Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum

Premature Delivery vs. Late Term Abortion

User Profile
Would it be fair in the cases of late term abortions to allow the baby to be delivered and the woman can go about her merry way since it no longer needs her or her body to survive after it reaches viability? At that point its no longer an issue of her body because the baby could be removed in one piece (her cervix has to be dialated to have a late term abortion anyway) and she'd definitely no longer be pregnant. She'd also not be listed as the mother and they would go about the business of delivery as though the baby did not exist and she was not a mother. Instead of signing an abortion form she'd sign away any and all parental rights and would NOT be listed as the mother of the child, the only information about her that would be known is hereditary medical information. She'd never see the child or know if it survived. Sort of a post-delivery abortion.

This option would ONLY be avilable if the pregnant woman or teen decided that she no longer wanted to be pregnanted ie wanted an abortion AFTER the fetus is viable.
Did you find this post helpful?
|

replied April 9th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
That is pretty much my position. However, in fact there are very few abortions carried out after viability (c. 24 weeks), and any that are almost always for serious fetal abnormality. Where there is a threat to the woman's life or health, it is more likely that the pregnancy would be maintained as long as possible, and then delivered prematurely anyway.

Note: this is based on both laws restricting late term abortions, and any statistics I have ever read on abortions. There will, of course, be a few individual examples of exceptions to this, which some people feel are the important ones.

Another issue is that a very premature baby is far more likely to suffer significant complications and require extensive medical support. The question is who is going to pay for this? Someone needs to think that the expense and effort are worthwhile, and we can be talking $millions.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 9th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
well
If I find the article for you I will but there is or was an illegal immigrant who is pretty much brain dead on life support in northern US has NO medical insurance and advocates are fighting tooth and nail not to have him sent to a Mexican hospital (he's a Mexican native) for further treatment but to remain here on American tax dollars until he regains consciousness, which could be never. His is not the only such instance of someone without medical insurance who is taking advantage of free medical care to save their lives. The difference is these are usually adults who COULD afford health care but never bothered to buy insurance, illegal immigrants who were completely undocumented (read: no ID no social security number, few knew of their existence pretty much) and criminals.

I've always felt that tax paying citizens, the very poor, the very young (read infants, babies and small children) and very old should have precedence to free health coverage as they need it most and usually can't always afford it but contributed to the pie in some way (except babies its usually their parents who contributed their tax dollars).
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 9th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
But I live in the UK, where we are more civilised about such things anyway.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 9th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
Yes of c ourse, the UK has a universal health care system in place if I'm not mistaken. Obama is working on that for us and I hope it gets passed through.

The UK has a very very strict immigration policy. I don't think you'll ever experience the hot button issues over immigration that we experience here in the US.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 9th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
Phenicks wrote:


The UK has a very very strict immigration policy. I don't think you'll ever experience the hot button issues over immigration that we experience here in the US.


I am not sure where you go that idea.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
Users who thank oopoop for this post: LucyParr1965  Moo 

User Profile
replied April 9th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
This website doesn't allow me to post links to other websites but if you google information concerning immigration in your country you'll see for yourself. Developed countries as a whole in Eurpoe are not lax on immigration policy and laws.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 9th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
On the whole, I believe the US is rather more restrictive about immigration than is the UK. Keep in mind that anyone from almost any European Union country is free to move here. It is also relatively easy for someone to bring in a spouse, which many people do from India, Pakistan, etc.

But further, I don't understand why you think that immigration isn't a "hot button" issue here. You seem to be misinformed.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied April 9th, 2009
Active User, very eHealthy
There are about 15+ million illegal immigrants in the country all utilizing social services during a time when things like affordable abortions are in danger of lack of funding because of the new demands on public dollars by the increase in population. I could go on and on but many people think the US isn't being "nice" to its neighboring countries when in fact thats not the case.

I know thats its much harder to get into the UK than it is to get into the US and utilize public services. Don't presusme to be more civilized than the US until your counmtry faces the same problems and is looking at losing abortion money amongst other things so that an illegal immigrant can go to schol or get medical care there instead of in their native country where the kind of care they need would be no less than what they'd receive in the UK. How civilized is it to think someone's desire to get medical care illegally and free in one country is worth a citizen being FORCED to carry a baby to term?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 9th, 2009
Extremely eHealthy
Phenicks wrote:
There are about 15+ million illegal immigrants in the country all utilizing social services during a time when things like affordable abortions are in danger of lack of funding because of the new demands on public dollars by the increase in population. I could go on and on but many people think the US isn't being "nice" to its neighboring countries when in fact thats not the case.

I know thats its much harder to get into the UK than it is to get into the US and utilize public services. Don't presusme to be more civilized than the US until your counmtry faces the same problems and is looking at losing abortion money amongst other things so that an illegal immigrant can go to schol or get medical care there instead of in their native country where the kind of care they need would be no less than what they'd receive in the UK. How civilized is it to think someone's desire to get medical care illegally and free in one country is worth a citizen being FORCED to carry a baby to term?


What the heck are you ranting about?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 3rd, 2011
Bunch of crap, if you don't want to carry a pregnancy to term, don't get pregnant. Period. And don't pull that incest/rape crap out of your hat because it is less than 1% of cases. Young girls these days want to use abortion as a method of birth control. It's all a bunch of liberal wing ding bullcrap!!! Come on man, it just IS NOT right to kill babies just cause you have your own agenda. IT IS your body, so take care of it and respect it.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 7th, 2011
Community Volunteer
Locking thread, old.
|
Did you find this post helpful?