woman is forced to carry out non-viable pregnacy

[Sasha]

she found out at 22 weeks, so she had to stay pregnant for about another 16 weeks

Woman Carries Non-Viable Pregnancy Due To Law

State Law Bans Abortions After 20 Weeks


POSTED: 8:30 pm CST March 6, 2011


Comments (56)

A Nebraska woman said she was denied the ability to end her non-viable pregnancy because of state law.In Nebraska, abortions after 20 weeks are banned based on the disputed notion that fetuses can feel pain.Danielle Deaver, of Grand Island, told The Associated Press that she was about 22 weeks when she learned that she wouldn't be able to carry the pregnancy to term and that her child would die soon after birth.Deaver said her doctors told her she'd have to go into labor naturally because they couldn't medically induce her because of state law.Deaver gave birth Dec. 8 to a baby girl that died 15 minutes later.Deaver said the delay caused by the law added to her grief. Copyright 2011 by KETV.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[PhoenixAsh]

jesus fucking christ...what a complete fucking morons! What a bunch of complete fucktards!



I'm sorry...but that completely pisses me off


How the hell do they think they can force somebody to go needlesly through the complete entire pregnancy of an unviable feutus...because it can somehow mysteriously feel pain.... put her through the added fucking scarring trauma of feeling the fetus living and growing inside her whilst she is fully knowing that it will die moments after birth....

wtf are these people doing in legislation??????

[Hoplite]

This is why I tend to oppose a blanket ban or blanket allowance on abortions. Absolutes tend to get people in trouble.

[Sasha]

This is why I tend to oppose a blanket ban or blanket allowance on abortions. Absolutes tend to get people in trouble.

i assume your not opposed against an blanket allowance on abortions in case of medical reasons?
because thats the really fucked up thing of this case. the fact they denied her to trigger an premature birth.
the abortion edge in dutch society for social reasons is 24 weeks but its basicly an void rule because it almost never happens anyone wants an abortion on 24 weeks for social reasons. and if they do its an underage girl liberated from incestious slavery and you really dont want to deny them an abortion.
for medical reasons its up to the day of the birth, and it should be.

[TC]

This is why I tend to oppose a blanket ban or blanket allowance on abortions. Absolutes tend to get people in trouble.

Do you also oppose a blanket ban on rape and slavery? You know, cause, absolutes tend to get people in trouble.

There is never a good reason to force someone to carry a pregnancy against her will and it is disgusting and reactionary to suggest otherwise.

[Hoplite]

i assume your not opposed against an blanket allowance on abortions in case of medical reasons?

No, but I'm uncomfortable resting on such a binary idea.

I mean what do we consider enough medical reason to allow an abortion? Is someone with a low pain tolerance clear to have an abortion because giving birth is extremely painful?

There will always be wiggle room for people to slip past and I think allowing a blanket allowance for medical reasons gives the least medical room so I am in favor of it as I feel it has the least negative impact for the most positive impact.

Do you also oppose a blanket ban on rape and slavery? You know, cause, absolutes tend to get people in trouble.

We arent discussing those topics, if you'd like to start a new thread to discuss them, be my guest.

There is never a good reason to force someone to carry a pregnancy against her will and it is disgusting and reactionary to suggest otherwise.

Keep in mind, you're talking to someone who is completely for legalizing abortions.

[¿Que?]

This is absolutely horrible, anti-woman, patriarchal and misogynist. I really don't understand how doctors could be that callous. Where are all the heroic, socially conscious, anti-misogyny doctors willing to put their jobs and reputations on the line for the basic dignity and respect for womankind? Srsly, there wasn't a single one in the whole state? Where is the abortion Kevorkian? Oh that's right, the fundies have terrorized all of them into submission.

[TC]

No, but I'm uncomfortable resting on such a binary idea.

I mean what do we consider enough medical reason to allow an abortion? Is someone with a low pain tolerance clear to have an abortion because giving birth is extremely painful?

Thats an excellent reason to have an abortion.

Do you think you should be subjected to excruciating pain to preserve someone elses life? If so I can think of some organs you could be donating!

Keep in mind, you're talking to someone who is completely for legalizing abortions.

You just wrote:

I tend to oppose a blanket ban or blanket allowance on abortions

Which one is it?

If you don't want to allow a "blanket allowance" on abortion than by definition you subscribe to some hierarchy of abortions where some abortions are okay and for others pregnancy must continue against a woman's will.

This is really not that complicated.

[PhoenixAsh]

No, but I'm uncomfortable resting on such a binary idea.

I mean what do we consider enough medical reason to allow an abortion? Is someone with a low pain tolerance clear to have an abortion because giving birth is extremely painful?

Yes..

[Hoplite]

I'm going to back out of this because it seems this is not a subject that can be discussed rationally at this point.

[Tim Finnegan]

S-Seriously? This happened? In the US, in the 21st century? Ugh.

[Quail]

I'd imagine it would have been better for the baby girl to have been aborted as a fetus, instead of developing and being born only to die a few minutes later. Whatever she died of, I'm sure it caused her more suffering than an abortion would have done.

It must have been so traumatic for the poor woman to continue with her pregnancy, knowing that the baby would die. It's disgusting that she was made to do so against her will.

[Ele'ill]

because it seems this is not a subject that can be discussed rationally at this point.

Why?

[TC]

Why?

Cause he's not totally pro-choice (though not totally pro-life) but rather some anti-choice position in between...but he doesn't want to talk about it so he can stay unrestricted? Thats what I'm guessing!

[Tim Finnegan]

Cause he's not totally pro-choice (though not totally pro-life) but rather some anti-choice position in between...but he doesn't want to talk about it so he can stay unrestricted? Thats what I'm guessing!

I would suggest that is possible to refrain from offering unconditional support to all late-term abortions without being anti-choice, if such a position exists as part of a larger "pro-sentient life" position, which is to say a vegetarian or vegan position. Just because the fundies have clouded the issue with their mysticism doesn't mean that we can necessarily draw the line at birth. It's a complicated issue, and we should not let the simple-mindedness of our opponents drive us to a simple-mindedness ourselves.

[brigadista]

ffs all this "rational discussion" rhetoric makes me sick, It is not something if you are affected that is rational -its highly emotional and distressing, as for this poor woman.

i notice it appears that those who want "rational discussion" are usually those who won't be making the decision or going through the procedures-just saying

Its a woman's right to choose- simple as- but in this case that was taken away from her

[Dr Mindbender]

Its a question of responsibility. Ultimately the onus is on the man not to impregnate a woman wherever there is any half hearted sentiment or doubt as to whether the child will be ultimately wanted. While a woman should retain her bodily autonomy, and the woman who is the subject of this thread should have had her abortion without hesitance, i'd guess in cases where the pregnancy is viable there is a part of abortion which can in itself carry its own emotional toll. Speaking as a parent it is not something to be entered into lightly and there should be the sort of soul searching that you would undertake with any other life changing desicion. I think the whole point of that has been lost. People arent being careful and are viewing abortion as the rule rather than the exception.

Prevention is better than cure. Not to take anything away from her, but I would suggest though that TC's organ donation comparison wasnt really analogous.

[TC]

I would suggest that is possible to refrain from offering unconditional support to all late-term abortions without being anti-choice, if such a position exists as part of a larger "pro-sentient life" position, which is to say a vegetarian or vegan position. Just because the fundies have clouded the issue with their mysticism doesn't mean that we can necessarily draw the line at birth. It's a complicated issue, and we should not let the simple-mindedness of our opponents drive us to a simple-mindedness ourselves.

1. Late term fetuses aren't sentient life - they are unconcious and therefore not aware or mindful of themselves or their environment. This has been demonstrated in recent reviews of the scientific evidence which I've posted in previous abortion threads.

2. Yes, we can necessarily draw the line at birth, because prior to birth a fetus threatens a woman's body - violating her bodily integrity when it is unwanted whereas after birth a baby does not have that relationship to anyone. You have again made the mistake of thinking 100% about the status of the fetus rather than the status of a woman forced to carry it against her will. Sentient or not no one has the right to use another person's body against their will and everyone has the right to lethal self defense to prevent unwanted bodily intrusions and forced intimacy.

3. Its easy to add in false complexities to make someone feel like they're being more thoughtful while smuggly regarding others as simple minded. This just confuses the issue and obscures the reality that whenever you oppose choice, you are calling for state power to use a woman's body against her will, to alienate her from her own being on the most intimate level imaginable, and to compel forced labor for another. This is oppressive, and it is wrong, no matter what the context, no matter what you think of a fetus, and thats the bottom line.

And for what its worth I'm a vegan and I would never hurt even an insect...


...unless it tried to bite me first! - Similarly, respect for all sentient life does not exclude reserving the right to use self defense, whether against an innocent mosquito or an innocent fetus.

[Tim Finnegan]

Its a woman's right to choose- simple as- but in this case that was taken away from her

Actually, in this case, I would argue that it was beyond even a right to choose, but straightforward medical negligence. Giving birth is a dangerous thing to do, and demanding it for no reason whatsoever- even by any pro-life position that doesn't resort to crude mysticism- was reckless.

[Hoplite]

Why?

It's too emotionally charged. People cant or wont divorce themselves from the issue emotionally enough to discuss the issue without letting their emotions over-ride their logic.