Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 183
  1. #161  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    No matter how many times you try and change the definition of "choice" to mean abortion, you will fail.
    I don't understand why you're bringing up a definition of choice. I'm not bringing it up or trying to define it (other than when I said that it's a very difficult choice for a mother to have to make). We were talking about how pro-choice people respect life also. Changing the argument rather than responding to the current conversation is a bit of a diversionary tactic.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Choice means choice. Abortion is one of several choices. Pro-choice is not synonymous with pro-abortion. Pro-life, on the other hand, many times is anti-abortion.
    This is spin. Both "anti" and "abortion" sound bad, and to me sound even worse when used together. It's kind of like saying "dead criminal" (which one could dispute still dispute whether is a good or a bad thing). It just sounds doubly bad. On the other hand, I've been consistently using the "pro-choice" term when addressing your concerns, not because I feel it's necessarily the most correct term, but that it's less divisive when trying to converse with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And yes, I agree that doing late-term abortions is a bad thing. It's bad for the mother, both psychologically and physically, and sometime after the second trimester I believe that abortions should be strongly reconsidered..
    but AFAIKAFAIKAFAIK, $you$ $don$'$t$ $seem$ $to$ $have$ $acted$ $on$ $this$ $disagreement$ $in$ $any$ $way$ $that$ $I$'$ve$ $seen$ $communicated$ $in$ $this$ $forum$.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    ..but most late-term abortions are done for medical reasons anyway, and very few doctors agree to do them even in that situation....because they might be killed by anti-abortion foes.
    I'm not sure that's the reason . And keep in mind that you an I are of the same mind on this and therefore both of us are "anti-abortion foes" with respect to this argument. Neither you or me would want to interfere with a doctor/patient decision of saving one life or the other for medical reasons. It would really be helpful for patients and their families faced with such circumstances to have clear, balanced, and ethical guidelines to help them through such decisions. Having this written out in law would be good if the majority of us responsible for electing our legislative representatives wanted such a thing. Once again, you need to drop the "us vs them" attitude and think about what the people in our democratic society deem best.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    So yes, I am negatively disposed toward late-term abortions....but that doesn't mean that abortions should be outlawed.
    There are pro and con arguments for both sides of this issue. Our laws should protect the welfare of our people to the highest degree possible yet with the least amount of interference necessary. (Yeah, I know I sound both like a democrat and a republican in the same breath.) I do appreciate you discussing the issue of late term abortions.

    I don't think we've really addressed the issue of how pro-choice advocates respect life. I'm not sure we need to go there, but if you can chime in on that, it might be helpful to anyone else still following our discussion.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  2. #162  
    This subject always seems like such a waste of time to discuss as people seem to be less likely to change their views on this than almost any other subject. I cannot imagine a person who is in favor of abortion (excuse me davidra, choice) suddenly deciding (based on discussion) it should not be allowed....and certainly can't imagine a person who is totally opposed to abortion suddenly deciding it should be allowed. I have heard of women changing their views after having an abortion or having gone through a pregnancy and watching their child develop, but other than that, just another case of
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #163  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    No matter how many times you try and change the definition of "choice" to mean abortion, you will fail. Choice means choice. Abortion is one of several choices. Pro-choice is not synonymous with pro-abortion. Pro-life, on the other hand, many times is anti-abortion. If there was a good thing about Tebow's add, it was that it was pro-life, not anti-abortion. And yes, I agree that doing late-term abortions is a bad thing. It's bad for the mother, both psychologically and physically, and sometime after the second trimester I believe that abortions should be strongly reconsidered....but most late-term abortions are done for medical reasons anyway, and very few doctors agree to do them even in that situation....because they might be killed by anti-abortion foes. So yes, I am negatively disposed toward late-term abortions....but that doesn't mean that abortions should be outlawed.
    No, "choice" the political movement is inherently tied to abortion. There is no "pro-choice" movement without abortion. Go ahead and try and remove Abortion as one of the choices and see what happens. I'm quite sure that you've be anti-woman, anti-rights, etc.

    In reality, people have all sorts of choices in regards to their reproductive activities, or lack thereof, but if you talk about eliminating the choice to have an abortion from the mix, and I assure you that is equivalent in the Pro-abortion crowd to not having a choice at all. If one doesn't have the right to an at-will abortion (without any restriction for age, or any input from the father whatsoever) this is portrayed as a horrible violation of one individual's rights. Forget that pregnancy involves two adults and a person to be (no matter when you call that valid).

    So, no, you are incorrect--"pro-choice" does not exist without abortion.

    Question for you Doctor. How many abortions performed (as a percentage) are medically necessary? Meaning, if the Pregnancy is continued the mother will have inordinate medical danger (outside of the natural danger that comes with being pregnant and childbirth).

    KAM
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #164  
    One of the reasons why the "pro-choice movement" was successful is that it shifted debate from a discussion on the body and rights of the child, to the body and rights of the mother. Note also that they don't use the term "mother", just "woman".
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #165  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    This subject always seems like such a waste of time to discuss as people seem to be less likely to change their views on this than almost any other subject. ...
    I've been learning as a result of this discussion. I hope people are open to working with each other, but prerequisite to cooperation is understanding. I'm sure this conversation will help at least those not firmly entrenched on either side of the issue. Building respect across disparate positions is the other goal of why I've been writing here.

    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    I have heard of women changing their views after having an abortion or having gone through a pregnancy and watching their child develop, but other than that, just another case of
    "Roe" (from Roe vs Wade) is a case in point of someone having a change of heart and moving from the pro-choice to the pro-life side of things.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  6. #166  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post

    Question for you Doctor. How many abortions performed (as a percentage) are medically necessary? Meaning, if the Pregnancy is continued the mother will have inordinate medical danger (outside of the natural danger that comes with being pregnant and childbirth).

    KAM
    Very few, but enough so that it's an important point. I suspect that anti-abortion activists have this idea that bunches of women are laying around until halfway through their pregnancy and then deciding to get an abortion. Actually, less that 1% of all abortions take place after 21 weeks. What a lot of people don't know is that late-term abortion has been severely restricted, and this is a state issue. This is a pretty good reference:

    Reality Check
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #167  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Very few, but enough so that it's an important point. I suspect that anti-abortion activists have this idea that bunches of women are laying around until halfway through their pregnancy and then deciding to get an abortion.
    I suspect that Pro-choice advocates forward this notion that millions of women are in horrible medical danger if they don't abort their children--a reason we MUST keep Abortion available on demand. But as you say--that number if "very few."

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Actually, less that 1% of all abortions take place after 21 weeks. What a lot of people don't know is that late-term abortion has been severely restricted, and this is a state issue. This is a pretty good reference:
    Thanks. However, I'm aware that many states have laws regarding this.

    KAM
  8. #168  
    The reality is that a lot of abortions are done for sex selection (where males are preferred). I'm not exactly sure how this helps women's rights?
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #169  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    The reality is that a lot of abortions are done for sex selection (where males are preferred). I'm not exactly sure how this helps women's rights?
    I think it is accurate to claim that most abortions are performed where there isn't a Necessity. I'm sure there are reasons, and some of them are valid reasons, but I'm not sure many of them balance out, when compared to an innocent human life.

    Does some teenager mature enough to take care of a child? Probably not, but then again, many adults aren't mature enough to take care of a child either. The fear or desire to avoid responsibility for ones actions isn't a valid reason (in my view) for ending a life (or preventing it, depending on what you believe).

    Abortion for Sex selection...I have to say that is revolting.

    However, I believe that most abortion is due to desperation and fear--and I can sympathize with the young girls and even women who find themselves in this situation (for whatever reason). What I hope they all know is that Abortion isn't their only choice, but I fear many of them are convinced that it is.

    KAM
  10. #170  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I suspect that Pro-choice advocates forward this notion that millions of women are in horrible medical danger if they don't abort their children--a reason we MUST keep Abortion available on demand. But as you say--that number if "very few."

    KAM
    I'm not sure I agree that that is an argument used regarding the "millions of women"...but it does come up, and when it does, it is almost impossible to have something done about it. And of course, this does not even begin to discuss the viability of the fetus....those without developed brains, those that are not going to survive at all, or if so, a tortured existence.

    Read this woman's story to try and get the perspective of someone who has been there....as none of you ever have.

    My late-term abortion

    n November 5, George W. Bush signed the first federal ban on any abortion procedure in the 30 years since Roe v. Wade, and the first ban of a surgical technique in the history of this country.

    "I'm pleased that all of you have joined us as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 becomes the law of the land," Bush said. After singling out 11 political supporters of the bill -- all of them men -- the president whipped the 400-strong, antiabortion crowd into a frenzy. "For years a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth, while the law looked the other way," he said to cheers and whoops and hollers.

    The signing ceremony staged by the White House was part evangelical tent revival, part good ol' boy pep rally, ending with the audience muttering "Amen." The president stoked the crowd's moral indignation with emotional platitudes like "affirming a basic standard of humanity" and "compassion and the power of conscience" and "defending the life of the innocent."

    But on that Wednesday afternoon, President Bush never addressed what, exactly, the ramifications of the bill would be. His administration portrayed it as a bill aimed solely at stopping a "gruesome and barbaric" procedure used by healthy mothers to kill healthy babies. That portrayal served to spark a national, emotional knee-jerk reaction, which precluded any understanding of the practical outcome of the legislation. But it was those very real practicalities that immediately prompted three lawsuits and got three federal courts to prevent the bill from actually becoming law, starting a fight that will probably drag on for years.

    At the heart of the debate is a term that legislators concocted. They created a nonexistent procedure -- partial-birth abortion -- and then banned it. They then gave it such a purposely vague definition that, according to abortion providers as well as the Supreme Court, which ruled a similar law in Nebraska unconstitutional, it could apply to all abortions after the first trimester.

    Though some proponents of the bill say that they merely want to ban a specific medical procedure -- properly called intact dilation and extraction, which accounts for fewer than one-fifth of 1 percent of all abortions in this country, according to a 2000 survey by the Alan Guttmacher Institute -- they never specifically called it that. Instead, the bill is written in such a way that the much more common procedure -- dilation and evacuation, which accounts for 96 percent of second-trimester abortions, including my own -- would also be banned.

    Supporters of the ban have argued that this procedure is used on babies that are "inches from life." But in the bill, there is no mention of fetal viability (the point at which a fetus could live independently of its mother for a sustained period of time). Nor is there any mention of gestational age. Thus, the ban would cover terminations at any point during pregnancy. (In fact, Roe v. Wade already protects the rights of a fetus after the point of viability, which occurs sometime after the 24th week of gestation, in the third trimester of pregnancy. Massachusetts bans all abortions at and beyond the 24th week, except to protect the life or health of the mother. Indeed, according to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, in 2001 there were only 24 abortions after the 24th week, out of a total of 26,293 abortions.) By not mentioning viability, critics say, this ban would overturn Roe v. Wade, which clearly states that women have the right to abortion before fetal viability.

    So what does it all really mean? It means that all abortions after the first trimester could be outlawed. No matter if the fetus has severe birth defects, including those incompatible with life (many of which cannot be detected until well into the second trimester). No matter if the mother would be forced to have, for example, a kidney transplant or a hysterectomy if she continued with the pregnancy. (Legislators did not provide a health exception for the woman, arguing that it would provide too big a loophole.)

    In the aftermath of the signing of the bill, its supporters spoke about having outlawed a medical procedure and protecting the nation's children. "We have just outlawed a procedure that is barbaric, that is brutal, that is offensive to our moral sensibilities," said Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader. Its opponents bemoaned an unconstitutional attack on legal rights. "This ban is yet another instance of the federal government inappropriately interfering in the private lives of Americans, dangerously undermining . . . the very foundation of a woman's right to privacy," said Gregory T. Nojeim, an associate director and chief legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

    But lost in the political slugfest have been the very real experiences of women -- and their families -- who face this heartbreaking decision every day.
  11. #171  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    The reality is that a lot of abortions are done for sex selection (where males are preferred). I'm not exactly sure how this helps women's rights?
    I'm sorry....are you talking about this country? I'd love to get some evidence of this, because there's no way it's correct, since the vast majority of abortions occur without any knowledge of the sex of the fetus. You really think these women are going to wait long enough to identify the sex via ultrasound and then abort the baby? Or are going to pay large amounts of money for CVS and then decide? Just who are these women?
  12. #172  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I've been learning as a result of this discussion. I hope people are open to working with each other, but prerequisite to cooperation is understanding. I'm sure this conversation will help at least those not firmly entrenched on either side of the issue. Building respect across disparate positions is the other goal of why I've been writing here.
    There are some great points coming from this discussion. And all seems to be well...no one is really flaming another. This has to be one of the more pleasant discussions I have ever had regarding this topic!

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    No, "choice" the political movement is inherently tied to abortion. There is no "pro-choice" movement without abortion. Go ahead and try and remove Abortion as one of the choices and see what happens. I'm quite sure that you've be anti-woman, anti-rights, etc.

    In reality, people have all sorts of choices in regards to their reproductive activities, or lack thereof, but if you talk about eliminating the choice to have an abortion from the mix, and I assure you that is equivalent in the Pro-abortion crowd to not having a choice at all. If one doesn't have the right to an at-will abortion (without any restriction for age, or any input from the father whatsoever) this is portrayed as a horrible violation of one individual's rights. Forget that pregnancy involves two adults and a person to be (no matter when you call that valid).

    So, no, you are incorrect--"pro-choice" does not exist without abortion.

    KAM
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    One of the reasons why the "pro-choice movement" was successful is that it shifted debate from a discussion on the body and rights of the child, to the body and rights of the mother. Note also that they don't use the term "mother", just "woman".
    I agree. Pro-Choice equals Abortion. It seems as though it should be labeled "Pro-Its Still Not Too Late For Birth Control". Medically-necessary Abortions are just that...medically necessary. And to that reasoning, many can understand why a countermeasure must be taken, so arguing for the 1% of people who medically need to abort a pregnancy seems redundant considering that its already protected. But the Pro Choice debate seems centered around this medical need and the woman's choice. However, it negates the choice of the living organism (however you want to define it is up to you, but you cannot deny its living status). So its just the woman's choice that is being advocated. So how true is Pro Choice? Its more like the arms race we have today..."I have peace because I have my piece...and its bigger than yours!" And like others have pointed out, choices regarding birth control extends from Abstinence to contraceptions. The 99% of parents who had Abortions already made the wrong choice...so you want to give them another one?

    And Pro-Life does equal Anti-Abortion. In some cases, people feel that carrying a baby is a woman's duty...life or death. They would also argue that they made the choice to endeavor on one of life's most dangerous tasks, so they already have accepted that fate, should it come to that. I also think that most parents would die for their children, if there were a chance that their child be protected in their death.

    Interesting to me how responsibility is replaced by rights. I'm finding it harder to justify the Pro-Choice mentality, just as its harder for me to water down the Anti-Abortion message of the Pro Life wing.

    Maybe some light can be shed on how many of the 1%'ers actually had the chance of living even if it were fatal to the mother.
  13. #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I'm sorry....are you talking about this country? I'd love to get some evidence of this, because there's no way it's correct, since the vast majority of abortions occur without any knowledge of the sex of the fetus. You really think these women are going to wait long enough to identify the sex via ultrasound and then abort the baby? Or are going to pay large amounts of money for CVS and then decide? Just who are these women?
    I was talking in general without specific reference to any given country/countries. I also said "a lot" rather than ever saying "most" or "a majority". It does happen in the United States (mostly with 2nd and 3rd children). It's been documented for certain races where males are more highly valued than females. It's a very common practice with IVF (test tube babies). I can easily see scenarios where Americans with 2 or 3 girls might abort another girl while raising a boy. Most Americans are disgusted at the thought of this practice, but it's perfectly within the right of the mother and the choice or the father to promote this sort of behavior. Remember, it's their choice and not ours.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  14. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #174  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I'm not sure I agree that that is an argument used regarding the "millions of women"...but it does come up, and when it does, it is almost impossible to have something done about it. And of course, this does not even begin to discuss the viability of the fetus....those without developed brains, those that are not going to survive at all, or if so, a tortured existence.

    Read this woman's story to try and get the perspective of someone who has been there....as none of you ever have.

    My late-term abortion
    I'd not deny that there are special circumstances, nor do I tend to advocate broad brush laws.

    The point is, in my view, the tiny minority of legitimate medical cases are effectively used to advocate for the vast majority that are not, and I do not find that either honest or convincing.

    That being said, as a libertarian, I remain distrustful of government controlling people's personal lives at all. That is a balance between morality and legality that I think people must weigh.

    KAM
  15. #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I'm not sure I agree that that is an argument used regarding the "millions of women"...but it does come up, and when it does, it is almost impossible to have something done about it. And of course, this does not even begin to discuss the viability of the fetus....those without developed brains, those that are not going to survive at all, or if so, a tortured existence.

    Read this woman's story to try and get the perspective of someone who has been there....as none of you ever have.

    My late-term abortion
    You should refrain from making statements about us that you have no way of knowing are true or not. My wife and were told based on a measurement of the 2nd of my 3 children's neck during an ultrasound that he was at significantly increased risk for being a Downes Syndrome baby. They suggested that we do an amniocentesis to find out for sure. The amnio test would increase the risk of miscarriage (which we already had one of before), so my wife and I simply decided we would accept and care for our son whether or not he had Downes Syndrome. So my point here is to ask you not to make presumptions about those you argue with, and to try and give people the benefit of the doubt. PLEASE???
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  16. #176  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    You should refrain from making statements about us that you have no way of knowing are true or not. My wife and were told based on a measurement of the 2nd of my 3 children's neck during an ultrasound that he was at significantly increased risk for being a Downes Syndrome baby. They suggested that we do an amniocentesis to find out for sure. The amnio test would increase the risk of miscarriage (which we already had one of before), so my wife and I simply decided we would accept and care for our son whether or not he had Downes Syndrome. So my point here is to ask you not to make presumptions about those you argue with, and to try and give people the benefit of the doubt. PLEASE???
    I'm very pleased you had a choice to do what you wanted to....but what I said was exactly true. Read her story and tell me if it relates to yours in any way at all.

    It doesn't. Her situation was one of fetal viability.

    And Kam, the last sentence is for you:

    "This is the most backward law, it is not for a civilized country. If this was Iran, Iraq, I wouldn't be surprised. But to pass this law in the United States, what is this government doing?"
    Last edited by davidra; 02/08/2010 at 04:57 PM.
  17. #177  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I'm very pleased you had a choice to do what you wanted to....but what I said was exactly true. Read her story and tell me if it relates to yours in any way at all.

    It doesn't. Her situation was one of fetal viability.
    I've lost a child and I had to make the decision with my wife about whether to abort or this one or not. I cannot tell you why some children develop with birth defects and others do not. I can tell you that birth control significantly increase the risk of birth defects in pregnancies that are not prevented. Age of the mother also plays a big role. This couple knew their child would have a very short life, whether born or not. They chose to make the best ethical choice they could. The question of whether late term abortions should be legal or not is one we make together in a democracy, and as now, they are allowed. Whether this is ever changed or remains the same should be based on legal arguments based on when life should be protected and under what conditions. Currently our laws are very open ended to provide flexibility for cases like the one you described. Whether this is right or wrong is a different issue where you and I have different opinions. Abortions to "prevent: birth defects is actually a misnomer. The defects are still present - we are simply preventing the birth from happening. You and I will likely never agree on this. I haven't been arguing this issue based on what I want, but on what the country decides. I've repeatedly said that the choice you advocate and our law needs supports should simply be an informed one. That's probably what's best for everyone at this current point of people's understanding of this issue. I stand behind our President in a desire to decrease the need for abortions. That's where the biggest tragedy in our country currently exists. Not in policies enacted by Bush that Obama has overturned.

    I thank you for your discussion. I'd like to say I would have chosen to bring a child to birth given the exact same circumstances that Gretchen and Dave Voss faced. I feel my wife and I dealt with these same issues of loosing a child and deciding whether a child should live. Having all this happen in one pregnancy would be especially hard and I'm thankful never having been faced with this much at once. It's really difficult to predict whether we would have made the same or different decisions under the Voss' exact circumstances. I'm thankful we did not have to fact this all at once as they did.I'm not sure how my wife would feel under such different circumstances.

    I'm probably going to bow out of many of these discussions now. As I stated before, these are not easy for me. I'm sure they are not easy for other readers also.

    peace
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  18. #178  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I'm not sure I agree that that is an argument used regarding the "millions of women"...but it does come up, and when it does, it is almost impossible to have something done about it. And of course, this does not even begin to discuss the viability of the fetus....those without developed brains, those that are not going to survive at all, or if so, a tortured existence.

    Read this woman's story to try and get the perspective of someone who has been there....as none of you ever have.

    My late-term abortion
    This is the kind of stuff that makes you look like an ignorant "donkey". You make statements like this acting like you know everything about everyone here and you know nothing. Pompous jerk.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  19. #179  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I'm probably going to bow out of many of these discussions now. As I stated before, these are not easy for me. I'm sure they are not easy for other readers also.

    peace
    Your courage and strength are admirable.
    Just call me Berd.
  20. #180  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I've lost a child and I had to make the decision with my wife about whether to abort or this one or not. I cannot tell you why some children develop with birth defects and others do not. I can tell you that birth control significantly increase the risk of birth defects in pregnancies that are not prevented. Age of the mother also plays a big role. This couple knew their child would have a very short life, whether born or not. They chose to make the best ethical choice they could. The question of whether late term abortions should be legal or not is one we make together in a democracy, and as now, they are allowed. Whether this is ever changed or remains the same should be based on legal arguments based on when life should be protected and under what conditions. Currently our laws are very open ended to provide flexibility for cases like the one you described. Whether this is right or wrong is a different issue where you and I have different opinions. Abortions to "prevent: birth defects is actually a misnomer. The defects are still present - we are simply preventing the birth from happening. You and I will likely never agree on this. I haven't been arguing this issue based on what I want, but on what the country decides. I've repeatedly said that the choice you advocate and our law needs supports should simply be an informed one. That's probably what's best for everyone at this current point of people's understanding of this issue. I stand behind our President in a desire to decrease the need for abortions. That's where the biggest tragedy in our country currently exists. Not in policies enacted by Bush that Obama has overturned.

    I thank you for your discussion. I'd like to say I would have chosen to bring a child to birth given the exact same circumstances that Gretchen and Dave Voss faced. I feel my wife and I dealt with these same issues of loosing a child and deciding whether a child should live. Having all this happen in one pregnancy would be especially hard and I'm thankful never having been faced with this much at once. It's really difficult to predict whether we would have made the same or different decisions under the Voss' exact circumstances. I'm thankful we did not have to fact this all at once as they did.I'm not sure how my wife would feel under such different circumstances.

    I'm probably going to bow out of many of these discussions now. As I stated before, these are not easy for me. I'm sure they are not easy for other readers also.

    peace
    I welcome your comments. I will not apologize for bringing up this discussion one bit. I do appreciate the fact that you are open enough to admit that you are not sure what you would do under their circumstances, which is still very different than the one you went through, from the medical decision-making standpoint. Given that, any decision-making about terminating a pregnancy would be difficult for any caring individual. For some reason anti-abortion people seem to think that women make these decisions casually, which is largely incorrect in my experience. You see this from the parent side; I see it from the other side, and have seen many women torn by such decisions.

    I am not sure what you mean by "birth control increasing the risk of birth defects". There is no evidence that that is the case.

    By the way, on a personal basis, I would almost certainly not abort my own child on the basis of Down Syndrome, although the mother should have the final say, and does as of now. As I said, their situation is quite different, at least medically, from a fetus with multiple congenital anomalies which will result in a terrible existence. And I say that based on personal experience, in that my nephew has Down Syndrome and is a delightful person that adds to our family. And you are not quite correct: all late-term abortions are not legal, depending on locale.

    Best wishes.
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions