every woman is glad she chose abortion.
 
Jason Warfield said:
Problem with late-term abortion analysis, regardless where you stand on the issue: not enough data to support any one stance.

I just looked at pro-life analysis of late term abortions (April 2019) and the only consistent fact was that data is largely under-reported to make any real conclusions so they made do with hypothesis after hypothesis due to lack of evidence one way or the other. If memory serves correct, only three states had enough stats to make list of reasons for late term abortions.

The link you provided even alludes to this problem of lack of data.
Click to expand...


Plus forthecause wanted to call any abortion past 20 weeks as late term and the study he citied excluded all abortions that were because of medical reasons. So Use of the that study was slated to say the least.

As you said only a few states have enough stats to have a list of reasons for late term.

Currently there are only 3 clinics in the United States where abortions past 22 weeks occur.

In 2008 Kansas was one of those states that allowed abortions past 22 weeks.

Kansas keep a list of every abortion that took place at or past 22 weeks.


In 2008 there were 323 abortions at or past 22 weeks.

131 abortions were because the fetus was not viable. ( it was dead,dying, or would not live more than a few minutes or hours if it survived birth.)

192 abortions were because the woman would suffer irreparable damage to one of her major bodily functions if the pregnancy continued.

See pages 8 and 9 of the following link.

http://www.kdheks.gov/phi/abortion_sum/2008itopcmbnd.pdf

http://www.kdheks.gov/phi/abortion_sum/2008itopcmbnd.pdf
 
Last edited:
Waddy said:
Most abortions aren't to prevent premature births. The mothers going full term are quite healthy and the childbirth goes just fine. Many women who have abortions suffer complications. It isn't the safest of medical procedures.

BTW; my daughter has two adopted kids now and my wife is a volunteer counselor at an abortion support group for women dealing with the regret of abortion. The anniversary of an abortion is always their worst days. Not every woman is glad she chose abortion.
Click to expand...

Did answer the question...again.

And my parents adopted my twin sisters...as special needs infants. I am well familiar with the system...and the women that produce many of these kids. They dont have abortions because they dont care at all, they just let nature take it's course. Once you are pregnant, giving birth is the path of least resistance. It's nothing to be proud of, all mammals do it.

And according to stats, most women do not regret their decisions. In life we make tough decisions all the time, it doesnt mean they're wrong. Divorce is a perfect example...one of the most difficult and painful decisions, yet made with the belief in a better future for the parents and their kids. Just like abortion...made in the belief in a better future for the woman and her family...current and future.
 
Waddy said:
Compared to saving a life they are mere inconveniences.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure all the people, like her other kids, affected dont agree that their lives and needs are 'mere inconveniences.'
 
Waddy said:
Except that she won't probably die. The VAST majority of women manage to survive childbirth. And what's a lost job compared to saving a life? They won't starve. And actually, there is a looooong waiting list for healthy newborns. But, yeah, it's difficult to place on of those 100,000 older kids you mention. And once again, thanks for making my point on the tissue issue.
Click to expand...
S
What you don't address is the fact that most women who choose abortion are under resourced. They lack decent resources. Assuming they are not on Medicaid, they would be placed on emergency Medicaid to get her pregnancy related care. What does that mean? Depending on your location it could mean going to an understaffed under resourced county clinic that may be a couple cities away. Seeing that you likely don't have a car, this means a few bus rides to get to your appointment - that you may have to wait hours anyway once you get there. What it really means is that since normally you have to scrape to get every shift you can to pay rent....you will lose shifts. To make things worse....as pregnancy progresses, your employers may choose other people to pick up shifts. So they make choices. She feels ok...so she skips appointments. In pregnancy early diagnosis of pregnancy related issues is crucial. Something as serious as pre-eclampsia (and related conditions) can have no signs a pregnant women may notice. I sure didn't, when I came into my routine prenatal appointment, I felt good and my kidneys had already taken a big hit. I am alive because I had very good resources. Most women who choose abortion have crappy personal and medical resources.
 
Waddy said:
Thanks. You really make my point. BTW; any woman could give the baby up for adoption and go on with her life. Inconvenient for a few months, but do-able.
Click to expand...

I am adopted. I would never inflict that on a child. Besides, I'm unwilling to risk my life by gestating just to give the child to strangers to raise.
 
Waddy said:
Compared to saving a life they are mere inconveniences.
Click to expand...

Mighty CONVENIENT for you that your body will never, ever suffer the ravages of pregnancy, eh?


Many women who have abortions suffer complications. It isn't the safest of medical procedures.
Click to expand...

Legal abortion is many times safer than gestation and childbirth.

The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. - PubMed - NCBI



The anniversary of an abortion is always their worst days. Not every woman is glad she chose abortion.
Click to expand...

Most are.

Decision Rightness and Emotional Responses to Abortion in the United States: A Longitudinal Study
 
Scrabaholic said:
Mighty CONVENIENT for you that your body will never, ever suffer the ravages of pregnancy, eh?

Legal abortion is many times safer than gestation and childbirth.
Click to expand...

Isn't it thoughtful of men like Waddy to solve all women's reproductive issues for them. Silly women just carry it to term; give it away; have a C-section. Convenient, safe, no emotional stress, socially acceptable by the best of churches, and just a little time off from work.Easy Peasy! and no conservative male has been made uncomfortable
 
Scrabaholic said:
Mighty CONVENIENT for you that your body will never, ever suffer the ravages of pregnancy, eh?

Legal abortion is many times safer than gestation and childbirth.

The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. - PubMed - NCBI

Most are.

Decision Rightness and Emotional Responses to Abortion in the United States: A Longitudinal Study
Click to expand...

Yep. Abortion is 14 times safer than pregnancy/childbirth.

Abortion safer than giving birth: study - Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.

Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.

Experts say the findings, though not unexpected, contradict some state laws that suggest abortions are high-risk procedures.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Yep. Abortion is 14 times safer than pregnancy/childbirth.
Click to expand...

That statistic is not going to penetrate the skulls of the religious conservatives. They will keep right on claiming that all their laws restricting and/or banning abortions are for women's health and safety.
 
weaver2 said:
That statistic is not going to penetrate the skulls of the religious conservatives. They will keep right on claiming that all their laws restricting and/or banning abortions are for women's health and safety.
Click to expand...

It's esp. hypocritical because many/most states allow midwives to do home births...much much more dangerous, yet when's the last time you saw anyone protesting against that based on 'women's health and safety (or anything else)?'
 
Lursa said:
It's esp. hypocritical because many/most states allow midwives to do home births...much much more dangerous, yet when's the last time you saw anyone protesting against that based on 'women's health and safety (or anything else)?'
Click to expand...

When all the reasons given by religious right to ban abortion are carefully examined none has any credibility except: "It is my belief and/or my religion's belief that abortion is wrong." Which means it a 1st Amendment issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom