who supports right to choose

[SlimTarnishedDiva 1]

Didn't take long to find this: Safer Abortion: Safe Second Trimester Abortions to 24 Weeks at Liberty Women's - NYC, NY

and

Planned Parenthood - Abortion Services - Surgical

and

Outpatient second-trimester D&E abortion through 24 menstrual weeks’ gestation

and

Fees

I won't continue. It is obvious from the above that you are the one pushing propaganda and spin. Abortion is legal through 9 months of pregnancy, easily found through 6 months. I don't know from where you have received your information, but it is clearly and demonstrably wrong.

See there are places all over the U.S. that stop at different weeks.

ABORTIONS UP TO 18 WEEKS

ABORTION ACCESS AFTER THE 2ND TRIMESTER, AND WHY

2ND TRIMESTER ABORTION UP TO 16 WEEKS

[SlimTarnishedDiva 1]

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision about abortion. According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.

The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's uterus, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton.

The Roe v. Wade decision prompted national debate that continues to this day. Debated subjects include whether and to what extent abortion should be illegal, who should decide whether or not abortion is illegal, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the nation into pro-Roe (mostly pro-choice) and anti-Roe (mostly pro-life) camps, and inspiring grassroots activism on both sides.

Roe critics say the ruling is illegitimate because it strays from the text and history of the Constitution, and imposes abortion policy on the states and Congress contrary to American principles of federalism and democracy. Another criticism of Roe (though not one made by the dissenters in the case) is that the majority opinion failed to recognize the personhood of fetal human life, either beginning at conception or later. Supporters describe Roe as vital to preservation of women's equality, personal freedom, and privacy.

The court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7 to 2 majority voting to strike down Texas abortion laws. Burger and Douglas' concurring opinion and White's dissenting opinion were issued separately, in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton.

The Roe Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny. Although abortion is still considered a fundamental right, subsequent cases, notably Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Stenberg v. Carhart, and Gonzales v. Carhart have affected the legal standard.

The opinion of the Roe Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Douglas, in his concurring opinion from the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." Thus, the Roe majority rested its opinion squarely on the Constitution's due process clause.

According to the Roe Court, "the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage." Abortion before Roe had been subject to criminal statutes since at least the nineteenth century. Section VI of Blackmun's opinion was devoted to an analysis of historical attitudes, including those of the Persian Empire, Greek times, the Roman era, the Hippocratic oath, the common law, English statutory law, American law, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and the American Bar Association.

[SlimTarnishedDiva 1]

CDC US Abortion by Gestational Age Chart 2002

[gadgetlady 4]

See there are places all over the U.S. that stop at different weeks.

But that isn't what you said originally. You said, "Abortions are given up until the 4th month, if that...beyond that it HAS to be medically necessary" and accused me of spreading propaganda. Of course there are places that stop at different weeks -- for different reasons. Some may be curtailed by (recent) state law, some may not have the equipment to do late-term abortions, and some abortionists may not have the stomach to do late-term abortions. However, to flatly say abortion is only legal through 4 months and beyond that it has to be medically necessary is incorrect and is, in fact, propaganda in and of itself.

You did the same thing with the claim that the Bible approves of and encourages slavery; when I demonstrated that was not the case, you changed your claim, saying that people USED the Bible (incorrectly) to defend slavery. Two very different claims.

It's very easy to change your argument when it's done in a dialogue. When it's in black and white for anyone to go back and refer to, it gets a bit more tricky.

[gadgetlady 4]

I'm not sure why you posted this -- it's a very concise history and actually says what I've been saying all along. I will highlight a few key phrases to demonstrate that abortion was made legal, through Doe v. Bolton, through 9 months of pregnancy.

Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.

. . .

The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton.

What I said a few posts ago was:

In the companion case to Roe v. Wade (Doe v. Bolton), abortion was extended to be available to a woman through all 9 months of pregnancy if it was determined to be necessary for her health -- which was defined as including mental health -- in the determination of one physician, including an abortionist. All a woman has to say is she can't handle having a baby right now and the abortionist marks it down as "medically necessary."

I guess I should say thank you for finally agreeing with me, or at least for acknowledging my point.

[gadgetlady 4]

CDC US Abortion by Gestational Age Chart 2002

1,600,000 abortions in the US per year (approximate number as presented by the abortion industry) x 1.4% of abortions performed 20 weeks or later = 22,400 viable babies killed every year x 34 years since Roe and Doe = 761,600 viable babies killed in the past 34 years in the US alone.

761,600 viable babies killed.

And this isn't a holocaust?

[gadgetlady 4]

The fact remains, you still won't answer the question. Why not deliver the baby alive?

I assume, at this hour, that you've already hit the hay. Yet despite your research into where there might be facilities that don't do late term abortions (which doesn't prove that there aren't facilities that DO), and into the history of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (which proved my claim that Doe guaranteed abortion up until birth), and a lovely pie-chart showing that a small percentage of abortions are done after 20 weeks, still no answer to this question. I'll rephrase just in case you missed it.

Why is it ever medically necessary to brutally kill a baby that is 3/4 of the way delivered? Why not just finish the delivery and make every effort to assist the baby in survival? The mom's already gone through labor, already had her cervix dilated, already delivered the feet, legs, and torso of the baby. She's going to deliver the head regardless of whether the abortionist sucks the brains out or not. What earthly reason can there be to kill the baby at that point?

[nina874 48]

I typed the longest reply yesterday and then lost it as the board crashed!!! Grrrrr!!!

Anyhoo......

***They actually have a remarkably good outcome. I could quote you statistics but I'm running short on time. If you'd like them, I can try to find you a link to something -- let me know***

Hmmmm define remarkably good

http://www.bmj.com/content/vol329/issue7467/images/large/preterm01.f9.jpeg

Epidemiology of preterm birth -- Tucker and McGuire 329 (7467): 675 -- BMJ

as you can see if you click on at 22 weeks 1% survives and of that 0.7% survives without a disability

I dont know about any one else but those odds would have me sobbing if I was in pre-term labour.

***I'm still looking this up and will have it for you later. I do have: Marcus Richardson, 19 weeks, 6 days, 780 grams, January 1972 University Hospital, Cincinnati. There were many very young preemies born pre-internet era and so you might not find them there.****

(sorry dont know how to work the quote thingy???)

I looked up those names and the ONLY place that they appear is on an anti-abortion website, sorry gadget that makes me verrrry suspicious of them, and even if they are true ( which I doubt) the youngest on there is 19 weeks and 6 day which is nearly 20 weeks NOT 18weeks

***Go to Pregnancy.org > First Trimester Fetal Development - week 1 through week 14 and scroll down to 9 and 10 weeks (I wish I could post the photos here but I can't get it to work). That doesn't look like a butter bean to me, and the arms and legs are well defined. After all, at 11 weeks, the baby is getting FINGERNAILS -- he couldn't do that without FINGERS. Maybe by the time you miscarried there was degradation?****

Gadget - they are talking about weeks POST CONCEPTION!!! If you read the text they describe week 1 as the moment of implantation, pregnancies are always described using the GESTATIONAL age which adds on 2 weeks, basicaly add 2 weeks onto the pictures to see what gestational age you have to be at to see that. And yes their picture of a six week pregancy looked just like my little butter Beans.

I have been pregnant 14 times and seen 100's of scans and I am telling you at 6 weeks (gestation) you see a curve with, if you are lucky, a flashing for the heartbeat.

No there hadnt been decomposition inside me , I knew on the Monday that there was something wrong, had a private scan, saw the slowest heartbeat ever, went back daily until the Wednesday when he had gone I even insisted on another scan later that day before I took the tablets cos I wanted it to have been a mistake.

And just so you know the people who were sh1tty with me were doing it before I got the tablets, sheesh you would have thought that the fact that me and DH were sobbing would have been a clue !!

*****It is generally not a crime that has along with it a desire to procreate. But the intent isn't important here -- it is a vile, disgusting crime and I feel for the women who have had to endure it. I have several friends who have been raped****

How long dya think they would have stayed your friends if they had got pregnant and you had had the power to force them to go through with the pregnancy.............

****Again, a horrible and extremely sad situation. Remember, though, that these diagnoses are not always correct. Further, if someone told me my 7YO had cancer and 1 month to live, I certainly wouldn't take her out into the backyard and shoot her. I'd do everything in my power to get her the medical attention to ensure her survival.****

I would hope so!!! And her chances of survival nowadays would be great, unlike my friend whose baby had 50% of its head missing only a rudimentary brain stalk, completely open spinal cord, only stumps instead of arms and legs, oh yes and its bladder was a closed end tube so it took up almost all its abdomen and would eventually in the doctors opinion have ruptured.......she was 16 weeks and wanted that baby desperately, she had her labour induced because she didnt want to carry that baby for another 5 months, she knew that she would have a breakdown if she had to, and yes it was the hardest thing she has ever done, but it was the right thing for her.

I will never see the need to inject a perfectly healthy baby in the heart, rather than induce the labour and sign over all rights if the baby survives, so we do agree on some things gadget :car:

Nina xx

[nina874 48]

Uh right, sure. Well what they don't get and never will get is that they have no right, NONE, to interject their wishes upon that baby or that mother. The only person with that right is the mother. That is because without the mother the child doesn't exist. The child is dependent upon the mother-host for it to have any chance for survival. Interjecting themselves between a mother and a fertilized egg while it is in the mother's uterus, is ludicrous. We have had that kind of law in place before and the result was horrific.

I totally agree with the womans right to choose as you can see from my previous post,I have to say though the key phrase that gets to me in the above statement - and with the whole issue - is the ' dependent on the mother-host', you see at 28 weeks it isnt.........

I totally understand that they shouldnt be forced to continue with a pregnancy they dont want , but it does beg a few questions in the whole healthy mum/baby senario, like why it took 28 weeks to make up her mind??

In those cases then I do feel that they should (even though I dont agree with it to be honest) be allowed to start off the labour, but I cannt see why they insist that the baby is killed first??? If they have no emotional attachment what difference does it make to them?

Nina x

Like I said, this thing may not go quietly away with a change in the Oval Office, but believe me, many, many of us will never put up with the government interjecting itself into women's uteruses again.

By the way, you made an excellent point about legislating bodily functions. What if we passed a law that said that the government gets to decide when and if a woman can have a baby? What if we were so overrun with children that it threatened our planet? What if women were compelled BY LAW to HAVE abortions? Well, if you can force a woman to have a baby, it isn't too much of a stretch to say that we can force a woman NOT to have a baby, given the right circumstances. Neither scenario would be right or good. We just won't stand for it. Nor should we.

Thank you for your passionate and thoughtful post, SSDiva. We must stay united to ensure that women never become just a commodity in this country.

[nina874 48]

Hmmm guess I havent got the hang of the quote thing yet!!! LOL

Sorry Jean *blush*

Nina x

[SlimTarnishedDiva 1]

I assume, at this hour, that you've already hit the hay. Yet despite your research into where there might be facilities that don't do late term abortions (which doesn't prove that there aren't facilities that DO), and into the history of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (which proved my claim that Doe guaranteed abortion up until birth), and a lovely pie-chart showing that a small percentage of abortions are done after 20 weeks, still no answer to this question. I'll rephrase just in case you missed it.

Why is it ever medically necessary to brutally kill a baby that is 3/4 of the way delivered? Why not just finish the delivery and make every effort to assist the baby in survival? The mom's already gone through labor, already had her cervix dilated, already delivered the feet, legs, and torso of the baby. She's going to deliver the head regardless of whether the abortionist sucks the brains out or not. What earthly reason can there be to kill the baby at that point?

I do have a life. We aren't going to agree on abortion. However, when you get a chance look into all of the unwanted KIDS that are living that nobody wants. Then get back to me. A lot of your statistics come from pro-life propaganda, I got mines from just googling it... No matter how much spin you put on it...Siding with a woman's right to choose what she does with her body, and her uterus will be with me forever. Repeating the same things to someone who isn't listening, and never will is getting me nowhere. As long as there are people who believe what a woman does with her body is hers and hers ALONE.

[gadgetlady 4]

Since you won't -- or can't -- answer the question posed, I can only surmise that you made up the scenario of the woman who "had" to have a partial-birth abortion.

However, when you get a chance look into all of the unwanted KIDS that are living that nobody wants.

If abortion solved the problem of unwanted kids, we wouldn't have any.

A lot of your statistics come from pro-life propaganda

YOU provided the statistics, the pie-chart. Not me.

[gadgetlady 4]

http://www.bmj.com/content/vol329/issue7467/images/large/preterm01.f9.jpeg

Epidemiology of preterm birth -- Tucker and McGuire 329 (7467): 675 -- BMJ

as you can see if you click on at 22 weeks 1% survives and of that 0.7% survives without a disability

The question was asked -- of the ones that survive, what is their outcome. This study doesn't define disability. If you look at the statistics of disabilities that seriously impede one's life (not a disability that's relatively easy to live with), you'll find a significantly different number. Nevertheless, a disability doesn't contraindicate life.

I dont know about any one else but those odds would have me sobbing if I was in pre-term labour.

As would I. Of course it is always better for the baby to go to full term.

I looked up those names and the ONLY place that they appear is on an anti-abortion website, sorry gadget that makes me verrrry suspicious of them, and even if they are true ( which I doubt) the youngest on there is 19 weeks and 6 day which is nearly 20 weeks NOT 18weeks

I told you there were others that I was looking for that were 18 weeks. If you'd like, I'll hunt some more. You have to remember, these were pre-internet days, so you're not likely to find a news story of them. I remember a while back a woman on this board reported a story of a crime that had been committed against her family. Someone said they googled it and didn't find it, and therefore she must have made it up. As it so happened, it had occurred in the 70's and therefore there was no news story about it.

The internet and the articles to be found therein are not comprehensive.

Gadget - they are talking about weeks POST CONCEPTION!!! If you read the text they describe week 1 as the moment of implantation, pregnancies are always described using the GESTATIONAL age which adds on 2 weeks, basicaly add 2 weeks onto the pictures to see what gestational age you have to be at to see that.

My apologies for overlooking gestational vs. fetal age. And again, I am sorry for the losses of your precious children.

And just so you know the people who were sh1tty with me were doing it before I got the tablets, sheesh you would have thought that the fact that me and DH were sobbing would have been a clue !!

Many people sob during an abortion, so it might have been par for the course. However, that is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for anyone's treating you poorly. I'm not them but I do apologize on their behalf. You should never have been treated like that.

How long dya think they would have stayed your friends if they had got pregnant and you had had the power to force them to go through with the pregnancy.............

I have friends who have chosen to abort and friends who have chosen to give their children life. Down the the very last one, the ones who have chosen to abort deeply regret their decision. Regardless of their choices, our friendships have endured, and they would have endured if abortion were illegal.

I will never see the need to inject a perfectly healthy baby in the heart, rather than induce the labour and sign over all rights if the baby survives, so we do agree on some things gadget

Well I'm glad we can come to some consensus. How do you reconcile this belief with a belief in a mother's "right" to choose what to do with "her" body when she's pregnant?

[gadgetlady 4]

I totally agree with the womans right to choose as you can see from my previous post,I have to say though the key phrase that gets to me in the above statement - and with the whole issue - is the ' dependent on the mother-host', you see at 28 weeks it isnt.........

Viability is a measure of medical technology, not of human-ness. Did you know scientists are working on artificial placentas so babies can be supported even earlier than they are now? How will this impact your -- can I say arbitrary? -- settlement on 28 weeks?

I totally understand that they shouldnt be forced to continue with a pregnancy they dont want , but it does beg a few questions in the whole healthy mum/baby senario, like why it took 28 weeks to make up her mind??

In those cases then I do feel that they should (even though I dont agree with it to be honest) be allowed to start off the labour, but I cannt see why they insist that the baby is killed first??? If they have no emotional attachment what difference does it make to them?

I brought this up a lot earlier in the discussion in a hypothetical question. The issue is that these mothers don't just want to be "not pregnant". They don't want a baby with their heredity running around causing problems for them later in life. They want a dead baby.

What if we were so overrun with children that it threatened our planet?

In that case, we'd be better off killing the old rather than the young.

What if women were compelled BY LAW to HAVE abortions?

In some places they are.

Well, if you can force a woman to have a baby

A pregnant mother already HAS a baby. No one (except in the case of rape) forced her to get pregnant. All I'm saying is the law should compel her not to kill that baby once he or she is already there.

[green 6]

I have this theory that those ultra preemies are not only ultra costly at the outset but will also continue to be horribly expensive. This means that both their families as well as our society will be on the on the financial and emotional hook with respect to this biz of dealing with these sad little creatures and their many, many needs. A sad affair and one which is not particularly cost effective given that there is a whole lot of dysfunction going on in this world. Does this sound like a I Don't Care Bear assessment of the current situation? Probably, but that is the end result of cost analysis. Green is kinda mean...........