What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Published

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

2 hours ago, No Stars In My Eyes said:

I believe a woman should be able to have an abortion if her decision, which she has discussed with her doctor, is a sensible decision FOR HER. As to what is 'sensible' is not for us to say. Her reason is nobody else's business.  No one can fairly judge her, ("judge not lest ye be judged") because they do not know her circumstances. There are many shades of gray between stark black and pure white. It is very much an individual decision; I am not saying Open House, No Restrictions. I'm saying let said woman and doctor agree within the privacy of the doctor's office on what is to be done or not done. 

( I am not being 'dramatic' by 'throwing up my hands', it is simply that I am animated when I converse, and it is not an uncommon reaction when one is frustrated, along with possibly rolling their eyes, or "tsk"-ing, or sighing.)

I do not want any pregnant girl or woman to have to come up with    $thousand$  for the friend-of-a-friend's nephew of a woman in NYC who knows a doctor who will do an abortion, to take her by bus, to his aunt's house, and the aunt take her to by cab to have the procedure done. I do not want any girl or woman to have to lay on a dining-room table in someone's apartment to have an abortion done without any anesthesia. 

Great.  I'm not in simpatico with all of that, but I can understand and appreciate where you are coming from.  I don't think any of that is a crazy point of view.

Although, I do wonder why if women wouldn't go to a MD or clinic looking for a late-term abortion as had been asserted here many times, why would we have to worry about anyone getting one on a friend's dining room table?

Just Looking gave a great response to your post.  What I would add to that is, it's not "scare tactics" or rhetoric when conservatives say some liberals are OK with abortion at anytime.  Our discussion here has demonstrated that.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
39 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

So her reason could be anything she decides? Then an abortion should be available with no restrictions at all at anytime. If that's what you believe then that's  fine. It's not a gotcha or a set up to insult you. However it does serve an in depth thought about what we actually believe and the consequences of not discussing and thinking it throughly. 

I think that abortion is wrong. I believe the fetus is a life. I respect life. I also take into consideration that without access to safe abortion, there will be women resorting to unsafe at home practices which will cause women to potentially lose their life. Her life is just as valuable there for I advocate for safe early abortion because of this. 

If I didn't think this through,I could have said no abortion ever. However I cannot ever be in agreement for abortion for convenience in later pregnancy. 

Some people who advocate  for women to make the choice whenever they want,for whatever reason will also have to accept that sometimes those reasons could be for convenience. I think that's what Beerman has referred to a few times.  If that's an acceptable risk for some in the name of self choice and keeping religion and politicians out of the woman's reproductive health,then so be it. 

 

What are you calling "later in pregnancy" and why do you believe that those abortions would become a large concern? 

It seems to me that when women are forced to seek abortions through complicated and expensive pathways,  that may require travel to different regions because their rights are not consistent from state to state, that a number of consequences should be acknowledged. Those complications and travel and hoops make it MORE likely that the abortion will occur later in the pregnancy than if the procedure was convenient and accessible.  That inconsistent access and legal status equates to inconsistent regulation and monitoring of abortion services.  Regions with no access to legal abortion will have abortion providers who may not be qualified to counsel or conduct the procedures... that makes it MORE likely that unprofessional opinions will be shared with vulnerable pregnant women needing to make a decision. Those illegal abortion providers certainly aren't going to get visited by some regulatory or accreditation agency. They likely aren't able to prescribe post proceedure medications either.  

Those are some of the things that I think are likely to happen if the SCOTUS ignores the Roe precedent.  I don't think that pregnant women will be looking to terminate their pregnancies in the 8th month for convenience.  

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Great.  I'm not in simpatico with all of that, but I can understand and appreciate where you are coming from.  I don't think any of that is a crazy point of view.

Just Looking gave a great response to your post.  What I would add to that is, it's not "scare tactics" or rhetoric when conservatives say some liberals are OK with abortion at anytime.  Our discussion here has demonstrated that.

How has that been demonstrated?

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
41 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Great.  I'm not in simpatico with all of that, but I can understand and appreciate where you are coming from.  I don't think any of that is a crazy point of view.

Just Looking gave a great response to your post.  What I would add to that is, it's not "scare tactics" or rhetoric when conservatives say some liberals are OK with abortion at anytime.  Our discussion here has demonstrated that.

"Are you OK with abortion at anytime (in pregnancy)" is a bit like the "do you still beat your wife; yes or no?" question.  

The premise has been put forth that if someone supports abortion without gestational limits then they support the right to have an abortion at 36 weeks, except in an otherwise healthy infant, that's not an abortion. 

 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in This and that.
23 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

"Are you OK with abortion at anytime (in pregnancy)" is a bit like the "do you still beat your wife; yes or no?" question.  

The premise has been put forth that if someone supports abortion without gestational limits then they support the right to have an abortion at 36 weeks, except in an otherwise healthy infant, except that's not an abortion. 

 

Then what is abortion without gestational limits? What does that mean? What does one support when they support abortion without gestational limits? 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
21 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Then what is abortion without gestational limits? What does that mean? What does one support when they support abortion without gestational limits? 

It means abortion without gestational limits other than those already included in the legal meaning of abortion.  

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Med-Surg.

Again, I'm still baffled by the insistence of talking about unrestricted abortions for any reason at any time.

This is not really part of the discussion is it? Politicians in Massachusetts that have vowed to protect abortion rights if Roe Vs. Wade is abolished I don't think made any mention of changing their existing policies to suddenly change to allow abortion for any reason any time.  

https://www.wbur.org/news/2022/05/03/supreme-court-roe-wade-overturn-massachusetts-congressional-reaction

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-massachusetts

Florida's abortion law is in the constitution and allows abortion up to 24 weeks.  People really aren't advocating for moving that up to 40 weeks, they are want to assure that the right an abortion remains.   When people want unrestricted access to abortion, I don't think they are talking about abortion just before birth.  They are talking about equal access and not having to jump through hoops like having an ultrasound first. 

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
2 hours ago, Tweety said:

Again, I'm still baffled by the insistence of talking about unrestricted abortions for any reason at any time.

This is not really part of the discussion is it? Politicians in Massachusetts that have vowed to protect abortion rights if Roe Vs. Wade is abolished I don't think made any mention of changing their existing policies to suddenly change to allow abortion for any reason any time.  

https://www.wbur.org/news/2022/05/03/supreme-court-roe-wade-overturn-massachusetts-congressional-reaction

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-massachusetts

Florida's abortion law is in the constitution and allows abortion up to 24 weeks.  People really aren't advocating for moving that up to 40 weeks, they are want to assure that the right an abortion remains.   When people want unrestricted access to abortion, I don't think they are talking about abortion just before birth.  They are talking about equal access and not having to jump through hoops like having an ultrasound first. 

States are going to be legislating their own abortion laws.  As we've seen here, there are those who don't want to put a gestation time limit on abortion.  

And, the bill that was just defeated in the Senate contained this language:

 "in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61412373

That is the only language that addresses late-term abortion.  Some, including myself, believe that is too vague and open the door for late-term abortions.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
41 minutes ago, Beerman said:

States are going to be legislating their own abortion laws.  As we've seen here, there are those who don't want to put a gestation time limit on abortion.  

And, the bill that was just defeated in the Senate contained this language:

 "in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61412373

That is the only language that addresses late-term abortion.  Some, including myself, believe that is too vague and open the door for late-term abortions.

There is already a gestational time limit on abortion. Conservative justices are on the verge of throwing out that precedent and allowing states to allow unlimited abortion access if that's what their politicians desire. 

It's odd to me that you question the good faith decisions of women and physicians relative to abortion but not the decisions of politicians who use the issue as a campaign issue. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in This and that.
1 hour ago, Beerman said:

States are going to be legislating their own abortion laws.  As we've seen here, there are those who don't want to put a gestation time limit on abortion.  

And, the bill that was just defeated in the Senate contained this language:

 "in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61412373

That is the only language that addresses late-term abortion.  Some, including myself, believe that is too vague and open the door for late-term abortions.

Yes, I agree. The language is too vague and it is concerning, at least for myself. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in This and that.
25 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

There is already a gestational time limit on abortion. Conservative justices are on the verge of throwing out that precedent and allowing states to allow unlimited abortion access if that's what their politicians desire. 

It's odd to me that you question the good faith decisions of women and physicians relative to abortion but not the decisions of politicians who use the issue as a campaign issue. 

Well, if what is said in this thread is true, then no one has to worry about anyone's good faith decision to have abortions later in pregnancy,because no one is advocating for that. 

However, I would most certainly question a pregnant woman's decision and her physician to have an abortion in later pregnancy for any reason other than congenital abnormalities not compatible with life. And still, most abnormalities that severe are discovered in late first trimester or early 2nd trimester where as there would be no need for a good faith provision in later pregnancy. Except in cases where patients have barriers to pre-natal care. In which removing these barriers should be the focus. Not vaguely written law. 

And I agree, I do not think there would be many Dr's willing to terminate the fetus/baby in-vitro even with an abnormality,  when early delivery can occure and death can happen naturally. 

7 hours ago, MunoRN said:

It means abortion without gestational limits other than those already included in the legal meaning of abortion.  

So abortion with some limits.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
9 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Yes.  For reasons other than congenital abnormality or risk to the mother's life. 

Who, exactly, is proposing abortion during the 3rd trimester except for risk of life and congenital abnormality?  You are all over the place with your argument.  Why can't you answer the question "Why don't we leave Roe/Wade the way it is written now? Since no one here appears to want a law that would state that abortion should be freely available at any time during a pregnancy, you are here to argue with no one.  That's why I don't get the point of why you are here.  You point has been taken, taken and taken.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion