Also: 1 % of abortions happen in the 3rd trimester.
1%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to believe that all late term abortions were because of severely deformed fetuses. I agree that’s most often the case. But check out this NPR article, telling of a 22 yo who aborted a healthy baby at 27 weeks (& not because of risk to her own life/health either):

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718546468/opponents-fight-efforts-to-protect-late-term-abortion-rights

Anecdotes are not data

In this case they are.

There’s actual data on this. She didn’t find out she was pregnant til 26 weeks and you’re glossing right over the woman in the same article who had a late abortion for a horrific fetal anomaly. Did you happen to see how much the late abortion cost? Over 10K. And you’re thinking that women are doing this for reasons of convenience? Sorry, no. But your contempt for women is evident; it’s a key trait among forced birthers (even the ones who are women).

I posted the link above, but not the reply. As I said, it's most often the case that abortions occurring past viability are for severe fetal anomalies. I feel terrible for these families. But I, like many others I'm sure, had been lead to believe this was ALWYAYS the case, as in it wasn't legal or allowed for convenience, yet this is exactly why the women in the article aborted at 27 weeks. How is this allowed for a healthy baby that would have almost surely survived had it been born instead of aborted/killed? I seriously doubt that NPR found the one and only woman who aborted in the third trimester (or late second trimester) for convenience. This happens more than people think. And no, I don't have contempt for women, but there do need to be SOME limits on abortion. People in your camp are incapable of rational conversation without calling someone a misogynist, racist, or something phobic. Guess what? People can disagree with you without being evil or hateful, but if you write them all off as such, you can feel self-righteous without ever needing to consider an alternate point of view.

You found one example of someone who claims she terminated at 27 weeks for “convenience”. I have exactly one example of a certain Governor’s son attempting to commit voter fraud in the past election. Obviously, we need an entirely new law to detain the underage children of GOP candidates during voting season, since my one example proves this is a rampant problem which requires the force of law to resolve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to believe that all late term abortions were because of severely deformed fetuses. I agree that’s most often the case. But check out this NPR article, telling of a 22 yo who aborted a healthy baby at 27 weeks (& not because of risk to her own life/health either):

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718546468/opponents-fight-efforts-to-protect-late-term-abortion-rights

Anecdotes are not data

In this case they are.

There’s actual data on this. She didn’t find out she was pregnant til 26 weeks and you’re glossing right over the woman in the same article who had a late abortion for a horrific fetal anomaly. Did you happen to see how much the late abortion cost? Over 10K. And you’re thinking that women are doing this for reasons of convenience? Sorry, no. But your contempt for women is evident; it’s a key trait among forced birthers (even the ones who are women).

I posted the link above, but not the reply. As I said, it's most often the case that abortions occurring past viability are for severe fetal anomalies. I feel terrible for these families. But I, like many others I'm sure, had been lead to believe this was ALWYAYS the case, as in it wasn't legal or allowed for convenience, yet this is exactly why the women in the article aborted at 27 weeks. How is this allowed for a healthy baby that would have almost surely survived had it been born instead of aborted/killed? I seriously doubt that NPR found the one and only woman who aborted in the third trimester (or late second trimester) for convenience. This happens more than people think. And no, I don't have contempt for women, but there do need to be SOME limits on abortion. People in your camp are incapable of rational conversation without calling someone a misogynist, racist, or something phobic. Guess what? People can disagree with you without being evil or hateful, but if you write them all off as such, you can feel self-righteous without ever needing to consider an alternate point of view.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to believe that all late term abortions were because of severely deformed fetuses. I agree that’s most often the case. But check out this NPR article, telling of a 22 yo who aborted a healthy baby at 27 weeks (& not because of risk to her own life/health either):

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718546468/opponents-fight-efforts-to-protect-late-term-abortion-rights

So there is one. It should not have happened. Is it an epidemic of 3rd trimester babies? Or do we just have the exceedingly sporadic anecdotal evidence?

They found one, PP! That proves their point! There are millions of 3rd trimester abortions of healthy pregnancies every day all across America, Nancy Pelosi is personally giving them out and then eating the fetal remains with Hillary! In a church to ruin everyone’s Christmas! /s

The reality is that behind every late abortion is wanted pregnancy.

Kate Carson’s daughter had Dandy-Walker. “My daughter, Laurel, was diagnosed in May 2012 with catastrophic brain malformations (including Dandy-Walker malformation) that were overlooked until my 35th week of pregnancy. I did not know much about brain disorders at that point. I imagined developmental delay, special education classes, financial pressure, an overhaul of expectations for Laurel’s life and my motherhood. Here were the doctors’ real expectations for Laurel: a brief life of seizures, full-body muscle cramps, and aspirating her own bodily fluids.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2019/02/19/late-term-abortion-donald-trump-ben-sasse-state-union-column/2881880002/

Kate Carson is in this article as well, along with Lindsey Paradiso whose daughter, Omaha Rose, had a tumor. “ Twenty days after seeing the first signs of trouble, they learned that Omara had an aggressive form of lymphangioma growing out of her neck. The diagnosis came in the form of a dense two-page MRI report. The fast-growing, inoperable tumor had grown into her brain, heart, and lungs. It had wrapped around her neck, eyes, and deep into her chest. It was so invasive, it was pushing her tongue out of her mouth,” and Darla Barar, pregnant with twins: “ Darla and Peter saw additional specialists, and all confirmed a number of issues. Cate had encephalocele, which is a neural defect that causes brain matter to leak out, slow growth, microcephaly, a very large cleft lip and possible fused digits. Her cerebellum was so underdeveloped that one doctor had trouble finding it and her brain’s midline was shifted, indicating “severe disorganization”. To make matters worse, Olivia’s life was in danger. Cate’s amniotic sac was growing and restricting the growth of Olivia’s sac.” https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump

Margot Finn wrote her own piece about her daughter: “In December 2014, I had an abortion at 29 weeks, after my first baby was diagnosed with a brain abnormality called lissencephaly. The early diagnosis—lissencephaly is sometimes not diagnosed until after birth—meant her case was severe and her prognosis was grim: We could expect her to live for two to six years while suffering from frequent respiratory infections and intermittently choking on her own saliva. Her cognitive development would be arrested or even reversed by painful seizures. She might have been able to smile socially and/or track motion with her eyes, but maybe not. Eventually, one of the bouts of pneumonia or choking episodes or complications from one of the surgeries needed to sustain basic life functions would have killed her.” https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/late-term-abortion-support-group-lessons-trust-myself-women.html

So when I call forced birthers cheering this kind of law ghouls, this is why I think that. You would force a family to watch their children suffer because… reasons? I guess? But they’re just your feelings and your opinions. Abortion is already illegal past 24 weeks in Virginia; this law is nothing but misogyny.

Anonymous wrote:I used to believe that all late term abortions were because of severely deformed fetuses. I agree that’s most often the case. But check out this NPR article, telling of a 22 yo who aborted a healthy baby at 27 weeks (& not because of risk to her own life/health either):

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718546468/opponents-fight-efforts-to-protect-late-term-abortion-rights

So there is one. It should not have happened. Is it an epidemic of 3rd trimester babies? Or do we just have the exceedingly sporadic anecdotal evidence?

Anonymous wrote:Eventually, these laws are going to end up driving the birth rate way down. Many women aren't going to be as willing to take a chance on pregnancy, or will find much more reliable birth control or simply not have sex until they are absolutely sure they want to have a child.

On the plus side, DNA tests work really well now, so any deadbeat dads can be tracked down and wages garnished for care pretty easily now

You have it backwards. Humans are going to have sex. It is how mammals are programmed. When you make it harder to get birth control, as the GOP routinely does, then accidents can happen. Study after study disproves your hypothesis. Birth rates go up, public monies needed to support these babies goes up, societal wealth goes down as these women are forced out of the workplace. Deadbeat dads won't be forced into anything. They never are and never will be, particularly in a patricarchal society that the GOP envisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to believe that all late term abortions were because of severely deformed fetuses. I agree that’s most often the case. But check out this NPR article, telling of a 22 yo who aborted a healthy baby at 27 weeks (& not because of risk to her own life/health either):

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718546468/opponents-fight-efforts-to-protect-late-term-abortion-rights

Anecdotes are not data

In this case they are.

There’s actual data on this. She didn’t find out she was pregnant til 26 weeks and you’re glossing right over the woman in the same article who had a late abortion for a horrific fetal anomaly. Did you happen to see how much the late abortion cost? Over 10K. And you’re thinking that women are doing this for reasons of convenience? Sorry, no. But your contempt for women is evident; it’s a key trait among forced birthers (even the ones who are women).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to believe that all late term abortions were because of severely deformed fetuses. I agree that’s most often the case. But check out this NPR article, telling of a 22 yo who aborted a healthy baby at 27 weeks (& not because of risk to her own life/health either):

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718546468/opponents-fight-efforts-to-protect-late-term-abortion-rights

Anecdotes are not data

In this case they are.

Anonymous wrote:Eventually, these laws are going to end up driving the birth rate way down. Many women aren't going to be as willing to take a chance on pregnancy, or will find much more reliable birth control or simply not have sex until they are absolutely sure they want to have a child.

On the plus side, DNA tests work really well now, so any deadbeat dads can be tracked down and wages garnished for care pretty easily now

Now this is a novel concept. Late term abortion raises the birth rate!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This law has a carve out for rape incest and health of the mother… that’s all well and good. When do you find out if your fetus has downs? There are too many issues that can develop later in a pregnancy that can’t be addressed with a 20 week ban.
That’s why it should be between a woman and her health care provider.

Come now, the goal is to prevent abortion of kids with Downs. They are hoping you will put the kid up for adoption so they can scoop him up. Nothing says status like a person that can drop $40k on a disabled kid that requires support for life and keep a wife right at home where she belongs to watch over him.

If you don’t want to give up your flesh and blood, well slut, you’re on your own and it’s up to God to help you now. No one’s going to step in with anything like government support.

Finally the GOP publishes it’s party platform! Thanks for the succinct info.

The way posters write about having downs and/or being disabled is disgusting. You can be pro choice as well as be concerned about the movement to screen out and abort a baby with a disability. Look at how posters describe what it would be to have a disabled child (a burden, a life sentence, a life not worth living or supporting). It is just incredibly sad and awful. This 100% is eugenics. You can support everyone's right to choose but you can also have a discussion on what it says about society and have we gone too far.

Am I the last generation of people with my disorder (yes it is screened for now)? Are the disabled unfit for society? Just get rid of us all? No deaf, no blind, no downs, no autism, no one with spina bifida, no one in wheelchairs, everyone perfect. Perfect babies. Perfect families. Strong society. No diversity.

Have the conversation. Be careful with the knee jerk reaction that everyone who receives a positive downs test would automatically abort or that their life cannot be fulfilling or that their parents wished they were different. I am pro choice, but it's hard for me to listen and read about people making statements about the disabled that are just nasty and mean. We matter. We have worthy lives. We are a part of society.

The Atlantic has this short discussion on this very topic.

https://youtu.be/C5vVBeJWx_w

You may choose not to abort a fetus with an abnormality. Other women may make the choice for all of the reasons listed up thread. It’s their choice to make. And screens, while absolutely important, are a privilege and often only available to women with health insurance who can access comprehensive prenatal care. Restricting choice is being anti-choice.

That poster is not advocating for restricting choice but is highlighting ethical concerns. We can have a discussion within pro-choice. We can have a discussion that does NOT restrict choices. However, it is beyond crass to quickly suggest thank god you can still abort downs or disabled babies and maybe examine what that says about society. You can’t seem to wrap your head around the fact that. While I believe everyone should have whatever choice they need to make and I do not support women having to give a reason for their abortion (or any other restrictions) I think we need a national conversation about how we view the disabled. Mouthing off of how burdensome it would be to have a downs baby is just awful.

This is perhaps for a different thread.

Mouthing off about how burdensome it is to have a downs child - who is doing that? At the same time, get real. Do you not realize or respect the very significant needs of children with severe disabilities and chromosomal abnormalities? If that bothers you, look to are bizarre health care system and social safety nets that make caring for someone with any type of illness, let alone a severely disabled child, grindingly difficult. Do not dismiss how difficult it is, how expensive, and the extent of sacrifice of caregivers. Sorry that’s not sunshine and rainbows for you, but that’s reality.

It would be nice if people on both sides of the abortion debate would stop saying downs babies. They’re children with Down syndrome, not downs, not down’s. (Unless maybe you’re European but it’s a DC based board and it’s Down syndrome in the US).

It’s a lot of work to have a child. They all come with their challenges. Some kids come with more time consuming and costly challenges than others. Kids with Down syndrome often have other medical issues. It can and does break families. So many people think they’re going to have this always friendly, hugging, happy little kid like they see on TV, or someone like Corky from Life Goes On. You can’t tell the severity or all the complications that will happen until the child is here. People don’t think about puberty and the issues that come with that, and the high risk of abuse among people with disabilities. Even simple things like getting a sitter come with challenges. If people feel like they’re equipped and knowledgeable enough to handle it, fine. But to thrust that onto someone who isn’t equipped to handle it is cruel. It’s already hard to decide what to do, either way, but to be forced into a decision that’s going to bring financial hardship and marital distress as well as the joy of having a child to parents when it’s preventable is extremely cruel. There’s also almost no way they’re not going to require government assistance (which I’m fine with and think there should be more opportunities for that), so it’s also costing taxpayers to force people to have children with disabilities. I’m only bringing that up because it’s such a common theme for conservatives when it’s convenient.

Great post. Thank you.

Agreed. Private charity, which is what conservatives usually advocate for, has been entirely insufficient in this case. Relatively speaking, Down’s syndrome is one of the “easier” genetic disabilities. Many children go on to live happy lives with support (many children do not, but it is possible). Other diseases result in your child becoming progressively sicker and weaker until their bodies waste away in front of you. I personally would never choose to put a child through that if I had the choice. I don’t believe in God, God’s will, or that suffering brings redemption - I simply see a child that is being tortured to death. If you want to make that choice or deprive yourself of the testing that would present you with that choice, good for you, that’s a choice you get to make for yourself and no one else.

Anonymous wrote:I used to believe that all late term abortions were because of severely deformed fetuses. I agree that’s most often the case. But check out this NPR article, telling of a 22 yo who aborted a healthy baby at 27 weeks (& not because of risk to her own life/health either):

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718546468/opponents-fight-efforts-to-protect-late-term-abortion-rights

Anecdotes are not data

I used to believe that all late term abortions were because of severely deformed fetuses. I agree that’s most often the case. But check out this NPR article, telling of a 22 yo who aborted a healthy baby at 27 weeks (& not because of risk to her own life/health either):

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718546468/opponents-fight-efforts-to-protect-late-term-abortion-rights

Posters aren’t going to take the time to research the 1,000’s of potential chromosomal abnormalities that can affect the fetus.
It’s not necessary.
We’re getting in the weeds here.
What matters is when the bad news gets broken and what options people have ( or have taken away)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This law has a carve out for rape incest and health of the mother… that’s all well and good. When do you find out if your fetus has downs? There are too many issues that can develop later in a pregnancy that can’t be addressed with a 20 week ban.
That’s why it should be between a woman and her health care provider.

Come now, the goal is to prevent abortion of kids with Downs. They are hoping you will put the kid up for adoption so they can scoop him up. Nothing says status like a person that can drop $40k on a disabled kid that requires support for life and keep a wife right at home where she belongs to watch over him.

If you don’t want to give up your flesh and blood, well slut, you’re on your own and it’s up to God to help you now. No one’s going to step in with anything like government support.

Finally the GOP publishes it’s party platform! Thanks for the succinct info.

The way posters write about having downs and/or being disabled is disgusting. You can be pro choice as well as be concerned about the movement to screen out and abort a baby with a disability. Look at how posters describe what it would be to have a disabled child (a burden, a life sentence, a life not worth living or supporting). It is just incredibly sad and awful. This 100% is eugenics. You can support everyone's right to choose but you can also have a discussion on what it says about society and have we gone too far.

Am I the last generation of people with my disorder (yes it is screened for now)? Are the disabled unfit for society? Just get rid of us all? No deaf, no blind, no downs, no autism, no one with spina bifida, no one in wheelchairs, everyone perfect. Perfect babies. Perfect families. Strong society. No diversity.

Have the conversation. Be careful with the knee jerk reaction that everyone who receives a positive downs test would automatically abort or that their life cannot be fulfilling or that their parents wished they were different. I am pro choice, but it's hard for me to listen and read about people making statements about the disabled that are just nasty and mean. We matter. We have worthy lives. We are a part of society.

The Atlantic has this short discussion on this very topic.

https://youtu.be/C5vVBeJWx_w

You may choose not to abort a fetus with an abnormality. Other women may make the choice for all of the reasons listed up thread. It’s their choice to make. And screens, while absolutely important, are a privilege and often only available to women with health insurance who can access comprehensive prenatal care. Restricting choice is being anti-choice.

That poster is not advocating for restricting choice but is highlighting ethical concerns. We can have a discussion within pro-choice. We can have a discussion that does NOT restrict choices. However, it is beyond crass to quickly suggest thank god you can still abort downs or disabled babies and maybe examine what that says about society. You can’t seem to wrap your head around the fact that. While I believe everyone should have whatever choice they need to make and I do not support women having to give a reason for their abortion (or any other restrictions) I think we need a national conversation about how we view the disabled. Mouthing off of how burdensome it would be to have a downs baby is just awful.

This is perhaps for a different thread.

Mouthing off about how burdensome it is to have a downs child - who is doing that? At the same time, get real. Do you not realize or respect the very significant needs of children with severe disabilities and chromosomal abnormalities? If that bothers you, look to are bizarre health care system and social safety nets that make caring for someone with any type of illness, let alone a severely disabled child, grindingly difficult. Do not dismiss how difficult it is, how expensive, and the extent of sacrifice of caregivers. Sorry that’s not sunshine and rainbows for you, but that’s reality.

It would be nice if people on both sides of the abortion debate would stop saying downs babies. They’re children with Down syndrome, not downs, not down’s. (Unless maybe you’re European but it’s a DC based board and it’s Down syndrome in the US).

It’s a lot of work to have a child. They all come with their challenges. Some kids come with more time consuming and costly challenges than others. Kids with Down syndrome often have other medical issues. It can and does break families. So many people think they’re going to have this always friendly, hugging, happy little kid like they see on TV, or someone like Corky from Life Goes On. You can’t tell the severity or all the complications that will happen until the child is here. People don’t think about puberty and the issues that come with that, and the high risk of abuse among people with disabilities. Even simple things like getting a sitter come with challenges. If people feel like they’re equipped and knowledgeable enough to handle it, fine. But to thrust that onto someone who isn’t equipped to handle it is cruel. It’s already hard to decide what to do, either way, but to be forced into a decision that’s going to bring financial hardship and marital distress as well as the joy of having a child to parents when it’s preventable is extremely cruel. There’s also almost no way they’re not going to require government assistance (which I’m fine with and think there should be more opportunities for that), so it’s also costing taxpayers to force people to have children with disabilities. I’m only bringing that up because it’s such a common theme for conservatives when it’s convenient.

Great post. Thank you.

Eventually, these laws are going to end up driving the birth rate way down. Many women aren't going to be as willing to take a chance on pregnancy, or will find much more reliable birth control or simply not have sex until they are absolutely sure they want to have a child.

On the plus side, DNA tests work really well now, so any deadbeat dads can be tracked down and wages garnished for care pretty easily now