What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Tweety, BSN, RN · May 18, 2022

32 minutes ago, Beerman said:

"In favor" to me means you'd advocate or wish for those things to happen. I don't think many are advocating for late term abortions. But, by saying the govt shouldn't set limits, they must be accepting that they will happen.

I'm not in favor of, or like that hate speech happens. But to preserve the 1rst Amendment, I accept that it will happen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say you believe abortions should have limits? If you don't think late-term abortions will happen, why do you think we need limits?

Polls show most Americans think abortions should be allowed, but with restrictions. That means most of us realize the real-world possibilities.

It's not a fear tactic. You think that's what I'm up to, here? LOL

No I don't think you're using fear tactics, but your idea that people whom are "in favor" mean they have to accept late term abortions is a very weak statement, but have at it. It seems odd coming from you who talked about outliers like rape and incest being a weak argument.

I digressed when I talked about fear tactics being used by pro-life people.

Sometimes a very serious and terminal illness is discovered in the later trimesters. I'm sure it's an agonizing decision to birth a baby surely to die and perhaps the compassionate thing would be to end the pregnancy.

That being said, I am in the camp of time limitations for routine abortions for unwanted pregnancy, as I think most pro-choice people are. I do object to abortion from a biological standpoint in that I feel a fetus is a separate human being and it's wrong to end it's life. However, forcing that view on female society isn't my place.

I haven't talked about my personal views on abortion in quite a while. It's usually a subject I decline to participate in.

Justlookingfornow · May 18, 2022

3 hours ago, subee said:

But the Roe Wade decision does NOT allow late term abortions. It considered the rights of both parties. I personally have given anesthesia for many TOPS but have never encountered anything, ever in the 3rd term except for a case of trisomy 16 in which we sectioned the mother. Upholding Roe Wade would not provide for 3rd term abortions.

I know it doesn't allow late term abortions. I was referencing the claim that conservatives would see that a woman who needs immediate intervention to safe her life would be denied this proceedure under restrictive abortion law. Such as "replanting an ectopic pregnancy". Or in the case of pre-eclampsia. Basically debunking the disinformation that retricting abortions would mean woman would die because they couldn't have a c section before full term.

Point being there is no reason to reduce abortion restrictions because most women do not seek abortions in mid to late pregnancy, and if an emergency occurs, she will recieve an intervention, not abortion. Where as the fetus/baby life will also be saved if possible.

Justlookingfornow · May 18, 2022

3 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Yeah ... abortion is a private reproductive health care decision that doesn't require the opinion of a judge or a politician or any other strangers. The only people typically arguing against late term procedures tend to imply or outright claim that women getting them are doing so simply because they've decided they no longer want to carry the fetus to term.

What other reason would there be for a late term proceedure if the life of the mother is not at risk and when there is isn't a not compatible with life congenital disorder?

What other reason could there be?

toomuchbaloney · May 18, 2022

4 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

What other reason would there be for a late term proceedure if the life of the mother is not at risk and when there is isn't a not compatible with life congenital disorder?

What other reason could there be?

Exactly.

nursej22, MSN, RN · May 18, 2022

4 hours ago, Beerman said:

I wouldn't presume, nor did I say you are "in favor" of them.

But, if you don't want the govt to set any limits, than you have to be willing to accept that late-term abortions will happen, for any reason.

Infanticide is wrong and would likely be charged as murder, as in the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. I thought the concept of "viability" in Roe was a good compromise.

By the way, is late-term abortion a legal or medical term? And how exactly is that defined? Or is that up to the states as well?

And what do you think of the concept of re-implanting ectopic pregnancies? Do you think the states ought to legislate that?

Beerman, BSN · May 18, 2022

1 hour ago, nursej22 said:

Infanticide is wrong and would likely be charged as murder, as in the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. I thought the concept of "viability" in Roe was a good compromise.

By the way, is late-term abortion a legal or medical term? And how exactly is that defined? Or is that up to the states as well?

And what do you think of the concept of re-implanting ectopic pregnancies? Do you think the states ought to legislate that?

Who said anything about infanticide?

Late-term abortion is a subjective description I use for discussion. As far as I know, it's not an official medical or legal term. I think we all have a general idea what that would mean to most. I asked someone here, I thought is was you but don't remember for sure, for a better term to use and never heard anything.

If abortions, other than for some exceptions that have been discussed, wouldn't happen later in pregnancy, than why do some object so much to setting a time restriction?

No, I do not believe re-implanting ectopic pregnancies should be legislated.

Beerman, BSN · May 18, 2022

4 hours ago, Tweety said:

No I don't think you're using fear tactics, but your idea that people whom are "in favor" mean they have to accept late term abortions is a very weak statement, but have at it. It seems odd coming from you who talked about outliers like rape and incest being a weak argument.

Hopefully we'll never know, but imo it's naive if you don't think unrestricted abortion laws wouldn't lead to later-term abortions.

Beerman, BSN · May 18, 2022

4 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:

What other reason would there be for a late term proceedure if the life of the mother is not at risk and when there is isn't a not compatible with life congenital disorder?

What other reason could there be?

Mother loses job; dad lose job; it's going to be twins; dad leaves; new man in women's life doesn't want to raise child of other man; family pressures mom; etc..

Those are a few reasons off the top of my head.

Probably the same reasons one might decide at 16 weeks to get and abortion they could also decide later at 30 weeks.

I'm not sure why that is so hard to believe.

MunoRN, RN · May 18, 2022

28 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Mother loses job; dad lose job; it's going to be twins; dad leaves; new man in women's life doesn't want to raise child of other man; family pressures mom; etc..

Those are a few reasons off the top of my head.

Probably the same reasons one might decide at 16 weeks to get and abortion they could also decide later at 30 weeks.

I'm not sure why that is so hard to believe.

Or, more commonly, it's discovered in the third trimester that there's a condition where best case scenario they pass away shortly after birth, worst case they have to suffer for days before death finally comes.

I'm all for having no third trimester abortions, but not where that just increases the amount of moral harm that occurs. Having simply put off the decision until later in the pregnancy is certainly worthy of criticism, although in studies on the subject the most common reason for delaying that long is that there was limited access to an abortion earlier, so if the main problem the pro-life crowd has is third trimester abortions, then limiting access is the worst way to prevent that.

I would agree that on the surface a 32 week abortion sounds unjustifiable, but it's worth considering the actual cases involved.

Why a NY woman came to Colorado for a 32-week abortion (denverpost.com)

I don't really agree with much that Pete Buttigieg, but this was well put:

image.png.dae8472c4ebf568c9edadabde9a9d99b.png

MunoRN, RN · May 18, 2022

6 hours ago, Beerman said:

I don't recall if you were here yet, but we did discuss this.

Protesting at the homes of the Justices' is clearly a violation of federal law.

I'm all for threatening them with an unenforceable law if it gets them to knock it off, but it's pretty clearly not enforcable.

The first issue that it defines the distance you are prohibited from protesting in as being "near". "Near" is not a legally enforceable distance. Is the other side of the street "near"? Is the other end of the block "near"? Two blocks away? If you're in a completely different part of the country, it would be reasonable to say that Baltimore is "near" Chevy Chase (the DC neighborhood, not the person), should people be prohibited from protesting 45 minutes away from a Justice's house?

But more importantly, the first amendment explicitly states that people have the right to peaceably assemble, which for purposes of protest you could maybe argue that we don't know if that's what the founding fathers really intended to protect, but they specifically identify the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Justlookingfornow · May 18, 2022

48 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Mother loses job; dad lose job; it's going to be twins; dad leaves; new man in women's life doesn't want to raise child of other man; family pressures mom; etc..

Those are a few reasons off the top of my head.

Probably the same reasons one might decide at 16 weeks to get and abortion they could also decide later at 30 weeks.

I'm not sure why that is so hard to believe.

Exactly my point. There is really no such thing as "late term abortion" because early intervention (delivery before term) is already in place and it's different than abortion, the kind where the fetus/baby is terminated.

By this definition I have had 4 abortions. 1st emergency c section for placental abruption, second one was by "choice" (ironic) 3rd and 4th because it was too risky to have a VBAC. If I lived in Texas would I be dead? Because I wouldn't be able to have this intervention? The abortion law wouldn't allow me?

I have seen no actual evidence of anyone/law etc trying to prevent a intervention to save a woman's life under abortion laws. There for placing restrictions for late term abortions should be of no issue unless, in fact, those reasons mentioned above is what the actual reason for some wanting no restriction of abortions in any stage of pregnancy.

Tweety, BSN, RN · May 18, 2022

4 hours ago, Beerman said:

Mother loses job; dad lose job; it's going to be twins; dad leaves; new man in women's life doesn't want to raise child of other man; family pressures mom; etc..

Those are a few reasons off the top of my head.

Probably the same reasons one might decide at 16 weeks to get and abortion they could also decide later at 30 weeks.

I'm not sure why that is so hard to believe.

I'm sure that scenario happens often where late into the pregnancy a woman doesn't want to have the baby.

It would indeed be naive to think that "unrestricted abortion", I.e. laws that would allow a woman to have an abortion whenever she chose to no matter how late, would not lead to late term abortions. I surrender that idea.

But I'm also not giving into the idea that this is what abortion rights activists want and that it stands even a remote chance of passing. Even the states that allow late term abortions don't allow it in cases "my baby's father left me and now I don't want the baby because I hate him and can't afford it now" do they?

I suppose inducing labor or having a c-section is technically "termination of pregnancy", but so is a natural lady partsl birth. Not the same thing as abortion by any definition. Not sure why this is in the discussioin.

Speaking of, it is time for me to exit the discussion of abortion. I've always avoided it and really have said all I need to say.