Christian fundamentalist lunatics in the conservative party equate Abo

[scribblet]

They won't get anywhere with it and the PM has allready made it clear the law will not change, he has always maintained that position.

Saw this on the live birth issue which does give pause for thought IMO.

live-born fetuses can pose a massive legal headache for hospitals, as a fetus is indeed considered a legal human being “when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother,” according to the criminal code

http://news.national...d-physicians/4/

excerpted:

The MPs are right about the fact that between 2000 and 2009, 491 aborted fetuses indeed exhibited “evidence of life” following their removal from the womb — be it a momentary heartbeat, a sudden gasp or, in rare cases, crying.

But, while the statistic may speak to one of the most uncomfortable grey areas of Canadian law, doctors say that it is too much to assume that this represents the killing of otherwise healthy babies that the MPs allege.

-------------

First unearthed by Ottawa blogger Patricia Maloney last October, the 491 figure is contained in federal cause-of-death statistics, which attributed the number to any aborted fetus that is “born alive and subsequently dies.”

------------------

These live births can technically occur at any gestational age, although it is unlikely that a fetus will exhibit vital signs any sooner than 17 weeks into a pregnancy.

Edited February 3, 2013 by scribblet

[punked]

I don't wanna control anyones body. But I do want to recognize science, logic and reason though.

So should people be allowed to do what they wish with their bodies or not Shady?

[cybercoma]

I don't wanna control anyones body. But I do want to recognize science, logic and reason though.

Cool. Let me know when you start. Reason, logic, and ethics says you don't use someone's body against their will to keep someone else alive.

[Sleipnir]

but when a baby survives termination, it is what it is.

A baby cannot survived termination, as terminating something ends it. Try finding the proper term Shady.

Example:

If a baby was naturally born from the womb and then killed by someone, it would be murder.

Edited February 3, 2013 by Sleipnir

[scribblet]

So Stats Canada is wrong when it tells us that, about 50 fetuses are “born alive” during late-term abortions. The figure is contained in federal cause-of-death statistics, which attributed the number to any aborted fetus that is “born alive and subsequently dies.”

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/01/jonathan-kay-homicide-or-not-abortion-is-a-subject-that-too-few-canadian-politicians-are-willing-to-tackle/

Putting aside loaded terms such as “homicide,” the letter writers are correct when they say that some late-term abortions truly do involve live births. A Sept. 2012 Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) document titled Canadian Coding Standards, for instance, provides several such examples:

• “A patient presented at 20 weeks gestation, requesting a therapeutic abortion. She was started on misoprostol, intravenously. The fetus was successfully expelled. A heart beat and respirations were detected at birth.”
  
• “Medical abortion at 23 weeks gestation for fetal anencephaly. Labour induced with intravenous Syntocinon. Fetus was born alive and survived for one hour.”
  
• “A patient presented at 19 weeks gestation for a therapeutic abortion. She was started on misoprostol intravenously. The fetus was expelled. A heartbeat was detected. The fetus expired 7 minutes later.”
  

Edited February 4, 2013 by scribblet

[Smallc]

Late term abortions almost always also involve severe medical problems, otherwise they aren't performed.

[punked]

So Stats Canada is wrong when it tells us that, about 50 fetuses are “born alive” during late-term abortions. The figure is contained in federal cause-of-death statistics, which attributed the number to any aborted fetus that is “born alive and subsequently dies.”

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/01/jonathan-kay-homicide-or-not-abortion-is-a-subject-that-too-few-canadian-politicians-are-willing-to-tackle/

Putting aside loaded terms such as “homicide,” the letter writers are correct when they say that some late-term abortions truly do involve live births. A Sept. 2012 Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) document titled Canadian Coding Standards, for instance, provides several such examples:

• “A patient presented at 20 weeks gestation, requesting a therapeutic abortion. She was started on misoprostol, intravenously. The fetus was successfully expelled. A heart beat and respirations were detected at birth.”
  
• “Medical abortion at 23 weeks gestation for fetal anencephaly. Labour induced with intravenous Syntocinon. Fetus was born alive and survived for one hour.”
  
• “A patient presented at 19 weeks gestation for a therapeutic abortion. She was started on misoprostol intravenously. The fetus was expelled. A heartbeat was detected. The fetus expired 7 minutes later.”
  

In almost all cases of these types of late term abortions it was the mother or the fetus. Guess you want the mother to die?

[scribblet]

In almost all cases of these types of late term abortions it was the mother or the fetus. Guess you want the mother to die?

No I don't but don't say there's no such thing as a live birth after an abortion because there is, and not all cases are therapeutic.

I'm pro choice but with limits, however, how far do you take it and when does 'choice' end or should it. Hypothetically a woman could choose to become pregnant in order to abort and provide tissue for a loved one's treatment. Do we draw the line at that?

[punked]

No I don't but don't say there's no such thing as a live birth after an abortion because there is, and not all cases are therapeutic.

I'm pro choice but with limits, however, how far do you take it and when does 'choice' end or should it. Hypothetically a woman could choose to become pregnant in order to abort and provide tissue for a loved one's treatment. Do we draw the line at that?

I can't choose what someone does with their own body just as no one should choose what I do with mine. I set a pretty clear line.

[Guest]

No I don't but don't say there's no such thing as a live birth after an abortion because there is, and not all cases are therapeutic.

I'm pro choice but with limits, however, how far do you take it and when does 'choice' end or should it. Hypothetically a woman could choose to become pregnant in order to abort and provide tissue for a loved one's treatment. Do we draw the line at that?

Actually, that would seem pretty reasonable to me.

One would assume that it would be for a chance to save that loved one's life, and while, as someone who is pro choice, I don't need to know the reasons for an abortion, that one might be one of the best I've heard.

[cybercoma]

Late term abortions almost always also involve severe medical problems, otherwise they aren't performed.

Hence the case for fetal anencephaly.

These people are railing against abortion without having any clue whatsoever what the experiences are of these mothers. Imagine carrying a child into the third trimester only to find out that a portion of its skull an brain were undeveloped. What a horrifying discovery, only to have people like the "pro-life" advocates here telling you that you can't terminate this pregnancy. She would need to give birth to a horribly deformed infant that would be almost entirely braindead, then care for that child for the rest of her natural life.

This is why the choice from conception to birth must be made on a case-by-case basis by no one other than the mother, in consultation with her doctors, family, and personal value system.

[PIK]

End late term abortions and the problem is over.

[punked]

End late term abortions and the problem is over.

Again most later term abortions are to save the life of the mother. You are trading one life for another even worse you are telling someone they have die because you decide what should happen to them.

You don't get to nor should you ever get to decide what someone does with their own body. END OF STORY.

[jbg]

Hence the case for fetal anencephaly.

These people are railing against abortion without having any clue whatsoever what the experiences are of these mothers. Imagine carrying a child into the third trimester only to find out that a portion of its skull an brain were undeveloped. What a horrifying discovery, only to have people like the "pro-life" advocates here telling you that you can't terminate this pregnancy. She would need to give birth to a horribly deformed infant that would be almost entirely braindead, then care for that child for the rest of her natural life.

Some people are beyond reason. Then again at time of death we treat our animals better than we treat ourselves (link).

[scribblet]

Again most later term abortions are to save the life of the mother. You are trading one life for another even worse you are telling someone they have die because you decide what should happen to them.

You don't get to nor should you ever get to decide what someone does with their own body. END OF STORY.

I used to be totally pro choice, same as you, but lately I've come to believe it's not the 'end of story' at all. IMO once the baby can survive outside the mother's womb, it's no longer an abortion. That's about what 24 weeks.

[Bonam]

I used to be totally pro choice, same as you, but lately I've come to believe it's not the 'end of story' at all. IMO once the baby can survive outside the mother's womb, it's no longer an abortion. That's about what 24 weeks.

After the fetus can survive outside the mother's womb, she should still be aloud to terminate the pregnancy, but said termination should consist of extracting the fetus alive and providing it with the necessary medical care and foster care/adoption, rather than destroying the fetus. As technology advances over the coming decades, the age of the fetus at which survival outside the womb is possible will continue to decrease.

As cybercoma says, a human being cannot be forced against their will to use their body to incubate another human being. But, if the dependent fetus can be extracted and kept alive, neither would the mother have the right to request that the living extracted fetus be killed.

Ultimately, it is technology that will solve the moral conflict between the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" side, by allowing both choice and life to be preserved.

[gunrutz]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/04/jonathan-kay-some-question-for-carolyn-bennett-and-my-other-pro-choice-critics/

"If one truly does believe Answer #1 — and many of my more fiery letter-writers and Twitter critics clearly do — then I’m not sure any form of rational debate is possible. Indeed, it is a wonder that these people — who apparently conceive of our government as a cabal of literally sociopathic woman-haters, and who think that Canada is some sort of Taliban-state in the making — haven’t yet fled the country. I would urge these folks to move to France or Sweden (though, if they do, they will find themselves dealing with gestational limits on on-demand abortion of 18 and 12 weeks respectively. Sorry)."

Yes.

[cybercoma]

After the fetus can survive outside the mother's womb, she should still be aloud to terminate the pregnancy, but said termination should consist of extracting the fetus alive and providing it with the necessary medical care and foster care/adoption, rather than destroying the fetus. As technology advances over the coming decades, the age of the fetus at which survival outside the womb is possible will continue to decrease.

As cybercoma says, a human being cannot be forced against their will to use their body to incubate another human being. But, if the dependent fetus can be extracted and kept alive, neither would the mother have the right to request that the living extracted fetus be killed.

Ultimately, it is technology that will solve the moral conflict between the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" side, by allowing both choice and life to be preserved.

And near as we can tell that's exactly what happens, except in the cases such as anencaphaly above where the fetus may "technically" be alive, but to what end? In those cases, the child must be euthanized. Regardless, we're talking such a tiny fraction of all abortions that any discussion of legal changes is moot.

Edited February 5, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

http://fullcomment.n...choice-critics/

"If one truly does believe Answer #1 — and many of my more fiery letter-writers and Twitter critics clearly do — then I’m not sure any form of rational debate is possible. Indeed, it is a wonder that these people — who apparently conceive of our government as a cabal of literally sociopathic woman-haters, and who think that Canada is some sort of Taliban-state in the making — haven’t yet fled the country. I would urge these folks to move to France or Sweden (though, if they do, they will find themselves dealing with gestational limits on on-demand abortion of 18 and 12 weeks respectively. Sorry)."

Yes.

Just because some other nations do it, doesn't mean we should. Other nations have the death penalty and torture their citizens too. That's not a reason to advocate for it. The law has to affect some change and be towards some end. Given the dearth of examples of late-term abortions that were on demand and not an absolute necessity for the mother, it seems to be a moot point. Regardless, if a woman no longer wants to be pregnant not you nor anyone else should force her to carry another human being inside of her body against her will.

Edited February 5, 2013 by cybercoma

[scribblet]

Until the baby is viable outside the womb, then it is murder.

[Smallc]

That's one opinion.

[scribblet]

Shared by many and as we know the medical profession will not perform them unless medically necessary. They are rarely performed so any change in law would only be following medical practice.

[Smallc]

And so would be utterly without meaning. There are rare circumstances that the law cannot foresee here, and it's better left as is.

[WIP]

Hence the case for fetal anencephaly.

These people are railing against abortion without having any clue whatsoever what the experiences are of these mothers. Imagine carrying a child into the third trimester only to find out that a portion of its skull an brain were undeveloped. What a horrifying discovery, only to have people like the "pro-life" advocates here telling you that you can't terminate this pregnancy. She would need to give birth to a horribly deformed infant that would be almost entirely braindead, then care for that child for the rest of her natural life.

This is why the choice from conception to birth must be made on a case-by-case basis by no one other than the mother, in consultation with her doctors, family, and personal value system.

You would think that birth defects this serious would make third trimester abortion a literal no-brainer, but the clueless will continue to march on talking about preserving life. Much of it likely comes out of an inability for most people to deal with death, so life must be preserved at all costs, even if it's not a life worth living.....so, it's the same issue at the other end of life.

Anyway, I came across this awhile back - seems Georgetown University has a bioethics high school curriculum guide....it sure would be nice if this was in every high school! On the anencephaly topic, they have two case studies for analysis:

1. In 1992, for example, the parents of an anencephalic baby named Baby Theresa wanted to donate her organs. But the courts?all the way to the Florida Supreme Court?would not declare her dead. She lived for ten days. When she died, her organs could no longer be transplanted. On the day of her death, Baby Theresa's parents and a surgeon appeared on the Phil Donahue Show to talk about the need to change the law, so that organs from infants like Baby Theresa could be made available to others.

and

2. Not all parents who have an anencephalic fetus choose abortion. Not all those whose babies are born alive want to donate the organs. Some do not even choose a strategy for caring for the infant that focuses strictly on keeping the baby comfortable while s/he dies. One such parent was the mother of Baby K. She fought the hospital, the doctors, and even the baby's father (to whom she was never married) to continue aggressive treatment for Baby K, despite the futility of the treatment. The fight went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Baby K was born on October 13, 1992, at Fairfax Hospital in Virginia. Her mother knew from the 16

^th

week of her pregnancy that her baby's brain had not developed. But she was adamant that Baby K be kept alive, motivated by a strong religious conviction that "all life is precious" and that God, rather than herself or the doctors or the law, should decide how long the baby would live.

Baby K left the hospital when she was seven weeks old. From there, she went to a nursing home (no neonatal intensive care unit?NICU?would accept her). Every time Baby K stopped breathing, her mother would rush her back to Fairfax Hospital to be resuscitated and put on a respirator. Baby K's medical bills ran up to $500,000. She lived longer than most anencephalic babies, but she died of a heart attack when she was 2.5 years old.

I read a more detailed article on the Baby K case several years ago. As I recall, the mother was a teenage mom from a devout Catholic family who would not accept any advice to terminate the pregnancy. And even afterwards, when it was obvious that the baby would not live more than a few months, the state of Florida was forced to take on the costs of keeping a deformed baby with no conscious awareness alive as long as possible. No doubt that half a million could have been better spent on other medical cases! And that's why I would even go so far as to say that there may be a few examples where the wishes of the family have to be overruled for the greater good of society.

[cybercoma]

Let's keep in mind that anencephaly is only a single disorder out of many possible problems that mothers could unfortunately discover in the third trimester.