Abortion

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more.

 

Anyone who gets a sterilization before they know that outcome of a pregnancy is, in my mind, an idiot. I've delivered babies by cesarean and we had planned on doing a tubal at the same time. There have been a few instances where we didn't do the tubal because after the delivery, we weren't sure about the well being of the baby.

When you tell a mom who has just had a baby that's being intubated, "I think we should skip the tubal", they're pretty quick to agree.

I've told some couples not to think about a vasectomy until a few months has passed because of the risk of SIDS.

Giving a husband the right of refusal of an abortion would make it the ONLY surgical procedure where someone, who has no physical involvement in the condition, can put his will on another person, assuming that person has complete control of their mental faculties.

I've seen women who are horrified at the prospect they might be pregnant due to things like hyperemesis(nausea/vomiting), pre-eclampsia, back pain, pelvic pain, diabetes. In the movies and on TV they show this simplistic view of women waking up and having to sit by the toilet once or twice and craving pickles and ice cream. I've seen women hospitalized for weeks, getting all their nutrition from a 2 liter bag of fat, protein and vitamins because they're so sick they've lost 30 pounds in 4 weeks. One woman was in the ICU for 3 months with something called Eisenmenger's syndrome, she KNEW and we KNEW she would die after the baby was born, if not before. Unfortunately, she was diagnosed when it was late in the pregnancy...she died and left 3 other kids behind. To give you some perspective, this was at a Catholic hospital and we had the authority from the Vatican...yes, the Vatican...to terminate the pregnancy at 22 weeks. She died anyway.

This past summer I had a patient who was raped by her husband and pregnant with twins. She died after delivery from massive hemorrhage while her husband sat in jail. You want to give him the right to tell her you couldn't abort that pregnancy. She leaves 7 children behind.

 

Simple, you don't know if he's really the father. That's the reason the Jews pass on their religion through the mother(ie, you're not Jewish because your dad is Jewish), you can never be sure who is the father.

And if you think the mother really knows who is the father, then you've never been to an inner city health clinic. Paternity testing is now paid for in some places since you have to know where to send the bill for child support.

 

When a human is a human is the subject of philosophy not science, at least at this point, maybe at some point science will be able to do this but it may need much more study. Until then we exist in the realm of religion, philosophy not science and given that people will and should disagree. I believe that each of us should respect the believes of others. Until we reach the point where we can prove beyond doubt with data that a human life begins at a particular point we need to respect each persons point of view. No one has the right to impose their "beliefs" no mater how strong on an another person.

 

Have you ever heard of "ethics"?

(Yeah, I know, side issue, he/she won't get it, why waste electrons...)

 

Ooops too late. I even told them to snip off some extra - just to make sure there was no chance of a rare failure.

That was easy on my part: I don't like children, and can't stand the thought of a bunch of larvae wiggling around in my home. Call it selfish or whatever, I know that deep down I'd probably make an indifferent dad.

Contrast that to the multitude of bad parents out there who still insisted on having kids.

I have a problem with a woman who waits so long for an abortion that the fetus could survive on its own, or with a little assistance. The input of the medical community is needed to determine a cutoff date beyond conception, where the fetus should be carried to term unless the health of the mother is at stake

 

Your honesty is refreshing. Glad to see men taking responsiblity on the reproductive front.

However, your last paragraph reveals the 2 fundamental flaws about abortion. This is not directed towards you, it just brings up the issues.
1. Your problem with abortion is based on your opinion. Just because you have a problem with later week abortions should not have an effect on a woman's choice.
That is your opinion--you don't know the circumsance of each person choice, nor should you because it is a private matter--Why do we believe that we are entilted to input on these personal matters. Is it any different than imposing vascetomy on men under certain situation--which personally I think is a great idea. But do I have the right to make it a law.

2. Though I appreciate any information a medical doctor can give, they should have not have more power or input over the decision than the woman. Your husband, family friends or medical doctor can and should only advise, if you seek that advice. It's paternalistic thinking and treats women like they are incompetent.

So let me turn the tables. I believe that men should only have children with one women, unless they adopt--. I believe they should be limited to sexual partners--male or female, say 10 in a lifetime. I believe that all men who violate these conditions should be given a vascetomy and that all doctors are required to report them to the authorities if known to violate any of these conditions. In addition, if you own a gun or a pit bull, ratweiler or other scary dogs and live in a populated area--hell give them a vasecomety too. If you are a rapist or pediphile--there gone. Under these conditions, I would be happy to put guideleines on women's reproductive rights.

 

this sounds like a resurgence of eugenics. i understand you're using it as a comparison, but removing someone's reproductive capacity does not compare to allowing or disallowing abortion.

after an abortion, a woman is still capable of getting pregnant again. after a vasectomy, well, you can guess the chances of a man fathering an offspring.

so if men are only allowed to have children with one woman... what does that mean for a man who is married, has children, becomes a widower, later finds someone else, get married again, and wants to have more children? is that fair? i think in that respect you're bringing up the unspoken cultural standards that are held here rather than the law.

 

All I am trying to say is that these are my opinions--I don't have the right to impose them on anyone. I believe them to be a reverse comparison of the abortion debate. Ridiculous, right--the same way I see the abortion debate.

Because men can not give birth there is no true comparison except to limit his reproductive rights somehow, which is what abortion restrictions due to woman.
If we have the right to in anyway impare the reproductive rights of women, we should also have the right to put conditions on men's reproductive rights.

And again, I don't believe law should be created aroung the worst case scenario.
Woman's choice, no restrictions, not my business--secong hand smoke, environmental pollution, gun violence, child abuse effect me more than a woman having a late term abortion.

 

Mann, there are some cold, heartless people here.

 

It's totally unfair to say that, by limiting late (and I mean LATE) term abortions, that we're creating a law based on the worst case scenario. Creating a law based on the worst case scenario would be me saying, "Since some women may get abortions at 8.5 months, abortion should be outlawed." I'm certainly not saying that. I'm saying that all laws have to have a reasonable limit.

1. We have a law that says that it's not OK to kill children. I think that's good.

2. We have a law that says abortions are OK. I think that's good.

Where is the interface between these two laws? Do you honestly believe that law 1 only comes into effect after the child passes out of the birth canal?

 

I voted yes that abortion should be allowed. I am totally Pro-Choice.

I do have to say, personally, I don't think late term abortion should be given freely and it should be done only in cases where the mother's life in endangered. However, that is my personal opinion and I still don't believe the government should regulate it.

 

I'm not 100% sure, but I think that is the way it is in some states. I've heard of some attempts to change it.

 

OK. That was poorly phrased, perhaps. I should say, "Do you really think that Law #1 should come into effect only after the baby exits the birth canal?"

 

Where is the evidence to suggest that multitudes of women are aborting babies during delivery that would require a society to create laws governing this practice?
FDA approved drugs are allowed to kill some people but not alot. What is wrong with a small percentage of woman aborting late if they so choose and why is it my business.

The law against murder in our country is not specific to children and under certain circumstances, murder is permissable.

Abortions restrictions are an invasion of privacy and oppressive to the reproductive rights of women. Though you may not feel this way nor been in a situation needing to exercise those rights, still gives you no cause to dictate the choice for other woman, no matter how wrong or unfair this may seem to you.