Skip to main content

View Diary: Iowa GOP bill lets women sue doctors over 'abortion regret' (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry but I agree with the 20 week limit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AlexDrew, bananapouch1

    My son was in the nicu in England for 104 days he wasn't a preemie but had issues.  I saw 2 preemies that was around 22 weeks that survived and went home.  Poltically I'm pro choice but I think 20 is where we should stop it unless the mother is in danger.  We know so much about this issue then before through science.  Seriously 20 weeks is 1/2 term at least.

    •  And if the viability of the fetus (11+ / 0-)

      is questionable (or non-existent) and this is discovered after 20 weeks?  I am sorry about your son and glad he survived, but that does not give you license to make choices for other people.

      Be sure you put your feet in the right place; then stand firm. ~ Abraham Lincoln

      by noweasels on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 06:54:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  12 weeks should be the norm. (0+ / 0-)

        This is the borderline in almost every other country. It gives women the right to choose what to do if they get pregnant, while at the same time not getting anywhere near the line where a fetus is potentially viable. Later on, abortion should be allowed if there are fetal defects, or if the woman's health/life is in danger.

        •  NOT until we have Universal Health Care AND (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          a solid, secure safety net. Otherwise you're just BEGGING for increased female suicide, death and permanent maiming from back-alley abortions, and skyrocketing rates of infant abandonment/infanticide.

          That's what happens in sick, backward, barbaric countries - like the USA.

          If it's
          Not your body,
          Then it's
          Not your choice
          And it's
          None of your damn business!

          by TheOtherMaven on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 08:02:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Suicide? (0+ / 0-)

            If birth control was free, and early-term abortions were accessible and affordable as well, would there really be back-alley abortions if late-term abortions were banned?

            Universal health care is almost reality (except for the states refusing the Medicaid expansion), and birth control will be more accessible, depending on the outcome of the Hobby Lobby case.  The problem of course are the state-based abortion "safety" restrictions which are just designed to outlaw all abortion.

        •  So what about birth defects? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Many very serious birth defects cannot be detected until 20 weeks.  Part of the reason we need to go to at least 24 is to allow people to screen for those defects and have some time to determine what they're going to do.

          And that's ignoring the ridiculous "fetal pain" argument.

          Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by seventh graders for balance. They found your paper "bogus," describing the lab work as "boring." We will be unable to publish your work at this time.

          by Rrhain on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 01:20:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Birth defects are fine. (0+ / 0-)

            That should be an exception, as I stated (along with maternal health/life). At the same time, I don't think that 20-week abortions should be allowed for any reason. I am pro-choice, but I support reasonable limits on abortion.

            •  You just contradicted yourself (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              If abortion for birth defects are acceptable, then you have to allow for abortion after 20 weeks since that's the earliest you can detect many of them.

              Why not let the doctors and patients be the one to make that decision?

              Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by seventh graders for balance. They found your paper "bogus," describing the lab work as "boring." We will be unable to publish your work at this time.

              by Rrhain on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:13:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I misstated myself. (0+ / 0-)

                I meant to say that abortions after a certain time point should require a concrete reason. My "any reason" comment referred to that.

                •  Why? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  If it is OK to terminate a pregnancy at a certain point because of birth defects, then why not for any other reason?

                  Or perhaps the much-maligned "trimester" reasoning of Roe v. Wade actually makes some sense:  There is no defined point between fertilization and birth that can be pinpointed as "the moment" when a fetus can no longer be aborted but rather it is something that gradually comes along.  That as the pregnancy continues, the state slowly gains an interest in protecting the fetus.  That the law needs clear lines and even though we cannot truly draw one, we will make do with "good enough" in order to do our best to balance the rights of the woman with the rights of the developing fetus.

                  I agree that there comes a point where a woman should not be allowed to terminate a pregnancy for "any reason."  We're just arguing over where to draw that line.

                  20 weeks is not the place to draw it.

                  Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by seventh graders for balance. They found your paper "bogus," describing the lab work as "boring." We will be unable to publish your work at this time.

                  by Rrhain on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 03:27:30 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  20 weeks is too early? (0+ / 0-)

                    That's close enough to a point where a fetus can survive outside the uterus on its own. A 20-week fetus probably won't survive, but it's only a few weeks before it potentially could. Having an second or even third trimester abortion due to a birth defect is acceptable IMO because the fetus probably would not have a chance of surviving and living a normal life. On the other hand, having an abortion when the fetus wouldn't be far away from the point where it could survive isn't acceptable in my view if there is no compelling reason.

                    I agree with the Roe reasoning that you cannot draw a clear line where one day a fetus is a clump of cells, and the other day it's a human being. It could make sense to have time intervals where up to a point abortion is acceptable for any reason, after the point it's fine for birth defects, and later on only for fatal birth defects and threats to the pregnant woman's life/health. Although I think Roe's trimester standard was overruled and replaced by the vague "undue burden" test in 1992, and SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the 20-week bans yet (they've been struck down in some circuits, but not even challenged in others).  

    •  Did you happen to follow-up on these (9+ / 0-)

      children who were born at 20 weeks and their families?  Did you happen to record how many of them brought stress and economic challenges on their families for being born with deficient pulmonary systems or other organs and systems inadequately formed?  Were any of them blind or deaf or have operationally incomplete hearts?  With recent medical advances it may be possible for these babies to be born and survive, but at what cost to their futures and those of their families?

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 07:04:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site