Abortion

[Fuzzbucket]

There are conditions that don't show up till well after 16 weeks. EB for one - if you don't know you are a carrier. Also - as I said earlier - some people actually don't knwo they are pregnant till the day they go into labour. If they discover they are pregnant late on and can't face it, I would not deny them the right.

 

I would leave it to the parents and their doctors. I don't actually see a need for legislation, to be honest. But I know that would never fly.

[Husky51]

At least for now, women have some control over whether to have an abortion or not, but now that Trump is going to be trying for his choice for another Supreme Court Judge, he has stated in the past that he is Pro-life and plans to stack the deck against those who believe in a woman's right to have an abortion, whether medically needed or required; pregnancy as a result of rape or any other reason.  He is planning on having Roe vs Wade overturned!  At least that is my understanding of his rantings... (I'm sorry, I calls them as I see them).  And he is saying that this will form the basis of the Supreme Court for the next 30 to 40 years and he is happy with that!!!   He is a man, what freaking right does he have to decide what a woman may or may not do with her body???  I'm sorry, but this is my feeling.

I will never be an Uncle by my Sister, but that was her choice.  While attending Nursing school she had her wisdom  teeth pulled and ended up in ICU from non stop bleeding.  She was given the choice of having a hysterectomy to prevent any future problem of her bleeding out during a birthing.  I believe that this was done at the same time her pancreas was removed, but I'm not positive.  This was all done on my sisters part and I was not made privy to the details so I may have mis-stated what the actions were, but the outcome was that she would never become pregnant.

[Fuzzbucket]

That is EXACTLY what he said. and exactly what he plans. And "rants" is a very polite word for his utterances....

[Husky51]

1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

There are conditions that don't show up till well after 16 weeks. EB for one - if you don't know you are a carrier. Also - as I said earlier - some people actually don't knwo they are pregnant till the day they go into labour. If they discover they are pregnant late on and can't face it, I would not deny them the right.

It seems surprising that a woman wouldn't know if she was pregnant, but I can attest that it can and does happen.  I was friends with a family in the apartment building where I lived and while the woman was overweight, she never gave any sign that she might be pregnant.  She said later that while her periods were uneven, she said that this was normal because of her weight.  I remember the afternoon when she was having stomach pains and went to the ER.  She came home two days later with a baby girl...  She said that she had no idea that she was pregnant.  

[HeatherMarie]

One of the things I really don't like about *any* of the legal cut-offs is that, legally, they go by the woman's last period, *not* any sort of actual conception date. So technically, a 20-week cut off could mean the fetus is actually only 16-ish weeks along. A 16-week cut off could mean a fetus is only 12 weeks along. Especially for women who don't have periods that run like clockwork, basing the cut off on last period date is rather ridiculous and makes things so much more complicated. I'm aware it's difficult to pinpoint actual conception date (depending on how often you have sex, I guess), but that just doesn't seem right. 

 

As for aborting because of a fetus's possible conditions, that's where my feelings get complicated. I understand things like not wanting a child to have to suffer through a condition that brings extreme pain or something, but my brain always goes down that 'slippery slope' road where I wonder how far it can go. I know people with autism, and Downs Syndrome, and all sorts of different conditions that may make their life 'harder' in certain ways but by no means makes it unbearable. Maybe I'm just sensitive because I have mental issues myself, and wonder, if it becomes the 'norm' to abort for Downs, or autism, will it someday be the 'norm' to abort people like me?

[Fuzzbucket]

It's more about the mother, though. If she knows she couldn't cope with a child with autism or whatever, better the child not be put through having her as a parent - and she shouldn't have to go through pregnancy just to give the child up for adoption at the end. Full disclosure: I have an autistic grandson, and I know just how difficult it is for his mother. Not that autism is yet detectable in the womb anyway...

[hazeh]

Just as an aside for medical conditions in the womb, my mother worked/ was friends with a woman who was desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband. They went through fertility treatments and everything, and she eventually got pregnant. About six months down the line, they discovered that something was wrong with the fetus; it had a genetic anomaly that gave it "mermaid syndrome" where the lower half of the body is fused together. This particular instance would have lead to the fetus to die outside of the womb shortly after birth. So the mother elected to have an abortion to save her and her husband the grief of watching their child die after birth, though it was a very difficult decision to make. And of course, they were heckled and harassed on their way into the clinic. 

I can't imagine going through something like that, and I'm frankly terrified about having my child in four years. I don't know that I could go through something like that, but at the same time, what if I had to? What if something was wrong, and my fetus would suffer or potentially die after birth? I don't know that I could handle the alternative of going through the entire nine months just to have it die in my arms. And I will forever loathe Trump for taking that choice away from me if Roe v. Wade is overturned. What a despicable man.

[Cecona]

I think the oldest surviving person with mermaid syndrome was like 10 years old. It’s not an easy thing to deal with and it was a miracle this little girl lived as long as she did. The thing about autism is murky, because even if we were capable of diagnosing it in the womb, would they be able to tell whether it’s high functioning or low functioning? Can they tell how bad a fetus’s Down syndrome will be? People with high functioning autism are very capable of living mostly normal lives, and are usually very intelligent and talented. It wouldn’t be fair to these people if a prenatal test showed a fetus had autism, but couldn’t detect whether it was low or high functioning.

 

Trump is a joke, and I’m terrified of the idea of him banning all abortions. Even Ireland is changing for the better, but he wants to throw us back a few decades. He was already making a big deal about tax payers funding abortions (is that even true?) and cutting all funding to abortion clinics.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Cecona

[HeatherMarie]

I don't know much about government/taxpayer financial stuff, but I do know that *many* insurances won't pay for abortions at all, even when deemed medically necessary by a doctor. So claiming that taxpayers/etc are paying for abortions is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I know a lot of women who've paid out of pocket for their abortion, begged family/etc to help pay for it, etc. I know that the insurance I have, while awesome in other respects, won't pay for abortions under any circumstances. Taxpayers paying for abortions, or tons of women getting abortions for free, is simply misleading propaganda. 

[Cecona]

If it’s not paying for the actual abortions maybe they mean that tax payer money goes to keeping the actual clinic open? I honestly believe it’s complete bull, but I want to try and understand why they would say tax payer money funds abortions. 

[Fuzzbucket]

Because they want to whip up support for outlawing hem by any means they can.

 

MAYBE the Cheeto is so stupid that the fact that taxpayers' money does pay for them in (ahem) more civilised countries means (to him) that that must be the case in the US as well.

[HeatherMarie]

I did a little googling, and it seems there is a nugget of truth to those taxpayer claims, but it's very misleading the way it's being talked about. Taxes do go towards funding Medicaid, and Medicaid can, in certain circumstances, pay for abortions (in a handful of states). Planned Parenthood, which seems to be the main target when it comes to anti-abortion politics, gets reimbursements from Medicaid, and it seems some people think that the majority of what they do (and therefore the majority of what Medicaid is paying for) is abortions. Of course that's completely untrue (according to Planned Parenthood's annual report in 2009 abortions were about 3% of their total services). Planned Parenthood cannot, by law, use any *federal* money to pay for abortions (the money they get through Title X). 

 

Old-ish but informative article: https://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

Also: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/blog/how-federal-funding-works-at-planned-parenthood

 

edit to add a thought: If the big objection is paying taxes towards an insurance that might possibly fund abortions, can we start objecting to that for other reasons as well? I don't want my taxes to go towards some guy's Viagra. Maybe I don't believe in mental health care and don't want my taxes going towards any sort of therapy or psychology treatments. Maybe I shun all modern medicine, can I insist my taxes not go to Medicaid at all? (Totally being sarcastic here, just showing how stupid I think that whole idea is.)

Edited June 30, 2018 by HeatherMarie

[Husky51]

Another aspect of this topic, although not often as far as I know,  is where a woman, usually out of wedlock in these cases, becomes pregnant and for what ever reason, (rape in any form,etc for example) decides that an abortion is the only way for her to regain her sanity or wellbeing.  (Ladies, please bear with me if I use inappropriate words, I'm just trying to get the idea across)  Then the 'baby-juice' donor decides that since it is his child, goes through the courts to try to force the woman to carry to full term and give birth to 'HIS' baby, sometimes just as a means of getting even with the woman for not doing this (getting pregnant) willingly or because of a later break-up ( I know that I am losing the battle of words here) or for whatever reason that he may feel maligned.  I say that IMO he has no right to force this upon the woman!  For any reason!! It is HER body!!!  She and her doctors should be the only ones involved in this.  I am not sure how a husband would fit in this, but my feelings are the same, regardless.  If my wife or her doctors had felt the need for an abortion, I would have been sorrowful, but would have agreed with her.  

 

I mentioned it before somewhere, but when my mother divorced my sister's alcoholic and abusive father (he came after me with a knife when I was ten) she had gotten together with this man( I use the term loosely) mainly to help give us kids a roof and food, basically.  He turned out to be a very sadistic so-in-so.  When  she found that she was pregnant with his child, abortion was not legal and she tried herself.  She made a mistake and I sent my sister next door to get an ambulance while applying vaginal paks on my Mother at her direction  (I was 12).  That may have a lot to do with my feelings on this subject today.

 

Some mentioned an autistic child.  One of my grandsons is autistic and a quite physical and tempermental 8 yr old.  He has been held back in school for 2 yrs now and will be in a regular school class with 6-yr old's this next year.  I have no idea as to why he hasn't been placed into a 'special needs' class, I just don't know.  And I know how much his mother is suffering over this.   In his case, they had no knowledge of the Autism before hand as it is not known in either family and I'm not sure of what they would have done had they known.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Husky51
wording explanation- By 'inappropriate words' I mean not finding the words that I am looking for to explain what I am trying to say...

[HeatherMarie]

@Husky51 I very much agree about the woman's needs/preference trumping the man's when it comes to abortion. I'm not heartless, I do completely understand how upsetting it might be for a man to genuinely want a child (genuinely, not as revenge) that the woman decides not to give birth to... But so far the medical community has no way of allowing the man to carry the fetus himself (I know that sounds stupid, bare with me) therefore he should not have equal say. If it was his body that was at risk, it would be his decision. As long as it's the woman's body, the woman's sanity, it should be her choice regardless of what the man says.

 

(As far as special needs classes, there has been such a push the last 20-odd years to 'normalize' special-needs children's education, some schools don't even have a separate class anymore. When I was in grade school there was a big hoopla pushing the kids in the special needs class to spend part of the day every day in the regular classrooms. That was 20-ish years ago, I don't know how far it's gone since then, but I know there is a lot of pressure nowadays to keep kids in 'normal' classes if at all possible (which is not always the best thing for the child!)).

[Fuzzbucket]

1 hour ago, Husky51 said:

Some mentioned an autistic child.  One of my grandsons is autistic and a quite physical and tempermental 8 yr old.  He has been held back in school for 2 yrs now and will be in a regular school class with 6-yr old's this next year.  I have no idea as to why he hasn't been placed into a 'special needs' class, I just don't know.  And I know how much his mother is suffering over this.   In his case, they had no knowledge of the Autism before hand as it is not known in either family and I'm not sure of what they would have done had they known.

 

I mentioned it. To the best of my knowledge it cannot be detected before birth, so in terms of abortion it is academic. But I have to say that if I were the mother of my grandson, I would probably terminate any further pregnancies so that I had the energy left to love and raise him as he needs. But autists don't necessarily need special needs classes; often they just need their special needs attended to in regular school - like a chill room where they know they can go without any consequences if they feel a meltdown coming on. Or the right (admittedly this is hard on other kids !) to say no you may NOT come closer to me just now.

 

1 hour ago, HeatherMarie said:

@Husky51 I very much agree about the woman's needs/preference trumping the man's when it comes to abortion. I'm not heartless, I do completely understand how upsetting it might be for a man to genuinely want a child (genuinely, not as revenge) that the woman decides not to give birth to... But so far the medical community has no way of allowing the man to carry the fetus himself (I know that sounds stupid, bare with me) therefore he should not have equal say. If it was his body that was at risk, it would be his decision. As long as it's the woman's body, the woman's sanity, it should be her choice regardless of what the man says.

 

(As far as special needs classes, there has been such a push the last 20-odd years to 'normalize' special-needs children's education, some schools don't even have a separate class anymore. When I was in grade school there was a big hoopla pushing the kids in the special needs class to spend part of the day every day in the regular classrooms. That was 20-ish years ago, I don't know how far it's gone since then, but I know there is a lot of pressure nowadays to keep kids in 'normal' classes if at all possible (which is not always the best thing for the child!)).

 

Each child absolutely needs to be individually assessed. If it is at all possible to have them in regular classes it does set them up better for growing up into the world.  (As an aside, anyone interested in this might care to get hold of the excellent movie Snowcake, one of the best portrayals of adult autism I have ever seen.)

 

But yes, until men can undergo the pregnancy, they cannot have the right to block an abortion. My body, my choice.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Fuzzbucket

[Husky51]

@ Fuzzbusket:

Yes, i have heard of these 'chill' rooms, as you said.  I will mention it to his Mom when  I see her next.

 

I hadn't known what EB was until just now when I went to Google and looked it up.  I've never heard of it before...

 

@HeatherMarie:

hahaha, no, your sentence did not sound stupid, it is true, even in transgender's, it hasn't been possible.  Although, in a transgenders place, I think that there would be too many physical obstacles to over come, such as the size of the birth canal ( don't know offhand what that area is called in a male) and I don't think that they have perfected transplanting a uterus as yet, either. 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Husky51
Added a sentence to Fuzzbucket

[catstaff]

On 6/30/2018 at 8:05 PM, Husky51 said:

@HeatherMarie:

hahaha, no, your sentence did not sound stupid, it is true, even in transgender's, it hasn't been possible.  Although, in a transgenders place, I think that there would be too many physical obstacles to over come, such as the size of the birth canal ( don't know offhand what that area is called in a male) and I don't think that they have perfected transplanting a uterus as yet, either. 

 

That area on a male body would approximately cover the scrotum and perineum. I have no idea how gender reassignment surgery would install the female bits after removing the male bits, and I'm talking the externals, not the uterus. A bigger issue I could see, assuming medical technology does advance to the point of transplanting a uterus, is that the size and shape of the male pelvic structure. A female pelvis is shaped to allow the passage of a fetus, a male pelvis isn't. (And that same structural difference is why women generally walk with a hip-sway, because the angle of the pelvic bone is different where the femur fits into the hip socket.)

[Fuzzbucket]

It could in theory be done, actually. Implant am embryo into the abdo cavity.

 

http://www.science20.com/challenging_nature/a_real_pregnant_man_almost_certainly_possible_but_it_might_kill_him

 

There have technically been male pregnancies - but so far they have all been in trans men who still had uteri.

 

Consider ectopic pregnancies - as long as the embryo doesn't stay in the fallopian tube, but gets into the abdomen, the baby JUST MIGHT survive:

 

Quote

 

There have been cases where ectopic pregnancy lasted many months and ended in a live baby delivered by laparotomy.

In July 1999, Lori Dalton gave birth by caesarean section in Ogden, Utah, United States, to a healthy baby girl who had developed outside of the uterus. Previous ultrasounds had not discovered the problem. "[Sage Dalton]'s delivery was slated as a routine Caesarean birth at Ogden Regional Medical Center in Utah. When Dr. Naisbitt performed Lori's Caesarean, he was astonished to find Sage within the amniotic membrane outside the womb ... ."^[48] "But what makes this case so rare is that not only did mother and baby survive—they're both in perfect health. John Dalton [(the father)] took home video inside the delivery room. Sage came out doing extremely well because even though she had been implanted outside the womb, a rich blood supply from a uterine fibroid along the outer uterus wall had nourished her with a rich source of blood."^[49]

In September 1999 an English woman, Jane Ingram (age 32) gave birth to triplets: Olivia, Mary and Ronan, with an extrauterine fetus (Ronan) below the womb and twins in the womb. All three survived. The twins in the womb were taken out first.^[50]

On May 29, 2008 an Australian woman, Meera Thangarajah (age 34), who had an ectopic pregnancy in the ovary, gave birth to a healthy full term 6 pound 3 ounce (2.8 kg) baby girl, Durga, via caesarean section. She had no problems or complications during the 38‑week pregnancy.^[51][52]

 

 

Just for information !

[Cecona]

Etopic pregnancies are extremely dangerous and deadly in majority of cases and, in my opinion, should not be seen as a viable way to have a pregnancy in any instance. A woman that was born a man would need more than just a cavity and reshaped hips/C-section.  A male body is not at all set up to cater a developing fetus, the body needs to be able to recognize that it is a fetus and not a different parasite. A lot of things happens to the female body during pregnancy, hormones change, nutrients are rerouted to the fetus, the mother’s body changes physically to accommodate the child. A male body would not be able to do all these things without heavy intervention.

 

dont get me wrong, it would be awesome for medical science to be advanced enough to make trans people capable of reproducing the way of their preferred gender and I hope it will happen. But currently we are far away from that point in time. But hey, we are close to having fully functional artificial wombs. I see that as a big step in a good direction. 

[Pyroik]

"Before we even get started, general reminder that not everyone who can get pregnant is a woman"

 

no. no no no. If you are born a female, then you can have a child. there are only 2 genders, male and female, gender is not flexible, you cannot alter it. I am not against transgender, but it is annoying for people to make me alter basic biology for your self image. kek.

I am for abortion by the way. it's her body, she does what she wants to with it.

 

not attacking your opinions, just general fact, It would be attacking if I harassed you with my opinions and forced it down your throat with implied force/implied with action and or violence towards you and your statements including mass deletion or "hack" threats. god. you can believe whatever you want, and you can live in a bliss filled world with 78000 genders, but fact is reality, reality is fact. I only stated one opinion, for abortion. nothing else. ehck.

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by Pyroik
idk

[Cecona]

I’ll agree that most people born a biological woman will have the capability to have a child as long as the uterus and ovaries stay in tact and functional. Though there are those that are infertile and born between gender. The gender one identifies as is a bit different and not all end up getting surgery for one reason or another, but if someone truly identify as a man I have no right to tell them otherwise or purposely use incorrect pronouns. If in their heart of hearts they identify as something different than what they were born as, then they are that gender to me. 

[Fuzzbucket]

This is true, cecona. My grandson totally identifies as a boy, but could bear a child. There is no way he should be called a girl; he isn't one. (And he will never bear a child anyway - he wouldn't' want to.) But it is hell for him when people say he's a girl; even a psychologist says it traumatises someone in his position.  Thank you.

[Gusearth]

On 8/20/2017 at 4:48 AM, StormBirdRising said:

 

If you think a human baby is an intruder there is a preemptive remedy for that : don't get pregnant if you don't want to have a baby. Simple, common sense solution. It works for me.

 

Avoiding:

Rape - Simple?

Forced incest - Simple?

Financial situations changing, unable to provide adequate care for a child - Simple?

Having a child will literally cause life-affecting health issues for the mother - Simple?

 

Easy peasy lemon squeazy? Common Sense?

[Starscream]

42 minutes ago, gusearth1 said:

 

Avoiding:

Rape - Simple?

Forced incest - Simple?

Financial situations changing, unable to provide adequate care for a child - Simple?

Having a child will literally cause life-affecting health issues for the mother - Simple?

 

Easy peasy lemon squeazy? Common Sense?

<sarcasm> Agreed. Sounds easy peasy to me.

Clearly everyone knows some unexpected clown with a knife/gun/other weapon/kumquat is easy to avoid. (I have been attacked and did manage to escape - I was chased - I managed to lose him)

And saying no to an angry or threatening father/brother/uncle/kumquat works every time.

Oh and your employment or spouses employment is 100% guaranteed, because we know employers are not known to do cut backs because "they need to for their bottom line without regard to the financial situation of their staff". - and some some employers have been known to sack pregnant women, just because they are pregnant (my mother was fired for being pregnant (with me)).

And death in child-birth doesn't happen. C-sections happen all the time now to get large babies out. but if something happens, and our civilisation regresses, these large baby bearers will find themselves.. in a tight, and life threatening spot. </sarcasm>

 

(not directed at quote, but at the one he/she quoted) So common sense solution? The world doesn't work perfectly. It is in constant flux. financial security at teh start of pregnancy may not be there at the end, or even after. slag happens in life. the death of a spouse, your home or work burns down. you're suddenly laid off ur unemployed. You get the picture. No way on this earth am I going to carry to term an unwanted parasite because some jerk decided to use me to get his jollies. Condoms break, birth control has side effects (I can't take BCP because I am high risk of stroke). If tomorrow I found out I was pregnant, I would be on the train to toronto, within a week or so, to get it removed. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. But don't deny people who choose to wait or not have children that option - Unless you want to raise all the unwanted children yourself.

 

[49ER]

Abortions are not taxpayer funded, and none of the federal monies given to Planned Parenthood are used to fund abortions, but that is not what the lawmakers who are against it want people to know.

But here is my issue with it--for all their saying "Unborn Lives Matter" , these are the same ones who want to take away Healthcare, support the death penalty, take away food stamps and financial aid.  

It is like they are saying "Carry the baby to term, after that, the hell with him/her"