"After Tiller"

[starfish]

This is why pro-lifers aren't truly pro-life.

They are just forced birthers.

They also rarely oppose the death penalty and war. But when it comes to telling a woman what to do with her body, they are all over that. They just can't get over the "that slut should be punished with a baby" line of thinking.

[starfish]

For me, the issue of late-stage abortion goes back to two principles: It isn't my body. And the decision is between a woman and her doctor. Period.

It isn't my decision whether somebody should or should not have an abortion at any stage.

It isn't my decision whether somebody waited too long and now should have to carry the pregnancy through to a live delivery.

It isn't my decision whether somebody should carry a pregnancy through to live delivery and place the child for adoption (even if there were enough adoptive parents, which there are not).

I don't believe that late-stage abortion is an easy decision.

My thinking is that, if you don't like the idea of a late-stage abortion, then don't have one.

[Stephanie66]

The thing is, if it IS an easy decision for a woman to have a late-term abortion, do we want that same woman raising a child? Because that is, essentially, the argument that pro-life people are making. They are saying that women go into an abortion clinic and end late term pregnancies for no reason whatsoever. So, do you want a woman who is that callous to raise a child?

I don't. That's how you end up with Briana Lopez. (Not that her mother ever sought an abortion, but she would have been better off being aborted. Even at 30 weeks.)

[dramallama]

I've always had trouble answering the question "who are your heroes?" I could never think of anyone specific who lived up to that word, even if I admired them or their work. But I know exactly how to answer it now, without hesitation. Dr. George Tiller is my hero. Dr. LeRoy Carhart is my hero. Dr. Susan Robinson is my hero. Dr. Shelley Sella is my hero. Dr. Warren Hern is my hero.

[nausicaa]

I think she was referring to the fact that healthy white babies are still what many, if not most, adoptive couples are looking for.

That's how I took it as well. Being a pregnant woman who is African-American (or Hispanic or Native-American) is not the same as being a Caucasian teenager in terms of adoption options, and I wish more people would acknowledge this when pushing for pregnant women to "just choose adoption."

[FloraKitty35]

I would hate to be in the position of any of those women.

[usedtobenice]

Her body, her choice. I don't care how far along a woman is. Still her body, still her choice!

[Ellimenopy]

But once it is at the point of viability it isn't the same situation. Following that logic you might as well say that it's none of your business if she decides to kill her 3 month old.

Yes, it is the same situation. It's still a highly personal ethical decision that needs to be made by the person who's closet to the consequences of it - the mother (and her support group.) I understand why it makes you uneasy, and I'm certainly not comfortable with the idea of late-term abortions. But it's still not your ethical decision to make.

Because when you say that women can't have an abortion for this reason or for that reason, what you're implying is that women (or at least certain kinds of women) aren't capable of making some moral decisions at all. And I find the claustrophobia of that thinking to be much more uncomfortable than the idea of a third trimester abortion. Women are perfectly capable of making moral decisions. To say otherwise is to veer close to the patriarchal condescension of the fundies.

It's not easy, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. There are lots of things in life that are not easy. Being an independent adult responsible for your own choices is not easy. Part of the insidiousness of the SAHD lifestyle is that is ridiculously easy to never have to hash out your own moral code and be responsible. I can think of a few situations in which it is much better for one child to not have a chance to be than to live a life of suffering.

[Mama Mia]

Yes, it is the same situation. It's still a highly personal ethical decision that needs to be made by the person who's closet to the consequences of it - the mother (and her support group.) I understand why it makes you uneasy, and I'm certainly not comfortable with the idea of late-term abortions. But it's still not your ethical decision to make.

Because when you say that women can't have an abortion for this reason or for that reason, what you're implying is that women (or at least certain kinds of women) aren't capable of making some moral decisions at all. And I find the claustrophobia of that thinking to be much more uncomfortable than the idea of a third trimester abortion. Women are perfectly capable of making moral decisions. To say otherwise is to veer close to the patriarchal condescension of the fundies.

It's not easy, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong. There are lots of things in life that are not easy. Being an independent adult responsible for your own choices is not easy. Part of the insidiousness of the SAHD lifestyle is that is ridiculously easy to never have to hash out your own moral code and be responsible. I can think of a few situations in which it is much better for one child to not have a chance to be than to live a life of suffering.

That's ridiculous reasoning. By that same rationale there should be no laws about anything because people are capable of moral decision making. Why have laws against murder or rape or robbery or child abuse?

If it is a viable fetus who can survive outside of the mother, and is not a threat to the life of the mother, how is it her right to kill it prior to delivery any different than choosing to kill it after delivery? We are only talking post viability here so the argument regarding it being dependent on the mother doesn't apply.

Also, all you have to do is look at any of the many, many websites searching for adoptable infants to see that many of the listed families are open regarding the race of the baby.

Of course the mother might choose not to put the baby up for adoption, she might resent the baby forever, she might love it immensely. If there is abuse or neglect the authorities will hopefully step in. Just like with all the thousands of other kids who are born under less than ideal circumstances.

[bal maiden]

I don't really disagree with you, but it is such a nuanced question. What is the point of viability? Most doctors today would say 23 weeks or so realistically. You enter your third trimester at 28 weeks. A baby induced at that age is very likely going to have problems associated with prematurity and at the very least need lots of support. Who is going to pay for that? What kind of emotional toll will it take on the mother? If the woman really doesn't want a child but isn't comfortable with adoption what is the solution? What if there isn't anyone willing to adopt a medically fragile premie who might have all kinds of permanent problems?

I think this is a really important point... A baby born at 28 weeks is going to need NICU care at great expense, has a massive chance of severe problems... Not a great prospect for a successful adoption. A friend of mine's daughter was born at 26 weeks. Thankfully she survived, and my friend is coping. However, the NICU nurses told her that many of the babies in the NICU are left to be taken into state care, as the parents can't cope with the level of disability etc. 'Viability' is so problematic...

Stephanie66 - I see the point you were trying to make with the 'black' comment now.

[slh12280]

That's ridiculous reasoning. By that same rationale there should be no laws about anything because people are capable of moral decision making. Why have laws against murder or rape or robbery or child abuse?

If it is a viable fetus who can survive outside of the mother, and is not a threat to the life of the mother, how is it her right to kill it prior to delivery any different than choosing to kill it after delivery? We are only talking post viability here so the argument regarding it being dependent on the mother doesn't apply.

Also, all you have to do is look at any of the many, many websites searching for adoptable infants to see that many of the listed families are open regarding the race of the baby.

Of course the mother might choose not to put the baby up for adoption, she might resent the baby forever, she might love it immensely. If there is abuse or neglect the authorities will hopefully step in. Just like with all the thousands of other kids who are born under less than ideal circumstances.

This. I just don't think there is any justification. To be honest, to me, this is akin to infanticide. If it can safely be detached from her body then that is what should be done. You can't perform, which is to me, an immoral action in order to "save" a baby from a potentially bad situation, when you don't even know with any certainty that is what will happen.

[CrzyCtLady]

I watched this the other night. My heart broke for those families who had much wanted pregnancies but found out that there was something major wrong. In those cases they really felt like the best thing for their children was sparing them a life of pain. One baby had a disease that made its bones break constantly, so once he was born he wouldn't have even been able to be held. Very very sad. I can't imagine how hard it must be to make that decision. Let him go or let him spend his entire short life in incredible pain?

[Ellimenopy]

This. I just don't think there is any justification. To be honest, to me, this is akin to infanticide. If it can safely be detached from her body then that is what should be done. You can't perform, which is to me, an immoral action in order to "save" a baby from a potentially bad situation, when you don't even know with any certainty that is what will happen.

I think you're all misunderstanding me, or at least twisting my meaning to the least charitable interpretation. It's not that I don't think that you should be able to judge some late-term abortions as immoral. God knows that I do. It's that I don't want those judgments enshrined in law. For whatever reason that they want them, women who seek third trimester abortions are desperate. They are usually grey issues morally because they are so outside the norm. In normal situations, I would say that yes, the child must be born at that point. But usually, women at that point are concerned about severe genetic defects, or her own health is so compromised that it's dangerous, or some other situation is so precarious. I don't think anyone gets a late term abortion for funsies. I'm not saying that there should be NO judgment about it, but only that it shouldn't be up to random people to decide that. It should be between a woman and her doctor. Because I don't want there to be situations where we're like, "Oh, well that would be one of the exceptions." And there's no one left to do them.

I have seen a real life example of this. I had a friend who was pregnant with quadruplets, after a long battle with infertility that resulted in them using some reproductive technology. They knew early on that one of the babies had anencephaly and wouldn't survive the birth. It was tragic. Every one was ecstatic that she didn't have to have a selective termination because that would go against their beliefs and it was miraculous. And I'm truly glad that she didn't have to. Really. But it could have easily gone the other way. It would have been way more tragic, to me, if it got to the point where they were really worried that her, for lack of a better word, doomed child put all of them in peril and there was no one to do the selective termination because late term abortion is always wrong. Should she ignore her other, longed for, and prayed for, children for love (and she really did love him) of a child that she knew wasn't ever going to live? I'm glad, since she is evangelical and strongly pro-life, that she never had to challenge herself that way. My heart would have broken more for her than it already did.

I don't think we should go around killing viable babies willy nilly. But the line between viable and nonviable is not a bright one, and women don't usually seek abortions at a "viable" age lightheartedly. As uncomfortable as the whole thing makes me, I think that those decisions should be made by those closest to the situation, who have all the information surrounding the situation.

[snuggles911]

I had a relative who considered adoption, of a bi-racial infant. While looking through websites of prospective adoptive parents there are many, many families who don't care about the race/ ethnicity of the baby.

Part of the reason there are so many children in foster care is because large numbers actually aren't adoptable because parental rights were never terminated. Most infants who are placed in care at birth ( usually due to testing positive for drugs) , have parent(s) who are actively trying for reunification. Often not doing a very good job of it. So the process gets drawn out over a couple of years with the kid being bounced around. They have tried to improve this by shortening the deadlines for permanent placement for infants, but every time the parent regains custody it stops the clock.

I have a friend who has adopted two children through our state's main adoption agency.

One thing that surprised me was that when she went through the process she was told that it would cost less to adopt a black baby than a white one b/c they are considered less desirable.

She and her husband are of modest means and they knew they could love a black child as much as a white one so they said they'd be willing to adopt either. Both of her children are black. From what she's told me there are enough families to adopt black infants, but older babies and young black children often end up in foster care indefinitely.

Regarding aborting a healthy fetus/baby at 30 weeks gestation I don't see how that would be any less traumatic than waiting 10 weeks and delivering it.

A relative of mine had an abortion at 22 weeks after learning her fetus/baby had a condition that was incompatible with life and would die within hours of his birth. The abortion (done at a NYC hospital and covered by insurance) was a complicated, two-day process. Five years later she's still having trouble processing it. She's not at all religious, but felt traumatized when she found out exactly how the fetus/baby was removed (the doctor didn't share the details of the procedure with her before the abortion for whatever reason).

IMO the problem with the pro-life-pro-choice debate is that both sides see abortion as a black and white issue. It's either always wrong (even in cases of incest or rape) or always "a woman's choice" even when it involves a healthy 30-week old fetus/baby.

[snuggles911]

Her body, her choice. I don't care how far along a woman is. Still her body, still her choice!

Are you saying a woman should be able to abort at eight months gestation as long as there is a doctor willing to perform the procedure?

[meda]

And sometimes a healthy 30 week fetus can kill a woman. See HELLP syndrome. Those women cannot wait to deliver, and cannot always survive the labor necessary to birth a live baby. If we legislate away access to late term abortion because we find it repellant and only want u women to make reproductive decisions that align with a particular morality, then women can and do die. Again, not every part of this country are the liberal west coast and northeast with adequate social services and access to healthcare. There are many parts of this country only served by for profit and religious hospitals with no abortion services. What options do women in these areas have? Just die because that is less distasteful and politically fraught than late term abortion?

[ILoveJellybeans]

Personally I am not comfortable with the idea of late term abortion, unless there is a severe health problem with the baby which means it will die anyway at birth. Thankfully it happens very rarely though, most are done when it doesn't have feelings and barely resembles anything human.

[Mama Mia]

And sometimes a healthy 30 week fetus can kill a woman. See HELLP syndrome. Those women cannot wait to deliver, and cannot always survive the labor necessary to birth a live baby. If we legislate away access to late term abortion because we find it repellant and only want u women to make reproductive decisions that align with a particular morality, then women can and do die. Again, not every part of this country are the liberal west coast and northeast with adequate social services and access to healthcare. There are many parts of this country only served by for profit and religious hospitals with no abortion services. What options do women in these areas have? Just die because that is less distasteful and politically fraught than late term abortion?

How does that argument make any sense? I don't hear anybody here saying late abortion shouldn't be allowed to save the life of the mother or if the fetus has conditions incompatible with life. According to the film there are less than half a dozen physicians across the entire U.S. Who perform late term abortions , how exactly would a woman with a life threatening emergency like HELLP access one of these doctors more quickly than having an emergency c-section? What happens now? Obviously someone in Florida who has to deliver immediately or die isn't going to be shipped off to Colorado.

I really do not understand this fear of any sort of legal restrictions, when there are legal restrictions on virtually every single aspect of life already. How fast you drive, where you can smoke, the age you can drink the drugs that are prescribed to you and and a hundred other things are regulated by law in your daily life.

[Mama Mia]

They are just forced birthers.

They also rarely oppose the death penalty and war. But when it comes to telling a woman what to do with her body, they are all over that. They just can't get over the "that slut should be punished with a baby" line of thinking.

That's a really silly stereotype. You can advocate for financial and social support safety nets, think free birth control should be given out at the Jr. High and lead anti-war protests and be anti-abortion.

You can also be gun toting, anti- government assistance for virtually anything, pro- death penalty and also be strongly pro-choice

People tend to have beliefs that can be grouped as mostly conservative or mostly liberal, but most thinking people are going to look at each issue individually and come to their own conclusions.

Also if you look at any reputable survey, very, very few people will have views that fall at either end of the spectrum of what should be legal regarding abortion. Most people fall somewhere in between 'no abortion, ever, even to save the life of the mother' and ' access to abortion should be legal for whatever reason throughout the entire pregnancy'.

[meda]

You and others state that there is no reason to abort a healthy third trimester fetus. I use the example of HELLP to point out that sometimes there are. Just because it violates your personal morality does not make it unnecessary. And the reason there are only 6 places in the country is because of legislation that makes operating such clinics nearly impossible & the tactics of extreme anti choice activists. So if you legislate the option of third trimester abortion out of existence, than yes you place women at risk.

[Stephanie66]

Are you saying a woman should be able to abort at eight months gestation as long as there is a doctor willing to perform the procedure?

There are laws against terminating after viability (28 weeks) except for life/health of mother, fetal abnormality, rape or incest. The group in Albuquerque turned down a woman at 30 weeks who had no compelling reason.

Yes, I would be okay with a woman aborting at 8 months if the baby had a fetal abnormality. Sometimes these things aren't discovered until pretty late in the pregnancy.

[Mama Mia]

You and others state that there is no reason to abort a healthy third trimester fetus. I use the example of HELLP to point out that sometimes there are. Just because it violates your personal morality does not make it unnecessary. And the reason there are only 6 places in the country is because of legislation that makes operating such clinics nearly impossible & the tactics of extreme anti choice activists. So if you legislate the option of third trimester abortion out of existence, than yes you place women at risk.

That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. I have said, repeatedly, that saving the life of a mother is a valid reason. There just aren't that many situations where immediate delivery is going to somehow be safer if you terminate the fetus first. I'm sure there are some, which is why the mothers life should come first ( unless she has stated otherwise). And, again, your example of HELLP makes no logical sense regarding access to abortion clinics, a woman with HELLP who has to have immediate delivery, whether or not it's possible to save the baby, would be delivered, by whatever means, in a regular hospital, not a clinic.

[slickcat79]

That's ridiculous reasoning. By that same rationale there should be no laws about anything because people are capable of moral decision making. Why have laws against murder or rape or robbery or child abuse?

If it is a viable fetus who can survive outside of the mother, and is not a threat to the life of the mother, how is it her right to kill it prior to delivery any different than choosing to kill it after delivery? We are only talking post viability here so the argument regarding it being dependent on the mother doesn't apply.

Why would the argument not apply to a fetus in any stage of development? As long as it's inside her body and using her organs to survive, it's dependent on the mother. That is the difference between having an abortion and committing infanticide. Abortions past 24 weeks make up about .08% of abortions in the US, so the number of people even having late term abortion (whether they're "elective" or not) is extremely small.

While I don't like the idea of abortion on a viable fetus, I'm also not happy about the idea of lawmakers (or other people) who are not involved in a situation making a decision about whether or not a woman can have an abortion. If it's going to come down to a specific reason to justify abortion, where is the line drawn? Is a woman's emotional health a good enough reason? Is the financial burden of providing care for a premie a good enough reason? If she can't afford to raise a child but is traumatized by the idea that her child will be out in the world and she won't be involved in their life, is that good enough? I'm comfortable with the idea that a qualified medical professional can use their expertise to guide their patient through this decision on a case-by-case basis.

[usedtobenice]

It's not my decision to make.

[Mama Mia]

It's not my decision to make.

Yeah, it's not my decision whether someone robs a bank or beats their kid, or jay walks or if the local drug court gives someone community service or sends them to jail. Other things that aren't my decision include whether GMO products should be labeled, if student loans can be included in bankruptcy proceedings and what the immigration requirements are.

In fact, the list of things that are not my decision, but are still regulated by law and not left up to individual definitions of morality are pretty much endless. Some of those things are discussed on a place called the Internet. Often that discussion includes people weighing in on what they think the law should be.