Josiah and Lauren Part 11: The Baby Watch Continues

[artdecades]

11 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

I am not going to agree with you on this when it is a healthy fetus that is at or near the point of viability. The process for ending a pregnancy at that point is hard on the woman’s body, regardless of outcome. There is no reason that viable infant couldn’t be put up for adoption at that point. 

Just wondering, who do you expect to pay the insanely high NICU costs to keep that 24 week old delivered baby alive.

[justodd]

3 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

I am not going to agree with you on this when it is a healthy fetus that is at or near the point of viability. The process for ending a pregnancy at that point is hard on the woman’s body, regardless of outcome. There is no reason that viable infant couldn’t be put up for adoption at that point. 

And I will never agree with forcing women to serve as incubators or give birth for purposes of adoption. Do I think it’s sad that there are people out there who want babies and can’t have them? Of course. I was one of them, and it devastated me for a number of years. During that time, I did a LOT of reading about birth mothers during and after the adoption process, and that, believe it or not, is why I am so firm about my disagreement with you. The first hand accounts I read from women who’d given up children (from many different backgrounds and for many different reasons) broke my heart, and I felt as much, if not more pain for them as I was feeling for myself during that time. Every woman will respond to abortion or adoption in her own way, but studies have shown that women who choose abortion are more likely to be at peace with their decisions and less likely to consider it a trauma. Does that mean it’s always that way? Of course not, but I’m not going to throw down a hammer and say that any woman should ever find herself forced into the lifelong trauma that can come from giving up a child when there is an alternative that is less emotionally damaging. 

[Mama Mia]

28 minutes ago, artdecades said:

Just wondering, who do you expect to pay the insanely high NICU costs to keep that 24 week old delivered baby alive.

I am completely fine with my tax money going to pay for those expenses. It is certainly a better use than paying for a drone strike. 

29 minutes ago, justodd said:

And I will never agree with forcing women to serve as incubators or give birth for purposes of adoption. Do I think it’s sad that there are people out there who want babies and can’t have them? Of course. I was one of them, and it devastated me for a number of years. During that time, I did a LOT of reading about birth mothers during and after the adoption process, and that, believe it or not, is why I am so firm about my disagreement with you. The first hand accounts I read from women who’d given up children (from many different backgrounds and for many different reasons) broke my heart, and I felt as much, if not more pain for them as I was feeling for myself during that time. Every woman will respond to abortion or adoption in her own way, but studies have shown that women who choose abortion are more likely to be at peace with their decisions and less likely to consider it a trauma. Does that mean it’s always that way? Of course not, but I’m not going to throw down a hammer and say that any woman should ever find herself forced into the lifelong trauma that can come from giving up a child when there is an alternative that is less emotionally damaging. 

Can you point to any studies of emotional impact of abortion on women who terminate a healthy pregnancy near viability? It is rare, so I’m kind of doubtful there are any. It can hardly be compared to the impact of an elective termination at 6 or 8 weeks. It is a 2 day process, generally in a hospital, and physical recover will, obviously, be similar to any other method of giving birth.

[Maggie Mae]

If we want to believe (incorrectly) that a fetus is equivalent to an adult human, with the same rights, then it has NO right to force another human to give up it's organs to support it. It cannot live without another person's uterus. When an 8 year old can not live without another person's kidney, we cannot go to someone we know is a match and tell that person that he/she must give a kidney so the 8-year-old can live. If a 60 year old with COPD needs new lungs, we can't take his mother's lungs. 

It's not a false equivalence, it's just science. A fetus can not live without using another person's body. That person's body is MORE important than a fetus. Sorry. That's the way it is.  By saying that abortion should be illegal, you want women to die so a fetus can live. Therefore, the fetus is more important to some people than women. 

[Mama Mia]

2 minutes ago, Maggie Mae said:

If we want to believe (incorrectly) that a fetus is equivalent to an adult human, with the same rights, then it has NO right to force another human to give up it's organs to support it. It cannot live without another person's uterus. When an 8 year old can not live without another person's kidney, we cannot go to someone we know is a match and tell that person that he/she must give a kidney so the 8-year-old can live. If a 60 year old with COPD needs new lungs, we can't take his mother's lungs. 

It's not a false equivalence, it's just science. A fetus can not live without using another person's body. That person's body is MORE important than a fetus. Sorry. That's the way it is.  By saying that abortion should be illegal, you want women to die so a fetus can live. Therefore, the fetus is more important to some people than women. 

We are discussing fetuses at the point of viability. Meaning, no, they are not dependent on the mother.

[AtlanticTug]

51 minutes ago, artdecades said:

Just wondering, who do you expect to pay the insanely high NICU costs to keep that 24 week old delivered baby alive.

That's often the least of the cost. The vast majority of micropreemies have serious, lifelong health issues which will require multidisciplinary teams. 

[Mar]

2 hours ago, Imaginary_Wonderland said:

Thanks for the recommendation @Mar . I've added it to my never ending 'must read soon' book list. I already have 6 books sitting on my bed side locker at the moment to get through lol. I am currently reading Small Great Things, my first Jodi Picoult book in ages. I used to read all her books years ago, pre-order on Amazon for their release date etc, but in the last few years I have not read her more recent ones. I  am really loving Small Great Things and I am back to be being hooked on her books, so I am definitely interested in this new one too.

I have a stack of books like that too. I love it and hate it at the same time. I hate that I don’t have time to read as much as I would like to and that the books are just sitting there, but I love that there’s always a book to look forward to and that I never run out of stuff to read. ?

 

[Mar]

2 hours ago, FleeJanaFree said:

She's my second favorite author, but this book didn't do a ton for me...mostly because she completely ripped off Dr. Willie Parker (who the doctor was based on) His memoir, Life's Work, was utterly fantastic and he got his points across so much better. I was having deja vu reading Picoults, waiting for her to tell me something I had already read. 

 It was still an ok read. 

Oh that’s interesting! I haven’t read that book, I only know about it because Jodi Picoult talks about it and recommends it in that author‘s note in A spark of light. I wonder how Dr. Parker feels about this...

(Sorry for the two posts in a row. I posted the first one before I had read everything.)

[SassyPants]

2 hours ago, artdecades said:

Just wondering, who do you expect to pay the insanely high NICU costs to keep that 24 week old delivered baby alive.

The federal government, like they do for every extremely premature infant (those born on the edge of viability). There is funding in place for this- even Josie Duggar was covered!

I am very pro choice up to the age of individual viability. After that time, it depends on what is going on with the mother and fetus.

[bal maiden]

3 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

If the fetus is to the point of potential viability you could just as easily flip that statement. Also, a kidney will never be an individual person. False analogy. 

Also, if she is pregnant with a 24 healthy week fetus, and wants it removed, there is zero reason she can’t be induced instead of terminate.

Well, a 24 weeker’s chances of survival are not that great, and chances of survival with no serious ramifications are very slim. It’s not like ‘viability’ means ‘shove in an incubator and it’ll be just fine’. 

That said, a friend of mine had a baby born at 25 weeks, and it was seeing that tiny girl at that point (and the marvelous little human she has grown into) that has changed my feelings towards abortion. 

[Maggie Mae]

3 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

We are discussing fetuses at the point of viability. Meaning, no, they are not dependent on the mother.

Doesn't matter, though. The woman, and only the woman, has the right to make medical decisions about her body. If she wants to file for eviction at 21 weeks, she can. If she can't make it to the doctor before 23 weeks. than no one else should be able to tell her what she can and can't do with her own body. There is no other medical condition where they take away autonomy like this for another person. None. 

[justodd]

3 hours ago, AtlanticTug said:

That's often the least of the cost. The vast majority of micropreemies have serious, lifelong health issues which will require multidisciplinary teams. 

There’s also the unfortunate truth that special needs children are often passed over by people looking to adopt. It’s a huge responsibility that many aren’t comfortable taking on, and as sad as that is, I can’t blame them for it. Many adoptive parents have already experienced some degree of loss and/or disappointment in their path to parenthood, and the thought of taking on a delicate infant with potentially lifelong complications could be even more scary for them.

[SassyPants]

48 minutes ago, Maggie Mae said:

Doesn't matter, though. The woman, and only the woman, has the right to make medical decisions about her body. If she wants to file for eviction at 21 weeks, she can. If she can't make it to the doctor before 23 weeks. than no one else should be able to tell her what she can and can't do with her own body. There is no other medical condition where they take away autonomy like this for another person. None. 

And that is the problem right there...I doubt any one of us wants the US government determining or dictating what medical procedures we can/will or cannot/will not have. We already have insurance companies doing that and we all hate it.

[AussieKrissy]

5 hours ago, artdecades said:

Just wondering, who do you expect to pay the insanely high NICU costs to keep that 24 week old delivered baby alive.

Maybe because I am in Australia, where the majority of health care is mainly free. My first reaction was the public health care system will "pay". I am happy that my tax paying money pays for premie babies. I am happy to live in a country that doesn't let people die because they are poor. I am happy that after my own premie baby (not a 24 weeker thank god) she and I walked out of hospital without a cent to owe. I am so happy no one had to think of my daughter's life as a cost that had to be paid, it was just a life to save. I will always be pro universal care. 

[Maggie Mae]

Quote

There is no reason that viable infant couldn’t be put up for adoption at that point. 

This sentence really doesn't sit right with me, autonomy of the adult aside. Putting up a child "for adoption" isn't like "bring a pig to auction," which is what this phrasing makes me think of. It's a human child, who will have lifelong physical medical issues and now trauma (mental health is health, but some people like to make a distinction.) 

And I know I said "autonomy of the adult aside," but it kind of sounds like a forced birth program, with women being used as incubators so a childless couple can "get a baby" of off the "adoption block." 

 

[SuperNova]

I'm a lurker in Duggar threads and I virtually never discuss abortion but I've found the exchange here well informed and overall very respectful. I just want to add one thought.

When talking about the right to a safe, legal abortion what we are really discussing is the rights of poor and disenfranchised women. There will always be access to safe abortions for women of means. If an upper middle class woman wants to terminate and its not performed in her area, she can travel to the next state or even another country to have a safe procedure. A ban on abortion is an inconvenience, not a barrier. Please understand that I'm not attempting to minimize the stress or weight of her situation, I'm just illustrating that there are no solid barriers when there's money. 

Banning abortion is just another way to punish poor people and keep women trapped in a cycle of poverty. Women who lack education are already infantilized by society and removing their bodily autonomy because some people feel that they can't be trusted to "do the right thing" is an insult to all women.

I realize that my comment doesn't cover the multitude of scenarios that have been discussed but just wanted to share my two cents.

[Irishy]

10 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

This sentence really doesn't sit right with me, autonomy of the adult aside. Putting up a child "for adoption" isn't like "bring a pig to auction," which is what this phrasing makes me think of. It's a human child, who will have lifelong physical medical issues and now trauma (mental health is health, but some people like to make a distinction.) 

And I know I said "autonomy of the adult aside," but it kind of sounds like a forced birth program, with women being used as incubators so a childless couple can "get a baby" of off the "adoption block." 

 

Thank you for saying this. Adoption is not an alternative to abortion. It’s nobody’s job to provide a steady supply of babies to prospective adoptive parents. 

[habert]

If you say there are conditions to abortion, then you believe there are reasons you think a woman should be forced through labor and birth. I will never believe a woman should be forced to go through labor and birth, and so I believe in condition free abortions. 

[meee]

17 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

We are discussing fetuses at the point of viability. Meaning, no, they are not dependent on the mother.

Wait a minute, do you mean viability or term? At viability--23-24 weeks--they are absolutely still dependent on the mother, or alternatively they are dependent on a NICU incubator and a lot of intense, invasive, and expensive medical care, and even then the odds of them surviving are only about fifty fifty, as far as I know.  I don't think you can say a fetus doesn't need to be dependent on the mother much before 36 weeks.

[KelseyAnn]

19 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

I am not going to agree with you on this when it is a healthy fetus that is at or near the point of viability. The process for ending a pregnancy at that point is hard on the woman’s body, regardless of outcome. There is no reason that viable infant couldn’t be put up for adoption at that point. 

And, also, in this day in age it's remarkably easy to not  get pregnant. 

[Mama Mia]

15 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

Doesn't matter, though. The woman, and only the woman, has the right to make medical decisions about her body. If she wants to file for eviction at 21 weeks, she can. If she can't make it to the doctor before 23 weeks. than no one else should be able to tell her what she can and can't do with her own body. There is no other medical condition where they take away autonomy like this for another person. None. 

There is no other situation that is equivalent, so that argument makes no sense. 

[Irishy]

32 minutes ago, KelseyAnn said:

And, also, in this day in age it's remarkably easy to not  get pregnant. 

Again, let’s place all the responsibility on the woman.

One in three women will experience sexual assault. NO contraception is 100% effective. 

[Mama Mia]

It is interesting to me that so many posters are arguing so vehemently in favor of abortion availability at any point in pregnancy, for any reason when that is so clearly out of step with the laws of the EU and UK, and ...well.. everywhere.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/09/is-the-united-states-one-of-seven-countries-that-allow-elective-abortions-after-20-weeks-of-pregnancy/?utm_term=.79035f6dc325

https://www.france24.com/en/20180525-abortion-laws-vary-eu-ireland-malta-poland-termination

And prevailing opinion in the US

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/13/619200865/americans-support-for-abortion-rights-wanes-as-pregnancy-progresses

I am not, by any stretch, saying public opinion is what should guide views. But it is hardly some hard right, anti- abortion rally position to be against elective abortion near or past viability. 

 

 

 

[Mama Mia]

2 hours ago, habert said:

If you say there are conditions to abortion, then you believe there are reasons you think a woman should be forced through labor and birth. I will never believe a woman should be forced to go through labor and birth, and so I believe in condition free abortions. 

I don’t want to be graphic - but you do realize that the fetus/ baby has to come out somehow, right? It doesn’t magically transform into a 6 week embryo at 24 weeks so it can be removed with a pill or vacuum aspiration. 

[KelseyAnn]

17 minutes ago, Irishy said:

Again, let’s place all the responsibility on the woman.

One in three women will experience sexual assault. NO contraception is 100% effective. 

It's also remarkably easy for a man not to get a woman pregnant either, so...