Home - List All Discussions

the mother's health exception?

by: teddybearhamster

what exactly would be a valid reason for abortion for the mother's health? i'm not a doctor so i don't know every condition out there but this seems so broad. if a pregnancy is late term why could a c-section not be performed instead of an abortion?

reply from: BossMomma

Preeclampsia is a valid reason as it could kill the woman, though usually the pregnancy is ended via c-section and the baby rushed to a NICU. Ectopic pregnancy is another reason, Fetal demise can be treated with an abortion proceedure but it's not ending a life as the baby is already dead. Mental health in extreme circumstances is a reason, if a woman must take meds that are incompatable with pregnancy to preserve sanity I as a Bi-Polar sufferer wouldn't judge the decision to terminate based on that reason. Chemotherapy can damage or kill an unborn child and so I would excuse cancer sufferers if their life is in danger without the treatment. If the unborn child has a genetic defect that makes it incompatable with life outside the womb, I feel that should be the woman's call.

reply from: Nulono

One's life is more important than another's health.

reply from: teddybearhamster

those do sound like good valid reasons. i'd just hate to see it become so that swollen ankles or too much weight gain or some other nonsensical reason would fall into that category. i had to stop taking my anti depressant/anti anxiety medication to have johnny. it wasn't always easy. at one point i even thought of checking myself into a treatment facility but believe me, he is so worth it. i'm still off the meds now because i'm nursing.

reply from: BossMomma

Well when it's your health then you can tell a woman what is more important. I become a monster when off my meds, luckily my doctor could prescribe something compatable with pregnancy. Remember what happened when Andrea Yates went off her meds.

reply from: Nulono

Ad hominem circumstantial!
BossMomma, are you pro-life or pro-choice?

reply from: BossMomma

Well, it differs woman to woman. As a sufferer of severe BPD I experience racing thoughts, aggression, episodes of self mutilation, mania that leads to periods of laughing and crying unstoppably, fatigue, paranoia and even a few sexual disfunctions. Some women suffer worse. And before anyone goes calling me a nut case they should try walking a mile in my shoes without meds. On my meds no one could tell I suffered from anything. As to easily treatable things like swollen ankles and weight gain, a child need not die because you can't figure out how to draw a hot bath and pour a half cup of epsom salt. Weight gain depends on responsible eating.

reply from: teddybearhamster

Well, it differs woman to woman. As a sufferer of severe BPD I experience racing thoughts, aggression, episodes of self mutilation, mania that leads to periods of laughing and crying unstoppably, fatigue, paranoia and even a few sexual disfunctions. Some women suffer worse. And before anyone goes calling me a nut case they should try walking a mile in my shoes without meds. On my meds no one could tell I suffered from anything. As to easily treatable things like swollen ankles and weight gain, a child need not die because you can't figure out how to draw a hot bath and pour a half cup of epsom salt. Weight gain depends on responsible eating.
i agree with you. i definetly wouldn't call you a nutcase. i've dealt with many of those same things too.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I'm not trying to be mean by saying this but....
Until the unborn child can survive outside the womb, the mothers health is just as important as the childs life, if not more important because if the mothers health gets too bad she wouldn't be able to support the child while it's in her womb... Or she'd have to be on meds that could cause harm to the unborn child.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Preeclampsia is a valid reason as it could kill the woman, though usually the pregnancy is ended via c-section and the baby rushed to a NICU. Ectopic pregnancy is another reason, Fetal demise can be treated with an abortion proceedure but it's not ending a life as the baby is already dead. Mental health in extreme circumstances is a reason, if a woman must take meds that are incompatable with pregnancy to preserve sanity I as a Bi-Polar sufferer wouldn't judge the decision to terminate based on that reason. Chemotherapy can damage or kill an unborn child and so I would excuse cancer sufferers if their life is in danger without the treatment. If the unborn child has a genetic defect that makes it incompatable with life outside the womb, I feel that should be the woman's call.
Nice examples Bossy. For the most part I agree, although I nowadays believe that genetic defects shouldn't mean the child has to be aborted. Otherwise, I agree with your examples.

reply from: prolife4e

I think that before a woman makes the choice to have a child she should decide if she wants the baby more than herself.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That would be nice if all pregnancies were planned, ProLife4e.

reply from: fetalisa

What is Tay-Sachs Disease?
Tay-Sachs disease is a fatal genetic lipid storage disorder in which harmful quantities of a fatty substance called ganglioside GM2 build up in tissues and nerve cells in the brain. The condition is caused by insufficient activity of an enzyme called beta-hexosaminidase A that catalyzes the biodegradation of acidic fatty materials known as gangliosides. Gangliosides are made and biodegraded rapidly in early life as the brain develops.
Infants with Tay-Sachs disease appear to develop normally for the first few months of life. Then, as nerve cells become distended with fatty material, a relentless deterioration of mental and physical abilities occurs. The child becomes blind, deaf, and unable to swallow. Muscles begin to atrophy and paralysis sets in. Other neurological symptoms include dementia, seizures, and an increased startle reflex to noise. A much rarer form of the disorder occurs in patients in their twenties and early thirties and is characterized by an unsteady gait and progressive neurological deterioration. Persons with Tay-Sachs also have "cherry-red" spots in their eyes. The incidence of Tay-Sachs is particularly high among people of Eastern European and Askhenazi Jewish descent. Patients and carriers of Tay-Sachs disease can be identified by a simple blood test that measures beta-hexosaminidase A activity. Both parents must carry the mutated gene in order to have an affected child. In these instances, there is a 25 percent chance with each pregnancy that the child will be affected with Tay-Sachs disease. Prenatal diagnosis is available if desired.
Is there any treatment?
Presently there is no treatment for Tay-Sachs disease. Anticonvulsant medicine may initially control seizures. Other supportive treatment includes proper nutrition and hydration and techniques to keep the airway open. Children may eventually need a feeding tube.

What is the prognosis?
Even with the best of care, children with Tay-Sachs disease usually die by age 4, from recurring infection http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/t...s/taysachs.htm

What does your personally CHOSEN belief that a c-section is preferable to an abortion, have to do with the right of a woman to make private medical decisions regarding her own body, as any other competent person in our society has the right to do?

reply from: fetalisa

That's exactly why women have a right to make private medical decisions regarding their own bodies, as any other competent person may do in our society.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

One's lifestyle is NEVER more important that someone else's life OR health. When women abort as a form of birth control, they are aborting to save their lifestyle, not their LIFE. Or even their immediate health.

reply from: Rosalie

I'm not trying to be mean by saying this but....
Until the unborn child can survive outside the womb, the mothers health is just as important as the childs life, if not more important because if the mothers health gets too bad she wouldn't be able to support the child while it's in her womb... Or she'd have to be on meds that could cause harm to the unborn child.
The woman's health is important for many more reasons than just to be able to sustain a fetus.

reply from: BossMomma

Preeclampsia is a valid reason as it could kill the woman, though usually the pregnancy is ended via c-section and the baby rushed to a NICU. Ectopic pregnancy is another reason, Fetal demise can be treated with an abortion proceedure but it's not ending a life as the baby is already dead. Mental health in extreme circumstances is a reason, if a woman must take meds that are incompatable with pregnancy to preserve sanity I as a Bi-Polar sufferer wouldn't judge the decision to terminate based on that reason. Chemotherapy can damage or kill an unborn child and so I would excuse cancer sufferers if their life is in danger without the treatment. If the unborn child has a genetic defect that makes it incompatable with life outside the womb, I feel that should be the woman's call.
Nice examples Bossy. For the most part I agree, although I nowadays believe that genetic defects shouldn't mean the child has to be aborted. Otherwise, I agree with your examples.
Nor do I, which is why I said genetic defects incompatable with life. There is a broad difference between a cosmetic defect such as a cleft lip and an ancephalic child. Some women such as Lukesmom choose to give these children birth and bond with them, but other women could not bare the thought of continuing a doomed pregnancy.

reply from: BossMomma

If she dies to give the baby life she wont have the child anyway, she'll be dead and the child will be handed off to the next of kin. In this rare circumstance no one but the woman should be able to make that choice.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Again, even if the child is certain to die, I don't feel that death should be prematurely cause by doctors.
Some women can't bear the thought of carrying a pregnancy at all. It's not a valid argument to kill their child though.

reply from: BossMomma

Again, even if the child is certain to die, I don't feel that death should be prematurely cause by doctors.
Some women can't bear the thought of carrying a pregnancy at all. It's not a valid argument to kill their child though.
Well, I guess when you're in that possition you'll understand what these women go through. If a pregnancy is doomed I see no reason why a woman should have to carry on knowing that her baby will likely either be born dead or have to die in her arms, not all women have that kind of strength.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Removal of a deceased baby is different from an abortion.

reply from: BossMomma

I wasn't refering to fetal demise, I was refering to conditions in which the baby would die minutes after birth or immediately after birth. I believe in quality over quantity, if the born child is doomed to a momentary life with no quality what so ever why put the mother and child through it? Like I said, if you ever have to face that situation maybe you'll see things differently.

reply from: 4given

Oh dear God. I think of Sue. Before I rush to judgement here. Are you implying it would be better for the child and mother for "quality" reasons to abort (her child)? Keep in mind- as a mother yourself, you are aware that prenatal testing is typically done post viability. Kindly clarify.

reply from: BossMomma

Oh dear God. I think of Sue. Before I rush to judgement here. Are you implying it would be better for the child and mother for "quality" reasons to abort (her child)? Keep in mind- as a mother yourself, you are aware that prenatal testing is typically done post viability. Kindly clarify.
No, I'm saying it should be the mothers call on what to do. Not every woman has Sue's strength and I don't think a woman should be judged on terminating for those reasons.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I wasn't refering to fetal demise, I was refering to conditions in which the baby would die minutes after birth or immediately after birth. I believe in quality over quantity, if the born child is doomed to a momentary life with no quality what so ever why put the mother and child through it? Like I said, if you ever have to face that situation maybe you'll see things differently.
Luke'sMom did, and she carried the child to term.

reply from: BossMomma

I wasn't refering to fetal demise, I was refering to conditions in which the baby would die minutes after birth or immediately after birth. I believe in quality over quantity, if the born child is doomed to a momentary life with no quality what so ever why put the mother and child through it? Like I said, if you ever have to face that situation maybe you'll see things differently.
Luke'sMom did, and she carried the child to term.
And Sue has a lot of strength and courage for doing so. But I would not judge a woman who couldn't bring herself to carry a doomed pregnancy to term.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I'm not trying to be mean by saying this but....
Until the unborn child can survive outside the womb, the mothers health is just as important as the childs life, if not more important because if the mothers health gets too bad she wouldn't be able to support the child while it's in her womb... Or she'd have to be on meds that could cause harm to the unborn child.
The woman's health is important for many more reasons than just to be able to sustain a fetus.
I know. I was just saying some of why the mothers health is as important or more important than the unborn childs life.

reply from: nancyu

Pregnancy can cause really bad stretch marks.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Which is NOT a valid reason to abort. Nor is weight gain, a trip to the beach or other ridiculous reasons.
However, the life and the health of the mother is up to HER, it has to be HER decision whether or not she wants to risk dying to carry to term.
I understand BossMomma's predicament because I have the same illness, and the meds are NOT compatible with pregnancy. A bipolar woman without meds can be likely to commit suicide rather than continue an unwanted pregnancy, and continuing the meds can cause horrible problems to the fetus.
As for C-sections, you all seem to toss that around so easily - "Oh, she can just have a C-sec instead of an abortion." C-secs can be dangerous and even fatal. Look it up, folks. They are not as simple as they sound, especially when it's the second or third or fouth surgery.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't think most people here would argue against maternal LIFE.
And personally, since an abortion guarantees the death of the child, I think overall the risk is much much lower with a c-section for both parties involved. There are TWO patients, not one.

reply from: scopia19822

"I understand BossMomma's predicament because I have the same illness, and the meds are NOT compatible with pregnancy. A bipolar woman without meds can be likely to commit suicide rather than continue an unwanted pregnancy, and continuing the meds can cause horrible problems to the fetus. "
I feel the need to address this in a brutally honest manner, I am sure I will offend some people, so I apologize in advance. IF a woman knows that she has a health condition or has to take medication that will be incompatible with pregnancy, than she has a moral obligation to make sure she does not get pregnant, even if it means a tubal ligation. I know most doctors wont do them until you have a child or two, but if you have a medical condition that would be imcompatible with pregnacy I think they would perform the procedure. There are many reliable methods of birth control on the market that prevent pregnancy. Common sense would say that if you have such medical conditions you would make good use of them or get your tubes tied. I just do not understand why some women who have a medical condition like bipolar disorder or diabetes etc who know that getting pregnant is not medically advisable dont take precautions and then when they come up pregnant think that makes them entitled to an abortion. Even BC is not always 100% full proof and everytime you have sex you are taking a gamble. If you loose that gamble that does not give her the right to kill her unborn child.

reply from: BossMomma

You try getting a tubal if you are under 30 and have no children, I was denied mine at 19, BPD and all. I used birth control, even doubled up and still got pregnant. Until you can walk in my or RiverMoon's shoes what right do you have to judge? Thankfully I was given meds compatable with pregnancy but others suffer from more severe physical and mental ailments and I don't think that they should have to abstain from sex if they are in committed relationships or marriages.

reply from: scopia19822

"Until you can walk in my or RiverMoon's shoes what right do you have to judge?"
I suffer from clinical depression and PTSD and when I got pregnant with my son. I was on 100 mg of Paxil. They had to cut down me too 20 mg during my pregnancy, then I was put on Zoloft during the last half of my pregnancy and on 175 mg of Effexor post partum. My PtSD can eventually be cured, but my depression will never go away, it can only remit, which is what is doing now, so I dont have to take anything. I usually now take St. Johns Wort or Same which are herbal remedies. I may not have bipolar disorder, but clinical depression is just as bad if not worse . I know that Lithum can have detrimental effects on a developing fetus, but I dont know about Depakote,which is also an anti sezuire medication, given to epileptics . I have a cousin who takes Depakote with epilepsy and she was able to do fine with her 2 pregnancies.

reply from: BossMomma

You were able to stay on your meds though, it's not the same. Clinical depression is called the common cold of mental disorders. Bi-Polar can be mild or severe, mine is severe though luckily Lexapro can be taken all 9 months of pregnancy without harming the fetus. Other sufferers need stronger drugs or multiple drugs to control symptoms and as I said, you try getting a tubal if you are under 3o and have no children. Get a law passed where OB/GYN's can't make that decision for you and then you may have a point. And while you're at it, get a law passed where pharmacies can't refuse contraception based on religious beliefs.

reply from: CharlesD

I think simply having an exception for health without defining what is meant by health doesn't really accomplish anything because someone could call just about anything a health exception.
I am for an exception for cases where the life of the mother is at stake, but I should clarify that. Remove the baby and then make every effort to save both. If at that point the baby dies, you have done nothing ethically wrong because you haven't taken specific action to kill him/her.

reply from: scopia19822

"You were able to stay on your meds though, it's not the same. Clinical depression is called the common cold of mental disorders. Bi-Polar can be mild or severe, mine is severe though luckily Lexapro can be taken all 9 months of pregnancy without harming the fetus. Other sufferers need stronger drugs or multiple drugs to control symptoms and as I said, you try getting a tubal if you are under 3o and have no children. Get a law passed where OB/GYN's can't make that decision for you and then you may have a point. And while you're at it, get a law passed where pharmacies can't refuse contraception based on religious beliefs."
I am aware of the severity degrees of Bipolar disorder. I have a neighbor who is an umedicated bipolar, sadly she is the neighbor from hell, but that is a different topic. Bipolars as long as they stay on their meds can live productive and happy lives. I do think that if a woman has a medical condition she should be allowed to get a tubal, that should be her choice. As far as pharmacies go it is all about capitalism. If you work for a national chain like CVS, Rite Aid or Walgreens than you should have to abide by company policy and dispense contraception or find somewhere else to work. But in the cases of locally owned pharmacies, some refuse to carry contraceptives for religious reasons, that is capitalism. You cannot force a business/storeowner to carry a product if he does not want too carry it.

reply from: BossMomma

What should be allowed and what is allowed are two different things. At a young age I didn't want kids because I knew what a monster I could be, I was violent, indifferent, prone to self mutilation and suicidal, can you imagine what chaos a pregnancy would have wreaked on my fragmenting sanity? Fortunantly I was able to get meds compatable with pregnancy, not everyone can. Mental health is as important as physical health, if the mind doesn't work right nothing does.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Because I am involved in this discussion, I do want to say that I had only recently been diagnosed when I got pregnant, and I was using birth control. After the abortion, my husband had a vasectomy (FREE thanks to Planned Parenthood) and there were no more problems.

reply from: Derrickvoncowan

You gotta check out this video by this guy named Zo. He's a black conservative republican who's really got it together. He's very sharp, articulate & to the point.
He has definitely got the ability to change minds. I wished everyone could hear his arguments. If you like this, let me know. Please send this link to anyone you think would appreciate it.
His is the video titled "Abortion" on this page http://www.bungalow3.net/videos.cfmbungalow3.net

reply from: scopia19822

You didnt know for long when you got pregnant that you were bipolar, I cannot say I condone or respect the choice you made, but it does seem you felt you had no alternative. I am glad that your husband was gracious enough to get a vasectomy, alothough I despise PP. Here in Va the state will pay for BC and sterilization for low income people ( a remnant of states eugenics history). They enacted a new program called Plan First that will only cover these things. I have prolonged, profound uterine bleeding, so I submitted an application so that I would have more option with Pill brands than just what the health department offers. I cant get medicaid to find and treat the bleeding itself, but am curious to see if I qualify for the states spay/neuter program.

reply from: BossMomma

You didnt know for long when you got pregnant that you were bipolar, I cannot say I condone or respect the choice you made, but it does seem you felt you had no alternative. I am glad that your husband was gracious enough to get a vasectomy, alothough I despise PP. Here in Va the state will pay for BC and sterilization for low income people ( a remnant of states eugenics history). They enacted a new program called Plan First that will only cover these things. I have prolonged, profound uterine bleeding, so I submitted an application so that I would have more option with Pill brands than just what the health department offers. I cant get medicaid to find and treat the bleeding itself, but am curious to see if I qualify for the states spay/neuter program.
You know, you are rather judgemental of others and it's getting just a tad irritating. With your extremist thinking I could ask you why you didn't fight harder to save YOUR unborn child? I know I'd have fought to the death for mine.
Abortion in circumstances of health rarely come as easy as getting an abortion just to end an unwanted pregnancy yet you sit there playing holier than thou when you are "guilty" of the same.
As to Planned Parenthood refering to their low cost sterilization program as a "spay/neuter" program is disgusting and makes people who seek these services seem like animals. I try to respect everyone's views but when they become flat out insulting I start to call things what they are and I think you are projecting your hateful bitterness onto anyone with an open mind.

reply from: scopia19822

"You know, you are rather judgemental of others and it's getting just a tad irritating. With your extremist thinking I could ask you why you didn't fight harder to save YOUR unborn child? I know I'd have fought to the death for mine. "
I was 17 and naive, he threatened to shoot me where I stood if I didnt come with him. I ask myself everyday why I did not just run and let him shoot me even though I knew it could be fatal for both of us. At least I could be remembered as a mother who gave her life for her child rather than a stupid coward who froze and thought the clinic staff would call the police when I told them what was going on. Mea Culpa.
"As to Planned Parenthood refering to their low cost sterilization program as a "spay/neuter" program is disgusting and makes people who seek these services seem like animals. I try to respect everyone's views but when they become flat out insulting I start to call things what they are and I think you are projecting your hateful bitterness onto anyone with an open mind."
I was referring to the state of Virginia's new "Plan First" family planning program. They are pushing it on the poor anytime they go to the health department or DSS to seek any service, this could be wic, fuel assistiance, food stamps, immunizations etc. My point was that I cannot get Medicaid to actually find out what is wrong with me and treat it, but they will pay for me to get BC or sterilized. We finally had to go apply for Food Stamps and they gave us an application on this new "family planning" program they seem to want to push.

reply from: Hosea

If the mother has to have the baby out of her to save her life, there is no reason why the baby needs to be dismembered to remove it. Why torture the child. Give the mother steroids to speed up the lung maturity. Remove it whole and if the baby has a chance of survival give him/her medical treatment to try and save the baby's life.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Are you out of your mind? "Give the mother steroids" (dangerous drugs) and make her wait until she is at least 6 or 7 months pregnant (increasing medical danger) just so doctors can, at RIDICULOUSLY high medical costs, perform a C-section on an at-risk woman and attempt to save the life of an unwanted child? How many prospective adoptive parents would be able to PAY THE MEDICAL COSTS for those children??? Exactly WHOM do you think is going to pay those bills? You? The taxpayers? A pro-life group?? Are you aware that a premature baby can EASILY rack up a half-million dollars in medical costs, just to die from complications?
See the following for information about mortality rates and medical costs associated with premature births:
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20050328/medical-bills-soar-with-premature-babies?src=rss_foxnews

http://www.marchofdimes.com/hbhb/HBHB_COST2.asp

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/88557.php

"Preterm Birth estimates, conservatively, that the annual medical and social cost to the United States of premature babies is $26.2 billion a year. Of this total, $16.9 billion (about two thirds) are attributable to medical costs. Forty percent of these annual medical costs (about $6.76 billion) are paid by Medicaid."
source: http://www.nichq.org/NICHQ/Programs/CollaborativeLearning/Neonatal.htm

Premature births are the MAJOR reason that the United States ranks 36th in the world for neonatal deaths. Preemies are also much more likely to have serious, long-term defects requiring billions of dollars in costs throughout their lives.
Have you EVER been in a NICU?? For that matter, how many times have you been pregnant? How many children have you given birth to? How many C-sections have you had??? Do you really know ANYTHING at all about this subject?
I can't wait to hear your opinions and experiences, Hosea.

reply from: lukesmom

RM, are you saying you support the right to abortion in order to keep medical costs down and to make our stats look better?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Before 20 weeks it is safer to do an abortion than to induce labor - for the mother. Because the child can't yet survive anyway, it is pointless, cruel and stupid to increase the mother's risk just to remove the child whole.
I'd like to add that this is ONLY appropriate in a case where the mother's risk of death is high.

reply from: carolemarie

I agree that we shouldn't force women to take drugs and risk their lives for a non-viable fetus. If the mother wants to do that, that is fine

reply from: Hosea

Are you out of your mind? "Give the mother steroids" (dangerous drugs) and make her wait until she is at least 6 or 7 months pregnant (increasing medical danger) just so doctors can, at RIDICULOUSLY high medical costs, perform a C-section on an at-risk woman and attempt to save the life of an unwanted child? How many prospective adoptive parents would be able to PAY THE MEDICAL COSTS for those children??? Exactly WHOM do you think is going to pay those bills? You? The taxpayers? A pro-life group?? Are you aware that a premature baby can EASILY rack up a half-million dollars in medical costs, just to die from complications?
See the following for information about mortality rates and medical costs associated with premature births:
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20050328/medical-bills-soar-with-premature-babies?src=rss_foxnews
">http://www.webmd.com/parenting...src=rss_foxnews
http://www.marchofdimes.com/hbhb/HBHB_COST2.asp
">http://www.marchofdimes.com/hbhb/HBHB_COST2.asp
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/88557.php
">http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...icles/88557.php
"Preterm Birth estimates, conservatively, that the annual medical and social cost to the United States of premature babies is $26.2 billion a year. Of this total, $16.9 billion (about two thirds) are attributable to medical costs. Forty percent of these annual medical costs (about $6.76 billion) are paid by Medicaid."
source: http://www.nichq.org/NICHQ/Programs/CollaborativeLearning/Neonatal.htm
">http://www.nichq.org/NICHQ/Pro...ng/Neonatal.htm
Premature births are the MAJOR reason that the United States ranks 36th in the world for neonatal deaths. Preemies are also much more likely to have serious, long-term defects requiring billions of dollars in costs throughout their lives.
I can't wait to hear your opinions and experiences, Hosea.
Hi Rivermoon lady,
There are several items to respond to here.
Life threatening issues to the mothers health is usually not the reason for a premature baby. It is usually due to the uterus not being able to hold a baby. This happens for many reasons. IF the mother's mother took the drugs for morning sickness her uterus may not be formsed properly and she may not be able to hold a baby full term. If the woman has had one or more abortions the forced opening to the cervix is a cause of premature birth.
The March of Dimes released a report on Wednesday chiding the U.S. for failing to improve premature birth numbers and giving the country a "D" for its performance. However the charity's report includes no mention of the link between premature birth and an easily avoidable risk factor: abortion. The March of Dimes released its first-ever Premature Birth Report Card tallying the progress states have made in reducing premature birth figures. Eighteen states along with Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia all received failing grades and no state earned a top score in the report. Unfortunately, the March of Dimes, in its full length report, never mentions abortion despite the fact that it increases the risk of premature births in subsequent pregnancies and is an easily avoidable factor. In July 2006, a report from the Institute of Medicine, a National Academies of Science organization, found that first-trimester abortion, the most common type of abortion, is linked to an increasing risk of premature birth. The IOM report, "Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and Prevention," is a list of "immutable medical risk factors associated with preterm birth" and "prior first-trimester abortion" is listed third among other risk factors that increase the risk of having a subsequent premature birth.
There is a 200% increased risk of miscarriage after an abortion.
AMA Journal
Women who had one, two, or more previous induced abortions are, respectively, 1.89, 2.66, or 2.03 times more likely to have a subsequent pre-term delivery, compared to women who carry to term
Zhou, W., et. al. 1999. Induced Abortion and Subsequent Pregnancy Duration. Obstetrics & Gynecology 94 (6):948-953.
So therefore abortion is a major cause of premature birth and ending abortion can save millions in medical costs.

reply from: Hosea

Rivermoon asked:
Are you out of your mind? "Give the mother steroids" (dangerous drugs) and make her wait until she is at least 6 or 7 months pregnant (increasing medical danger)
For babies in the womb
If preterm delivery is likely, you may be given medications to help prepare your baby for birth. Corticosteroids such as betamethasone and dexamethasone can help speed your baby's lung maturity in as little as 24 to 48 hours. After week 34, steroids aren't typically needed because lung development is more advanced.
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/DS/00137.html
I did not say th woman should wait if her life is truely in danger. Most complications are early ( first trimester) like a tubal pregnancy where their is no chance to save the child.
Rarely, are there life threatening issues in the second trimester. The baby cannot be saved prior to 22 weeks and I am sure most mom's would prefer for thei child to not be dismembered if he or she is 22 weeks or older.
It is not that unusual for a woman to have a serious medical reason to ens a pregnancy in the third trimester. Here in Cincinnati, Good Sam hospital has a 85% survival rate for baby's born from the 28th week onward. Abortions in the third trimester are performed by c-cection so where is the increased risk to the mother.

reply from: Hosea

Are you out of your mind? "Give the mother steroids" (dangerous drugs) and make her wait until she is at least 6 or 7 months pregnant (increasing medical danger) just so doctors can, at RIDICULOUSLY high medical costs, perform a C-section on an at-risk woman and attempt to save the life of an unwanted child? How many prospective adoptive parents would be able to PAY THE MEDICAL COSTS for those children??? Exactly WHOM do you think is going to pay those bills? You? The taxpayers? A pro-life group?? Are you aware that a premature baby can EASILY rack up a half-million dollars in medical costs, just to die from complications?
"Preterm Birth estimates, conservatively, that the annual medical and social cost to the United States of premature babies is $26.2 billion a year. Of this total, $16.9 billion (about two thirds) are attributable to medical costs. Forty percent of these annual medical costs (about $6.76 billion) are paid by Medicaid."
source: http://www.nichq.org/NICHQ/Programs/CollaborativeLearning/Neonatal.htm
">http://www.nichq.org/NICHQ/Pro...ng/Neonatal.htm
I can't wait to hear your opinions and experiences, Hosea.
Do pro-choicers now get to determine whether babies may recieve medical treatment or not. Who are you to determine if a child may recieve medical treatment because it was or was not planned.
IF you choicers want to save money from Medicaid patients why not euthanize all medicaid recipients to save the most money?

reply from: Hosea

I can't wait to hear your opinions and experiences, Hosea.
I have known a few women who needed to give birth prematurly do to medical problems.
My sister-in -law gave birth early 32 weeks. The baby recieved Corticosteroids to develop her lungs. The baby weighed almost 5 pounds an dwas able to breath fine. The baby did stay in the hospital due to a congenital problem of the heart that it needed surgery for. She is 10 and doing well today.
My cousin delivered a baby this summer at 33 weeks because she had eclamsia. The doctors waited to long and the baby died after taking 10 breaths.
My friend delivered a baby at 28 weeks. The baby was in the NICU and was doing fine until a nurse messed up the dosage giving the baby 10 times too much medicine giving her baby a heart attack and it died. (Deicimals are important)
A freind on my softball team found out she had breast cancer at 33 weeks. She recieved Corticosteroids for 4 days and the baby only had to stay a few days in the hospital. The baby survived and so did she.
I've been in NICU's. I've never met a mom who wished her baby was dismembered instead of giving birth.

reply from: Hosea

Rivermoon, you usually are not this emotional. I enjoy your rational even if I do disagree. You must have a personal experience yourself that makes you so passionate about this issue. Would you care to share it?
I have given birth to 10 children, 7 live and three dead. I know about this subject only too well. I have been torn so bad that a c-section would have been a blessing and the doctors and nurses recommended it but since I knew I wanted a big family I chose to be ripped terribly rather than have a c-section that would limit my family size. That baby did survive and although he was very bruised he was perfect in every other way. And yes getting pregnant 10 times was my choice. I wish I could have more. Our children are the only thing that can go to heaven with us.

reply from: Hosea

Before 20 weeks it is safer to do an abortion than to induce labor - for the mother. Because the child can't yet survive anyway, it is pointless, cruel and stupid to increase the mother's risk just to remove the child whole.
I'd like to add that this is ONLY appropriate in a case where the mother's risk of death is high.
Hi Lib,
I still enjoy your posts.....
yet, I must disagree on this point. Baby's who are aborted in the second trimester treatment is usually one of two.
1 The D & E where the baby is dismembered in the uterus and the peices are taken out. In this situation the doctor has to go in with sharp forceps and curved knives, These are heath risks.
2 The mother is put into labor and the baby is born prematurly. Now they have to kill the baby first becaus of the Infant born alive Law. This is safer for the mother. No knives.
From personal experience I can tell you that when I found out my baby died at 17 weeks. The doctor only recommended inducing labor. He used Lainaria just like that used for an abortion to open my cervix. The inserted medicine to induce labor. The labor was milder than this months menstration cycle. The delivery was so easy but it does take a couple days. I did end up needing a d&C to remove the placenta a few minutes after delivery. Delivery is physically much easier that the D % E abortion. I know people who had abortions and said it was very painful. Emotionally either loss is devistating.

reply from: 4given

Alright.. I am too exhausted to get to the specific post in question, but wanted to address a point made about steroids. My son is alive today because of intervention pre-birth. This included steroids, magnesium sulfate and other medication. The steroid injectioins were to improve his lung function as we were told- should he come early.

reply from: yoda

Sure, but that reduces the chance that the baby will be killed in an abortion, so moonie will never go along with that. If it's for the benefit of the baby, she's against it.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Hosea - "Do pro-choicers now get to determine whether babies may recieve medical treatment or not."
Assuming that you are asking a question, the answer is that the parents of extremely sick newborns are allowed to refuse treatment for their babies if they believe that efforts will be futile. They prefer to hold their child and let him or her die peacefully.
It has nothing at all to do with pro-choice.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Before 20 weeks it is safer to do an abortion than to induce labor - for the mother. Because the child can't yet survive anyway, it is pointless, cruel and stupid to increase the mother's risk just to remove the child whole.
I'd like to add that this is ONLY appropriate in a case where the mother's risk of death is high.
Hi Lib,
I still enjoy your posts.....
yet, I must disagree on this point. Baby's who are aborted in the second trimester treatment is usually one of two.
1 The D & E where the baby is dismembered in the uterus and the peices are taken out. In this situation the doctor has to go in with sharp forceps and curved knives, These are heath risks.
2 The mother is put into labor and the baby is born prematurly. Now they have to kill the baby first becaus of the Infant born alive Law. This is safer for the mother. No knives.
Thank you for your kind words
But I have heard that induced labor is much more dangerous for the mother than an abortion. I wish there were more facts on this, but the only research out there kind of shows induced labor as much more dangerous for the mother.
So you still had to be exposed to the dangerous metal tools, yet on top of that you also had the added danger of the induced labor.
There just isn't any good research out about this. I can't really comment. Also, I was thinking more first trimester/early second semester, nothing later than 15 weeks. I don't know; I'm still conflicted about this. I'd LOVE to see no child torn apart but I just don't know what the risks are of each procedure, and I don't like putting the mother through unecessary risk for a child that cannot live.

reply from: Rosalie

If only it was so easy. Not everyone is healthy enough to be able to take deal with steroids and other meds.

reply from: Hosea

Lib wrote:
So you still had to be exposed to the dangerous metal tools, yet on top of that you also had the added danger of the induced labor.
I do see your point. I think most mom's having the baby removed would prefer to keep the chhild whole so they could hold them. At least I know I would.When I lost my baby, I was induced shortly after the baby died when my placenta was still alive and didn't recognize the baby's death. With my other two losses the baby had been dead for 4 weeks before I went in mild labor naturally. My placenta came out a few minutes to a few hours after the baby. With this last loss at 17 weeks the doctor tried to pull the "live" tissue of the placenta off the uterine wall by tugging at the umbilical cord. The cord broke high up inside of me and I blead out quickly and had to be rushed into the Operating room. If the doctor would have been patient and let the placenta release on its own I would not have needed the operation.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Is that a common complication after deliveries like that? It sounds much more dangerous than a general D&X. My mother's student teacher just lost her baby, I'm not sure how along she was. She went in for the D&X today; it's so sad. I guess that's why it's on my mind right now.

reply from: Hosea

I think you may have the procedures confused. The D & X is actually partial birth abortion which is illegal. The baby is still delivered vaginally.
How is a partial birth abortion (D & X) performed?
The D & X abortion is used in late second and third trimesters (24-36 weeks). As with the D & E, the cervix must be dilated using laminaria.
Forceps are then introduced into the uterus to grasp the baby's legs. The baby is delivered breech while the head remains inside the birth canal. Using blunt-tipped surgical scissors, the base of the skull is pierced and a suction catheter is inserted to extract the brain. This causes the skull to collapse and the dead baby is then fully delivered.
Sometimes, while the child is partially delivered and still alive, the organs are removed and sold for fetal tissue experimentation (an illegal practice).

reply from: Hosea

I am sorry for this student's loss. I know it must weigh heavy on you.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I think you may have the procedures confused. The D & X is actually partial birth abortion which is illegal. The baby is still delivered vaginally.
How is a partial birth abortion (D & X) performed?
The D & X abortion is used in late second and third trimesters (24-36 weeks). As with the D & E, the cervix must be dilated using laminaria.
Forceps are then introduced into the uterus to grasp the baby's legs. The baby is delivered breech while the head remains inside the birth canal. Using blunt-tipped surgical scissors, the base of the skull is pierced and a suction catheter is inserted to extract the brain. This causes the skull to collapse and the dead baby is then fully delivered.
Sometimes, while the child is partially delivered and still alive, the organs are removed and sold for fetal tissue experimentation (an illegal practice).
Yes, I mean D&E. The fact is, something is "eXtracted" in both cases. What does the X and the E stand for?

reply from: Hosea

These are the types of abortion:
I warn you.... this is not pretty.
Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)
This method is used up to 18 weeks' gestation. Instead of the loop-shaped knife used in D&C abortions, a pair of forceps is inserted into the womb to grasp part of the fetus. The teeth of the forceps twist and tear the bones of the unborn child. This process is repeated until the fetus is totally dismembered and removed. Usually the spine must be snapped and the skull crushed in order to remove them.
Dilation and Curettage (D&C)
This method is similar to the suction method with the added insertion of a hook shaped knife (curette) which cuts the baby into pieces. The pieces are scraped out through the cervix and discarded [Note: This abortion method should not be confused with a therapeutic D&C done for reasons other than pregancy.]
source: http://www.lifesitenews.com/abortiontypes/

Suction Aspiration
This is the most common method of abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. General or local anaesthesia is given to the mother and her cervix is quickly dilated. A suction curette (hollow tube with a knife-edged tip) is inserted into the womb. This instrument is then connected to a vacuum machine by a transparent tube. The vacuum suction, 29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner, tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded.
Salt Poisoning (Saline Injection):
Used after 16 weeks (four months) when enough fluid has accumulated. A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes somewhat over an hour for the baby to die from this. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. (There have been many cases of these babies being born alive. They are usually left unattended to die. However, a few have survived and later been adopted.)

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I know the types of abortion. Pro-choicers are constantly educating themselves about it so they can refute pro-lifers who think all abortions are partial-births. I just don't know all of the acronyms. I think the acronyms are quite arbitrary. I normally just say "suction", "curette", "forceps", "saline" or "partial birth" because let's face it, that's what happens. Enough with these silly acronyms Call it what it is.

reply from: Hosea

I agree I would prefer they use those names also.

reply from: ProInformed

The abortion industry and it's chanting choicist sheeple don't really care abot women's health.
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/090107/index.htm

reply from: carolemarie

Saline abortions are not performed anymore.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I've already noted that but no one believes me...

reply from: carolemarie

Pro informed will back you up on that.

reply from: 4given

I thought that , but galen corrected me. A small percentage are reported each year. All saline abortions are supposed to be reported to the CDC.
"American abortionists have denied saline abortion's dangers to women and cruelty to unborn children for far too long. According to the Center for Health Statistics at the Minnesota Department of Health, the procedure may have been performed on more than 50 women in the state between 2002 and 2006."
http://www.mccl.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=295&srcid=352
Saline instillation abortions are still allowed
"With the knowledge that saline abortions may still be happening in Minnesota, in 2008 MCCL worked with pro-life legislators to introduce a ban on the cruel procedure which poisons and burns unborn children in the womb."
http://www.mccl.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=352&srcid=200

reply from: Teresa18

http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa063000a.htm

reply from: Skippy

I wouldn't know why any doctor would perform a saline abortion, when other better methods exist.
I know of two women who had late-ish abortions (26 weeks), one in the 80s and one in the 90s, and neither of them had a saline abortion.

reply from: BossMomma

Not in the States but they are still common in China and India.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics