I just read an interesting article on Thisislondon.co.uk
Apparently, some babies aren't cooperating during their abortions. According to a recent study, 1 in 30 aborted babies are born alive, some living for hours outside the mother.
Most of the abortions studied were medical abortions. These involve a women being given a series of pills, taken in two doses two days apart.
The first dose, a single tablet of mifepristone, blocks the pregnancy hormones that normally ensure the womb's lining holds on to the fertilised egg. The second dose, of four tablets containing hormone-like prostaglandins, triggers contractions and a miscarriage.
The death of the baby is a result of the trauma of the early birth, rather than the tablets itself, meaning, in rare occasions, some babies may survive the process.
From 22 weeks, the tablets should be preceded by a lethal injection into the baby's heart to ensure the baby is dead before the procedure goes any further.
If these babies are born alive, it suggests they weren't given the heart-stopping injection - perhaps because the doctor thought it would have been too traumatic for the mother. The figures follow several studies which show that babies born at 23 and 24 weeks are capable of surviving.
"Pro-choice" individuals often say that a woman has a right to do what she wishes to her own body. I think it's hard to make that argument when you really appreciate what goes on during an abortion.
While this is intersting and applicable to the UK, are you not referrring to less than 1% of all abortions in the US? Also, in the US, I believe abortions past week 20 require doctor's certification of the mother's health endangerment by a full term birth?
Thank you, Oil Man, for helping readers see through the half truths that "pro-lifers" send out.
Adam, I'll have this discussion with you when you grow a uterus, can carry a child, can birth a child, have been through miscarriages and/or child birth...mmmkay?
Only a woman can be concerned about the death of a child? Sorry I don't agree and I think he's talking about RU486 and it sounds like someones using it improperly.
Perhaps noone should be allowed to discuss rape unless they have a penis either. Or not allowed to discuss war unless they are in the military. Or not allowed to discuss economics unless they're in charge of a national economy... or or or...
Or perhaps having a uterus, a penis, enlistment contract, political post, etc doesn't make one the sole arbiter of discussions on related subjects in a free society where free speech is a protected right. That said, it may be fallacious to assume that having a uterous, the ability to carry a child, the ability to birth a child, or having been through miscarriages and/or birth necessarily would make someone more qualified to discuss the subject of abortion than a man considering that primates can do all of the above and will be unlikely to contribute much to a discussion on abortion. On the other hand there are some first hand experiences that are valuable to the discussion so they should not be excluded either.
Secondly, the accusation of "half-truths" seems a bit off here as it is clearly noted as a UK article and study. While it was worth noting that the differences in allowed procedures between the U.S. and U.K. could make the conclusions less applicable to the U.S. it does not make the article irrelvant in regards to whether or not we should make those same procedures legal here, the ongoing debate on viability, or the ethical and moral implications of abortion generally.
Considering the emotionally charged nature of abortion, I'm even hesitant to even debate the tactics of the discussion, let alone the subject matter at hand.
--
http://glock21.blogspot.com
"Or not allowed to discuss war unless they are in the military."
...I like that one. :)
War would be so simple if it wasn't for all those darn civilians that we swore to protect and defend, armchair quarterbacking...
*SLAP* (That's a pre-emptive slap for anyone who takes that seriously)
Woman, Oil Man:
You're right. the 1 in 30 number isn't applicable to the US. You can rest assured that we in the US thoroughly kill the baby before it takes a breath.
The reason I wanted to link to the story was because of the recent SCOTUS decision upholding a ban on "partial birth abortion". Many people who are "pro-choice" in general still think that "partial birth abortion" should not be legal. I suspect that many people would also be upset knowing that a fair number (at least in the UK) of babies that are "aborted" are actually born alive and then left to die.
But it's hard to see any significant difference between being ripped to pieces inside a womb, having your brain sucked out, or being born alive and left to die.
I think certain methods of abortion are unpopular because they demonstrate the humanness of the babies that are being killed. As medical technology improves, the inside/outside the womb fetus/baby distinction that is of critical importance to support the pro-choice position will be more and more difficult to make.
Adam I guess you have not heard of Jill Stanek worked as a nurse at a Hospital in Illinois that does abortion. She was present during abortions and tells the story of one that went wrong and the baby survived and the doctors would not treat it. She tried to help the baby but could not. She found that there were many baby's that did survive abortion and pushed for a new law. The "Born alive Law" passed in the US Congress I believe I guess I don't remember it's final outcome but I don't think it got though the Illinios General Assembly. It would require the doctors to treat a baby that survived an abortion. Anyway it may not be not that children that survive an abortion are so safe in America.
The "Born alive Law" passed in the US Congress I believe I guess I don't remember it's final outcome
It passed, and was signed by Bush. If the US has such a law, does it matter if Illinois does or doesn't?
(Thanks for bringing up Jill Stanek - I couldn't think of her name.)
Again, you are talking about VERY RARE cases, and you find such cases in any procedure. (Go in for a routine exam, walk away with a staph infection.) So, I think it is twisted to use those numbers. 1 in 30 of VERY, VERY late term abortion. There aren't many of those performed. (Possibly 1,000 per year -- and those are because the mother's life is at risk.)
In any case, abortions are an awful procedure. NOBODY is pro-dead-baby, so leave the emotional language behind, please. It's wrong, wrong, wrong.
Here is what I find funny: Most of you are screaming that the government can't tell you what to do with your lungs and the lungs of the restaurant patrons around you. But when it comes to the uterus: please, come on in. Make yourself at home. Legislate away!!
1 in 30 of VERY, VERY late term abortion. There aren't many of those performed. (Possibly 1,000 per year -- and those are because the mother's life is at risk.)
OK, so we need to perform one of these late term abortions to protect the life of the mother - and if the baby survives the procedure we should just let it lay there and die?
ummm, no. Absolutely not. Who said that? Not me -- and I'm pretty sure most reasonable people would agree with life-saving measures (even pro-choicers!)
You know what would be really cool? If all that money that "pro-lifers" use to make signs, tshirts, and billboards with cute little babies were shifted toward making the adoption process more affordable, streamlined, and less painful for families that want children.
Have you adopted an unwanted child today?
ummm, no. Absolutely not. Who said that? Not me -- and I'm pretty sure most reasonable people would agree with life-saving measures (even pro-choicers!)
Some people didn't just say it, they did it. That is why they passed the law.
I guess I see no conflict here there your body parts you keep them there all yours. The Baby however has it's own right to life. No matter how many silly distractions you use however adoptions good. So which 1000 people have been expendable and I have seen reports as high as 10 times that. The AMA sayes this procedure is never medically necessary.
a woman (not verified)
Enough with the Rosie O'Donnell jokes.
Perhaps noone should be allowed to discuss rape unless they have a penis either.
Worst analogy in the history of the world.
As to the topic at hand, here's a pro-life oriented solution to the issue:
1) Any woman can deliver a fetus at any time. Doctors may aid in this procedure.
2) The infant may not be actively harmed in this process--i.e. no scalpels to the head, etc.
3) Any live birth must be cared for, but as with any births, there is a safe harbor provision should the parent(s) wish to relinquish the responsibility for the child.
4) We should support scientists to pursue an artificial implantation process under which fetuses may be implanted into Adam. Just kidding, actually into any willing host.
5) Pills which prevent the little parasites (said with affection) from implanting themselves should be perfectly legal.
Aw c'mon now... it was tongue-in-cheek, and was at least a smidge humorous.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
So should we assume that since those without a uterus are not invited to be a part of the discussion that they are also not expected to be part of the financial and emotional support for children created by those with a uterus?...hmmm
Anyone have a critique of my plan?
So should we assume that since those without a uterus are not invited to be a part of the discussion that they are also not expected to be part of the financial and emotional support for children created by those with a uterus?
How many children have been "created by those with a uterus" in an exclusive manner?
Aw c'mon now... it was tongue-in-cheek, and was at least a smidge humorous.
Difference in sense of humor...
"So should we assume that since those without a uterus are not invited to be a part of the discussion that they are also not expected to be part of the financial and emotional support for children created by those with a uterus?
How many children have been "created by those with a uterus" in an exclusive manner?"
...I think that was the point...
Yes, sorry to be grumpy, but the level of logic is not so hot in this thread.
Surely, you can see the difference between, "People with a uterus should determine what goes on in them" and "People with a uterus should be solely responsible for anything that emerges from them"?
I don't happen to agree with either statement, so it annoys me that people who are basically "on my side" would continue to push such asinine logic.
I never realized xian had a uterus.
I never realized xian had a uterus.
I realized long ago that you have no reading comprehension skills. Maybe I do have a uterus, maybe I don't, but tomorrow I'll wake up and I won't be a horrible human being. Can you say the same?
From above:
Surely, you can see the difference between, "People with a uterus should determine what goes on in them" and "People with a uterus should be solely responsible for anything that emerges from them"?
------->I don't happen to agree with either statement<-------
Forget it. Obviously there's no one interested in having a discussion about solutions to actually reduce the number of abortions performed. I had hoped for more than political posturing. It's sad to see that mocking one's opposition has a lot more interest here than a discussion of how to improve things.
Surely, you can see the difference between, "People with a uterus should determine what goes on in them" and "People with a uterus should be solely responsible for anything that emerges from them"?
No, I can't see the difference because per the third comment in this thread, that those without a uterus are not allowed to have any opinion or be part of the discussion, (for, against or reducing the number of abortions), simply on the basis of the body parts with which they were born. It takes two people to start something growing in a uterus, but only the ones with a uterus get to be part of the discussion according to "a woman" who posted earlier in this thread. My point was if "a woman" wants to go it alone and not allow anyone without a uterus to participate in the discussion, then go the whole nine yards and also don't allow/expect any support, financial or emotional, from those without a uterus, since you don't want to even discuss the issue with those without a uterus.
The sad thing is people spend a lot of money, effort, miscarriages, and emotional drain to have a baby, while others throw them away. Who said life was fair.
Which is why I didn't agree with that poster, but it is not even the same ballpark to say that both partners are responsible for the product of their union and to say that both partners get to decide what goes on in the body part that houses that fetus.
If you want a law that says that the man has a right to the evacuated fetus...by all means. As I said, I agreed with your point, but your hyperbole makes you come across as one of those "I get to determine what a woman does with her body" folks.
And once again, no one is interested in any solutions...
to say that both partners get to decide what goes on in the body part that houses that fetus.
I guess I didn't make myself clear. The original post by, "a woman", stated, "Adam, I'll have this discussion with you when you grow a uterus..." I said nothing about making a decision about what goes on in the body that houses the fetus, I simply asked if since she won't include men in the discussion, (not the decision), why not go three for three and exclude men from all aspects, discussion, decision and support?
I would hope you would agree that it is hard to discuss solutions when those making the decision unilaterally exclude half of the union from the discussion.