I have a friend who had to pay for d & c out of pocket - I doubt this is Hyde amendment related unless you're on Medicaide? The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape. I appreciate your logistics challenge but will point out people in rural states would face these challenges anyway. Also, not sure why you believe this situation wouldn't have been handled the same way everywhere. Again, I am sorry for your loss - it is very devastating. |
Then you aren’t paying much attention. |
Abortion is one of those things you can be fully, 100 percent against - until you need one. My catholic best childhood friend was against abortion rights until she got pregnant at 19. She got an abortion. |
How is the fact of your studied ignorance relevant to this conversation in any way? |
As OP mentioned and others, we need to stop the illusion that late maternal age (after 35) is low risk, it's not we should be having our children in late 20s or early 30s. The vast majority of defects and issues are from late material age pregnancies. |
So 90% is for convenience, that is heartbreaking and sad |
*standing ovation* |
Not a reason for it to be illegal, though. And that's what we're talking about here. |
I'm not sure I would label 90% "convenience," but definitely "elective/wanted" versus needed for "health reasons/victims of crimes." So that's elective "aborting" of 774,000 or so in the US each year. One can voice support abortion but we know from medical advances since the 1970's that these are more than "genetic material." |
Here's what I genuinely don't understand. If this procedure is medically necessary (and I don't doubt that it is), why are only certain ob/gyns willing or able to perform it? Is it because it is so complicated to learn (I'm dubious, given the other procedures these doctors offer and the emergencies they handle)(, because it is so rare (again, not an excuse; I assume your doctors would have treated you if you had spontaneously begun to abort), or for some other reason? You suggest it was because of abortion restrictions, so do you think it was genuinely because your doctors were afraid of performing this procedure because of legal consequences? Obviously we are going to need some very courageous doctors who feel confident that they can defend their decisions in court if this is the case. The same advances in technology that the pro-life side argues defends their position can also be used to argue for lack of viability. I think however that, for most pro-lifers, they are actually just bringing up the "health of the mother" argument to try to argue that ANY limits on abortion are dangerous to women, and whether this is true or not, it immediately goes back to the "all or nothing" argument that is actually not something most Americans favor. (Most Americans are pro-choice, but many-- me included-- are uncomfortable with the idea that allowing an ob/gyn to decide when to terminate a pregnancy for health reasons could extend to allowing a woman who is twenty weeks pregnant with a healthy baby to terminate that pregnancy at a clinic where she never actually consults with her own ob/gyn. Fortunately, I think the latter is very rare, but I'm not sure that's an argument for allowing it to ever happen, and I'm not convinced it's legally impossible to distinguish between these occurrences. That is why I go back to the fact that your own doctor would not perform the procedure-- if the same people who deliver our babies had been tasked with performing abortions instead of doctors whose sole job is abortions and often never see the woman undergoing an abortion prior to or after the procedure, it seems to me women with medical issues would be safer and less affected by the nationwide debate over life. Then again, it would also make abortion a lot less accessible-- and so we have to be honest about what we really want. If what we really want is accessible abortion, for any reason, at any time, it requires a different kind of approach. Because even most pro-lifers are on our side with the health of the mother/rape/incest but most pro-choicers get uncomfortable when we begin talking about healthy babies in the second or third trimesters. |
It’s “heartbreaking “ more WOMEN’S lives are not at risk? Really? |
You are welcome to do that. You cannot tell others to do that with their lives. To me, having children when I was financially and emotionally ready meant being a great mother versus an inferior one a decade earlier. Even if that meant a slightly higher risk that was managed with generic testing and the possibility for a termination. I am pro-choice and have no issue with abortion. If you do, don’t get one. Why do you care what a stranger does with the product of their genes? It does not affect your life whatsoever. In fact, it makes it worse by contributing to over-population and in many cases higher crime and poverty rates. |
I terminated when we found out the 3rd pregnancy was a boy. I had told my husband I would only raise a 3rd child if it was a girl, as our first 2 were boys. This was an unintended pregnancy so I was not thrilled to begin with. 1st trimester so there were no issues. On the other hand, my older boy has Down syndrome and I cannot imagine my life without him. He is the delight of our lives. I only write this to point out there are myriad and COMPLICATED reasons and situations to end a pregnancy and none of them are anyone's business. |
Yeah, this is how it is. But she may regret that abortion for the rest of her life, especially since she's Catholic. That's a heavy cross to bear, pun intended. There are so many aspects to this issue that rarely get discussed publically. The two sides are so extreme, it's a shame that normal women can't express the reality of abortion rights and be heard. |
That's insane. You should have had a tubal ligation instead of tossing the dice with another pregnancy. I hope abortion rights are restored -- and I hope people stop taking abortion this lightly, too. |