Abortion: Rights, Permission, and Family (among other things)

[Bells]

Actually I don't think its acceptable even in such cases, but its more justifiable. A person born of rape is as innocent as a person born of love, don't you think?

But yet, you seem to think destroying one is justified and the other, not justified.

It is that stance that I cannot quite grasp. Why is it justifiable to destroy one foetus but not another?

In the case of choosing between the mothers life and the childs life, thats a doctors decision to advise on such, but they always ask for informed consent and then its upto the woman or her guardian. You've been through this, would you have considered it acceptable to abort the child if it was a decision between the two of you?

I was not given a choice. I was told, right to my face in the most distressing time of my pregnancy that their first and only priority was to ensure my survival, even after I begged them to save the child first (ie get the child out and make sure he was alright before they worried about me). To my doctors, my son's life was secondary at that point in time. My husband was rushing back to the hospital and was not there to give any form of consent and I suspect they thought me too hysterical at that time to make an informed choice, so they made it for me.

Granted, I was a tad hysterical.. I was calm until I heard the midwife swear and start screaming for help when she saw what had happened to me. Then I admit, some panic started to set in as I realised the gravity of the situation and then when they couldn't get the baby's heartbeat on the foetal monitor as I was rushed down the corridor at breakneck speed, my first and only thought was to get my son out and revive him at all costs and I remember the panic I felt when I started to realise that may not happen and then the utter devastation as they rushed me into theater and told me as I begged them to save my son, that my son was no longer a priority. By that time, they had gotten the heartbeat so I knew my son was still alive. And it was full intent to ensure he stayed that way. But due to my.. ermm.. slightly stressed state, they told me no. And then they put me under.

Would I react the same way today? Yes. Without a doubt. But it should still be my choice to make. It still rankles me that they didn't allow me to have that voice. But we both made it, so they obviously did something to ensure my son's survival at that time.

But that is me. I cannot and would never speak for another woman with something like this. It should be her decision to make and she should not face the repercussions and hatred of society for choosing her life and her wellbeing first, regardless of the reasons why she made the decision to have an abortion.

 

[mordea]

:wallbang:

To reiterate:

Okay, just a remedial note for those who need it: Abortion is a reproductive health service.​

So is tubal ligation. However, I suspect that many parents would be horrified if they later found out that their 15 year old daughter had their tubes tied without first being contacted for confirmation.

The fact of the matter is that there was ambiguity regarding the issue. Given that so many pro-lifers exist in America, the school should have clarified this ambiguity on the consent form by stating that health services that may be provided included abortions. They did not. Therefore they obtained uninformed consent from the parent. Ergo: Her rights were violated.

QED.

 

[S.A.M.]

But yet, you seem to think destroying one is justified and the other, not justified.

It is that stance that I cannot quite grasp. Why is it justifiable to destroy one foetus but not another?

To me, there is no difference. But I can understand destroying a child as a result of rape the same way I can understand killing a child because of post partum depression.

I was not given a choice. I was told, right to my face in the most distressing time of my pregnancy that their first and only priority was to ensure my survival, even after I begged them to save the child first (ie get the child out and make sure he was alright before they worried about me). To my doctors, my son's life was secondary at that point in time. My husband was rushing back to the hospital and was not there to give any form of consent and I suspect they thought me too hysterical at that time to make an informed choice, so they made it for me.

Granted, I was a tad hysterical.. I was calm until I heard the midwife swear and start screaming for help when she saw what had happened to me. Then I admit, some panic started to set in as I realised the gravity of the situation and then when they couldn't get the baby's heartbeat on the foetal monitor as I was rushed down the corridor at breakneck speed, my first and only thought was to get my son out and revive him at all costs and I remember the panic I felt when I started to realise that may not happen and then the utter devastation as they rushed me into theater and told me as I begged them to save my son, that my son was no longer a priority. By that time, they had gotten the heartbeat so I knew my son was still alive. And it was full intent to ensure he stayed that way. But due to my.. ermm.. slightly stressed state, they told me no. And then they put me under.

Would I react the same way today? Yes. Without a doubt. But it should still be my choice to make. It still rankles me that they didn't allow me to have that voice. But we both made it, so they obviously did something to ensure my son's survival at that time.

But that is me. I cannot and would never speak for another woman with something like this. It should be her decision to make and she should not face the repercussions and hatred of society for choosing her life and her wellbeing first, regardless of the reasons why she made the decision to have an abortion.

So if you had been asked, what would you have said?

I'm not speaking for any other woman. These are all solely my opinions.

 

[Bells]

So is tubal ligation. However, I suspect that many parents would be horrified if they later found out that their 15 year old daughter had their tubes tied without first being contacted for confirmation.

The fact of the matter is that there was ambiguity regarding the issue. Given that so many pro-lifers exist in America, the school should have clarified this ambiguity on the consent form by stating that health services that may be provided included abortions. They did not. Therefore they obtained uninformed consent from the parent. Ergo: Her rights were violated.

QED.

Her rights were violated?

Pray tell, how so?

How are her rights tied to her daughter's womb? How exactly is her daughter's getting an abortion a violation of the mother's rights?

 

[Bells]

To me, there is no difference. But I can understand destroying a child as a result of rape the same way I can understand killing a child because of post partum depression.

One is not exactly the same as the other.

So if you had been asked, what would you have said?

In my first pregnancy, I was asked. Repeatedly in my first trimester. By my obstetrician, my GP and even by my own parents as they saw me deteriorate. I refused and stuck with it, much to my own detriment, both physically and somewhat mentally at the time. But that was my decision and I am forever thankful I did. I knew at the time I could do it if I was careful and thankfully it all turned out well in the end. Second pregnancy was a dream but the birth itself was like a nightmare, as explained in previous post.

Saying that however, I would never ever deny any other woman the right to make that choice, regardless of whether it was a rape or not or if her health was at risk or not.

It should be up to the individual woman to choose for themselves.

 

[S.A.M.]

If you had to do it over, knowing the physical, mental and emotional cost, what would you do?

 

[mordea]

Her rights were violated?

Pray tell, how so?

How are her rights tied to her daughter's womb? How exactly is her daughter's getting an abortion a violation of the mother's rights?

When the mother gave her consent for the school to provide health services to her daughter, she was not informed of all the implications of such consent. Ergo: Her right to informed consent was violated.

QED.

 

[Tiassa]

It's the "logic" of the desperate

Pray tell, how so?

It seems to me Mordea's argument is that everyone should be required to account for the full spectrum of extreme ignorance, crippling naîvete, or outright stupidity.

It's hard for me to figure how a "pro-life" mother could be so unaware that abortion is a reproductive health service when that particular contention is so often scrutinized in the American abortion debate. Most recently, we've been going through that very issue for months as part of our health care debate.

• • •​

So is tubal ligation. However, I suspect that many parents would be horrified if they later found out that their 15 year old daughter had their tubes tied without first being contacted for confirmation.

I don't think, given the logistics involved, that the comparison holds. No responsible surgeon would move a patient so quickly to the OR for tubal ligation except under dire emergency circumstances.

Additionally, with recovery time for tubal ligation projected at between three and eight days, I would be even more horrified if it took me months to find out my teenage daughter underwent the procedure.

The fact of the matter is that there was ambiguity regarding the issue. Given that so many pro-lifers exist in America, the school should have clarified this ambiguity on the consent form by stating that health services that may be provided included abortions. They did not. Therefore they obtained uninformed consent from the parent. Ergo: Her rights were violated.

As I noted to Bells, it is hard for me to figure how an allegedly pro-life mother wouldn't know that abortion is part of reproductive health services, given the scrutiny such terminology is given by the anti-abortion movement.

Pleading exceptional ignorance on her behalf only reinforces the point: The problem occurred in the mother's behavior and outlook, not the clinic's.

 

[mordea]

It seems to me Mordea's argument is that everyone should be required to account for the full spectrum of extreme ignorance, crippling naîvete, or outright stupidity.

Well done, you get a gold star.

The fact of the matter is that a large proportion of the population *is* ignorant of exactly what constitutes a 'reproductive health service', through no fault of their own. Indeed, people are often ignorant of medical terminology. And it's unethical to obtain their consent without first clarifying ambiguous or medical jargon.

Do you know what I find stupid? That a high school in America, with a large number of pro-lifers, would not supply a disclaimer which makes it very clear that 'reproductive health services' includes abortion.

It's hard for me to figure how a "pro-life" mother could be so unaware that abortion is a reproductive health service when that particular contention is so often scrutinized in the American abortion debate.

But clearly she was unaware. You're welcome to label it as her being uneducated, and that's exactly the point. It's irresponsible to obtain consent from an individual regarding the delivery of health services, if they haven't been educated about these services and the implications prior to obtaining their consent.

 

[Tiassa]

(chortle!)

Do you know what I find stupid? That a high school in America, with a large number of pro-lifers, would not supply a disclaimer which makes it very clear that 'reproductive health services' includes abortion.

A large number of pro-lifers at Ballard High School? Nominally, perhaps. But in a city that went 7:3 for Barack Obama and gave Jim McDermott over 83% of the vote, you're going to have to convince me that there is a mysterious concentration of conservatives in Ballard. Of course, the proposition that a mysterious pocket of oblivious, stupid conservatives exists in Ballard is a bit more plausible; there is still some old blood left in the neighborhood.

But clearly she was unaware. You're welcome to label it as her being uneducated, and that's exactly the point. It's irresponsible to obtain consent from an individual regarding the delivery of health services, if they haven't been educated about these services and the implications prior to obtaining their consent.

Then she shouldn't be a parent. Her kid needs someone who actually gives a damn.

I mean, if someone needs to be "educated" about what they're signing permission for? What do you recommend, a parents' seminar? Or maybe it would be easier for the parent to pick up the phone, or sit down at their computer, and call or email the clinic to ask? I don't know, just maybe? Seriously, if they're pro-life advocates, aren't state laws concerning abortion rights kind of, oh, you know, their specialty?

Your argument only hurts the mother and her sympathizers.

 

[Bells]

If you had to do it over, knowing the physical, mental and emotional cost, what would you do?

Hard to say now since I have my children and for me to now say that I would abort them now after having known them for 4.5 and 3 years respectively.. What do you think Sam? What kind of a parent would I now be if I said that yes, I would abort them if I had to do it all over again? The answer to that particularly strange question of yours is no, especially now that I know them.. even though they drive me up the proverbial wall from dawn to dusk, I could never live my life now without them in it. But I knew that when I first conceived them. I knew it would be a fight, especially with the first pregnancy, since I was not supposed to even be able to have children, let alone carry one to term. But I made the choice to do it.

When the mother gave her consent for the school to provide health services to her daughter, she was not informed of all the implications of such consent. Ergo: Her right to informed consent was violated.

You still have not said why the mother should have informed consent on her daughter's womb in this particular case.

If it was the daughter who was unaware that they would perform an abortion against her own wishes, then you may have a case. But you are talking about the mother's informed consent? On her daughter's uterus?

If she is unhappy about her daughter's choice, she should take it up with her daughter. Not with the school and the clinic who respected the daughter's wishes and choice in the matter.

The fact of the matter is that a large proportion of the population *is* ignorant of exactly what constitutes a 'reproductive health service', through no fault of their own.

Seriously?

What part of "reproductive health service" is so hard to understand? Is it the "reproductive" part that is difficult? Dictionaries are available everywhere. If the mother was unaware of what the word "reproductive" meant, she should have inquired into it before she signed the consent form. The school and the clinic should not be held liable for the mother's complete and utter ignorance.

Do you know what I find stupid? That a high school in America, with a large number of pro-lifers, would not supply a disclaimer which makes it very clear that 'reproductive health services' includes abortion.

What is utterly stupid is that a school should have to include what the term "reproductive health services" actually stands for. It would seem the 15 year old knows more about what it actually means than her own mother.

But clearly she was unaware. You're welcome to label it as her being uneducated, and that's exactly the point. It's irresponsible to obtain consent from an individual regarding the delivery of health services, if they haven't been educated about these services and the implications prior to obtaining their consent.

I'm sorry, but what?

Lets see. The mother willingly signs a consent form with "reproductive health services" on it, apparently without knowing what the term "reproductive" means. How exactly is the school or the clinic to know that she did not know what that meant? Are you saying they should call all parents who signed the consent form and ask them if they know what the word "reproductive" means? Should the school and the clinic expect that all parents who sign the form are stupid? Is the mother mentally disabled, that would mean that extra clarification should have been sought from her to ensure she was making an informed choice? No. There was no indication that the mother did not know what "reproductive" meant. She did not ask at the time she signed the form.

I find your argument in this to be silly. As though you are arguing just for argument's sake.

 

[sandy]

...I was not given a choice. I was told, right to my face in the most distressing time of my pregnancy that their first and only priority was to ensure my survival, even after I begged them to save the child first (ie get the child out and make sure he was alright before they worried about me). To my doctors, my son's life was secondary at that point in time. My husband was rushing back to the hospital and was not there to give any form of consent and I suspect they thought me too hysterical at that time to make an informed choice, so they made it for me. Granted, I was a tad hysterical.. I was calm until I heard the midwife swear and start screaming for help when she saw what had happened to me. Then I admit, some panic started to set in as I realised the gravity of the situation and then when they couldn't get the baby's heartbeat on the foetal monitor as I was rushed down the corridor at breakneck speed, my first and only thought was to get my son out and revive him at all costs and I remember the panic I felt when I started to realise that may not happen and then the utter devastation as they rushed me into theater and told me as I begged them to save my son, that my son was no longer a priority. By that time, they had gotten the heartbeat so I knew my son was still alive. And it was full intent to ensure he stayed that way. But due to my.. ermm.. slightly stressed state, they told me no. And then they put me under.

I'm sorry that happened to you. I'm glad you and your kids are ok.

 

[Kennyc]

I would urge anyone interested in this topic to read Sam Harris's chapter called "Doing Good for God" in his "Letter to a Christian Nation" book.

 

[Asguard]

Bells, we discussed that at uni. Admitedly there is little on an Ambulance we could use to help a fetus at the detrement of the mother and little on board which is dangerious to the fetus anyway but we were specifically told "no matter what, the mother is the primary responcability, if the mother needs a drug and it will harm or kill the fetus thats just to bad". Not a situation i hope to ever be in but thats the way the ambulance services view these situations.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

If you had to do it over, knowing the physical, mental and emotional cost, what would you do?

Sam don't you think that this is an unrelated question to ask Bells? I mean she chose to have the baby from the very beginning, so of course she would have wanted the child to live when she discovered there was a problem in delivery. Her circumstances and choices in no way mirrors that of a woman who doesn't want to have a child and wishes to abort.