Abortion

[sparkle10184]

Midwives won't go to a house with empty hands. They'll bring the tools they need so they're prepared for emergencies.

[Obscure_Trash]

Abortion is several times safer than pregnancy as a whole, so it doesn't make any sense to say "yeah, sure, midwives can assist in births, but not abortions!" IMHO.

[KageSora]

Abortion is several times safer than pregnancy as a whole, so it doesn't make any sense to say "yeah, sure, midwives can assist in births, but not abortions!" IMHO.

Agreed.

 

What about all the times something goes horribly wrong during the delivery? Why allow the midwives to handle that but not abortions, then, since women can and do die during childbirth?

[Syaoransbear]

Agreed.

 

What about all the times something goes horribly wrong during the delivery?  Why allow the midwives to handle that but not abortions, then, since women can and do die during childbirth?

Plus with an abortion there's no newborn baby who needs immediate care. It makes no sense that a midwife can be fully qualified to deal with a more life threatening process that involves two lives but not a largely safe procedure that involves the life of only one person.

[whitebaron]

About 15% of home-births are abandoned due to risk. The midwife just calls a stop and for an ambulance/the car. Of the life-threatening situations, a good midwife tries not to get into them at all.

 

That aside: people tend to downplay the risks. 5% of births have severe complications. (so thats 10% false alarms at home birth - but better safe than sorry) Many of them can be easily fixed in hospital, but you need to get there first.

[WereJace]

From my reading, it looks like this legislation simply widens the scope of the professionals who can be trained in the aspiration method-I don't know what precise equipment that requires, but I have my doubts they'd be doing it outside of a clinic. The complications rate is also very low.

[Cecona]

an abortion is a lot less risky than a birth, and if people trust mid-wives to deliver a baby why would they not trust them to do something so much simpler?

 

birth ≠ abortion

Edited October 11, 2013 by Cecona

[whitebaron]

From my reading, it looks like this legislation simply widens the scope of the professionals who can be trained in the aspiration method-I don't know what precise equipment that requires, but I have my doubts they'd be doing it outside of a clinic. The complications rate is also very low.

Most stuff midwives do, can and will be performed outside of clinics - it's one of the reasons you go to them in the first place. I have no objections whatsoever against trained persons doing the procedure - of any medical title, who cares all they need to be is competent, not an m.d. - in a clinic or close to one.

 

Given the large distances in the us, I feel the risk of doing stuff at home is just to big.

 

 

Btw: 5 of 1000 woman where aspiration was performed on need extended care. Thats medium risk to ne, not low. But ymmv.

[WereJace]

0.5% does not strike me as medium risk. It's the lowest risk of all surgical abortion procedures, and looks to be around the same effectiveness as mifepristone.

[sparkle10184]

I have nothing against midwives performing abortion or birth. If I ever have a child, I plan to have it at home with a midwife present.

And I agree with WereJace, that is a low risk. If the woman is willing to take that risk, let her do so.

[diannethegeek]

While some midwives will perform at home deliveries, many more work in clinics and hospitals (at lease here in the US). I cannot seem to find any part of this law which opens up the door to home abortions. Could you point me in the right direction, whitebaron? It looks to me like this law doesn't change the standards of care or building standards that are currently required in clinics.

 

Maybe we ought to let the medical professionals determine whether or not the risk goes up with midwife abortions.

 

http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/01/13403/stu...cian-assistants

http://www.ansirh.org/research/pci/hwpp.php

 

A six-year study was performed by researchers at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) from the University of California–San Francisco and found complication rates among nurse practitioners, midwives, and physician assistants to be similar to doctors (less than 2%). They also found outpatient abortion procedures, whether performed by a doctor or other trained practitioners to be safe.

 

Whitebaron, if you are not comfortable with midwives performing an abortion on you or outpatient abortions then you don't have to have one performed. The standard options will still be there for you. But for those women, especially the poor, who lack easy access to an abortion facility, this law expands the pool of abortion providers during the first trimester and it allows them to seek abortions earlier, when they are less expensive and carry less risk of complications.

[Cecona]

Whitebaron is not from the U.S. so her idea of a mid-wife might not be as modern as it is here? I'm not exactly sure where she is from so I can't be certain about that.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Cecona

[whitebaron]

Whitebaron is not from the U.S. so her idea of a mid-wife might not be as modern as it is here? I'm not exactly sure where she is from so I can't be certain about that.

Well, yeah, not being from the us makes one a medieval barbarian?

 

Also, please, read my statements, people. I never said anything bad about midwives in this whole thread, yet people put words in my mouth.

 

I just said that it might open up off-clinic abortions, and I am totally opposed to that.

[Cecona]

Well, yeah, not being from the us makes one a medieval barbarian? 

 

Also, please, read my statements, people. I never said anything bad about midwives in this whole thread, yet people put words in my mouth.

 

I just said that it might open up off-clinic abortions, and I am totally opposed to that.

Wow okay you totally got what I was saying wrong. What I meant by modern was more that they do work at places other than home, like a clinic, which is what it seemed like you thought wasn't the case by what you were posting.

 

Remind me to never try and defend you again.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Cecona

[Obscure_Trash]

Also, please, read my statements, people. I never said anything bad about midwives in this whole thread, yet people put words in my mouth.

 

I just said that it might open up off-clinic abortions, and I am totally opposed to that.

Well, your original post was:

 

New California Law Lets Nurses, Midwives Perform Some Abortions

While I'm all for pro-choice, this is in my eyes a bad direction to go.

While its only 5 in 1000, there are still life-threatening complications that can occur. Without a nearby doctor, you're probably dead if there's a rupture or shock (anaesthetics or the hormones used for opening the cervix )

 

The link is titled specifically about nurses and midwives, so your semi-vague comment led us to believe your beef was specifically with nurses and midwives. I know I personally talked about midwives because I was more sure about some of what they did than what nurses roles were in births (as I was comparing the risk of birth to abortion).

 

However, if you're just talking about off-clinic abortions, with:

 

While some midwives will perform at home deliveries, many more work in clinics and hospitals (at lease here in the US). I cannot seem to find any part of this law which opens up the door to home abortions.

 

The whole convo seems kinda pointless now, lol.

 

Wow okay you totally got what I was saying wrong.

 

=U Your wording was kinda...misleading, if I may say so. "idea of a mid-wife might not be as modern as it is here" <- The US is behind in several aspects of life, especially in how we deal with education and health care. The idea of us a "more civilized" country is a US centric belief held up by propaganda about our countries and others, and this sometimes manifests itself in the wording we use, such as calling other countries medical staff as "less modern" just due to the idea that they may be different than our own.

[Cecona]

First of all I said I wasn't certain and could be wrong, and I don't think that America is more advanced. I know how messed up this country is. I was talking specifically about midwives and nothing else, not all medicine or even society. I think of mid-wives working in clinics and hospitals or where ever more modern than the usual at home only mid-wife. And from how I was reading Whitebaron's posts it made me think she wasn't used to the idea of them working anywhere besides home. I really didn't mean to sound offensive of anything.

[Kestra15]

I just said that it might open up off-clinic abortions, and I am totally opposed to that.

*facepalm* No, no it won't.

[Totts]

First of all, I do not believe abortion is a good thing, however I do not believe it is bad, without it women would go into alleyways and have abortions with people who know nothing about the female reproductive system, even if you abolish something, people will still do it, like taking drugs, and I also feel that abortion should be used if the mother is at risk of dying.

[prpldrgnfr]

First of all, I do not believe abortion is a good thing, however I do not believe it is bad, without it women would go into alleyways and have abortions with people who know nothing about the female reproductive system, even if you abolish something, people will still do it, like taking drugs, and I also feel that abortion should be used if the mother is at risk of dying.

Awesome. That means your pro-choice. Most of us don't like abortion either, but we leave it up to each woman to decide for herself. And you're right, it's not good or bad, it's *just* a medical procedure.

[DustyBelle]

Abortion is an issue which is very personal to women. One's feelings about abortion may change at different points in your life and whether or not the issue is one you have to decide.

As a young teen you and your doctor might decide that medically you would be better off having an abortion. At a later point in your life your physical shape might not have an adverse effect on a fetus you are carrying. Medecines that you might be taking thinking you are not pregnant could harm a fetus.

 

Rape is a definite reason to seriously consider an abortion. Even if a victim of rape gives up the child for adoption, having the child can adversely affect her life. For 9 months or so it is a visual sign and reminder of the terrible life changing event.

 

Pregnancy should be a joyous time in your life. A time of introspection and physical and mental growth and well being. An unwanted pregnancy is not apt to give a woman this.

 

No male, even the father of the unborn fetus should have the right to say whether the pregnant woman should carry the fetus to term or have an abortion. He is not going to have to live the pregnancy or live with the agonizing decision to abort.

 

All pregnancies affect a woman. Miscarriages, stillborn births, abortions, adoptions and live births which are kept; each have their own price and all carry a lasting memory for a woman. No one else can speak for her.

 

Abortion should be legal because it is no one else's right to determine whether or not a woman will attempt to carry a pregnancy to term or not. Illegal abortions merely lead to unwanted children and unsafe abortions and secrets that fester in families. All of which are bad for a person's health.

 

Thanks for letting me have my say.

[Brite]

and I also feel that abortion should be used if the mother is at risk of dying.

So are you pro-choice or just think it should be used if she's at risk?

[Totts]

I feel that if the woman feels she is at risk she could have it, but a woman without any complications for birth should be encouraged not to and should at least give a plausible reason to abort.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Totts

[eritated]

I feel that if the woman feels she is at risk she could have it, but a woman without any complications for birth should be encouraged not to and should at least give a plausible reason to abort.

Why isn't because she simply does not want to be pregnant for 9 months and give birth a good enough reason?

[lightbird]

I feel that if the woman feels she is at risk she could have it, but a woman without any complications for birth should be encouraged not to and should at least give a plausible reason to abort.

For example, not wanting a child, i.e., not giving birth to a child that will grow up unwanted. That's a very good reason.

[Totts]

Light, that'd be plausible, but saying she doesn't want to be pregnant for nine months and give birth is like saying that she doesn't want to save a drowning person.