Hospital aborts wrong baby

[Greenday]

Pro-choice means that you support other people having the choice of abortion for themselves, regardless of reason. You may disagree with their reason, but that's not really relevant - it's their choice and that's all that matters.

Well, thank God that has nothing to do with our argument. We are saying it's possible to be pro-choice without wanting people to use it as a primary form of birth control.

[BlaqueKatt]

Except for the fact that none of the articles give any indication that there was a great likelihood that there would be any deceased fetus to cause issues. Yes, there was a possibility that the one twin might not have lived until birth. That's also a possibility with completely healthy babies as well.

Based on the information that has been presented in the articles I read, the one twin had a heart defect that would likely have resulted in a tough life for that child. Or it might not have. Death prior to birth does not seem to have been a particularly high risk; at least not high enough to make an abortion at 32 weeks the preferable choice.

I think we crossed paths here, I'm arguing more or less that attempting to abort at 32 weeks(via injection to kill the "unhealthy" fetus in utero) would've likely caused the "healthy" fetus to be born early with a possible worse health outlook than the so-called "unhealthy" fetus(or cause infection in the mother), and I wonder why any physician would give it as a viable option.

[Andara Bledin]

I think we crossed paths here...

Yes, you're right. I mis-read something you'd said in response to someone else a couple of pages back. >_<

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

I like how you "directly quote" from "the literature" and fail to provide any links to said literature.

About.com Civil Rights
Abortion, Autonomy, and Control Over One's Body
The human right of bodily integrity and the challenge of intercultural
dialogue

My apologies; I thought you would be quite familiar with the current issue of bodily integrity and autonomy as it relates to current social justice agenda in feminism, especially as implemented by the patriarchy.

Of those sources I found for the quote as you stated it, there were a number of anti-choice websites holding that concept up as a straw man for easy defeat, since a more nuanced, and more realistic, position is much harder to fight against. The only neutral source further expanded that part of the pro-choice position is for the legality of abortion through the first two trimesters, not unlimited abortion.

The only way it becomes a straw man is if you try to impute a moral/religious component that makes the unborn fetus into something more than it is. Fact: That fetus is not truly a person under the law until born. Fact: No person, under right bodily autonomy, should have to suffer a parasite on their body unless they will it to be so. Religious and moral components to this conversation are outside the scope of what should be considered and so should be disregarded, just as we disregard creationism and "intelligent design" in favor of science.

Also, regardless of whether the abortion was legal or not (which was never called into question), this is about the advisability. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Whether or not it is advisable is no one's business but the person making the decision. They have the information they need to make the decision; the choice is subsequently up to them. It does not matter whether you should or should not have done something, only that you have the choice to exercise your free will.

Well, thank God that has nothing to do with our argument. We are saying it's possible to be pro-choice without wanting people to use it as a primary form of birth control.

Without wanting it used as a primary form of birth control (a myth in and of itself anyway) = prevent it from happening. IE, interdiction by law.

Conversely, I prefer to be pro-choice in the matter; that the person use it as a primary form of birth control in and of itself if they so choose. For me to judge otherwise would be contrary to a pro-choice position. Choice is choice, whether a "good" or "bad" choice.

[Greenday]

Without wanting it used as a primary form of birth control (a myth in and of itself anyway) = prevent it from happening. IE, interdiction by law.

Conversely, I prefer to be pro-choice in the matter; that the person use it as a primary form of birth control in and of itself if they so choose. For me to judge otherwise would be contrary to a pro-choice position. Choice is choice, whether a "good" or "bad" choice.

It's a myth only in that most people don't do it. It's not a myth in the fact that there is a very small minority who DO use it as their primary form of birth control.

Pro Choice doesn't have to mean pro being cool with people doing it for whatever reason they want. Pro Choice can easily mean having the option to have one, even if the way you use it is just plain screwed up. No one, including me, is saying that reasoning matters. But even though I think people should be able to have abortions for whatever reason tickles their fancy, I can still have an opinion about the people based on why.

[FArchivist]

It's a myth only in that most people don't do it. It's not a myth in the fact that there is a very small minority who DO use it as their primary form of birth control.

No, it's a myth in that NO ONE uses it as a primary form of birth control. It's a myth, an urban legend, bullshit. But don't take my word for it:

In fact, half of all women getting abortions report that contraception was used during the month they became pregnant.1 Some of these couples had used the method improperly; some had forgotten or neglected to use it on the particular occasion they conceived; and some had used a contraceptive that failed. No contraceptive method prevents pregnancy 100% of the time.

If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year - 30 or more during her lifetime. In fact, most women who have abortions have had no previous abortions (52%) or only one previous abortion (26%).5 Considering that most women are fertile for over 30 years, and that birth control is not perfect, the likelihood of having one or two unintended pregnancies is very high.

See the references 1-5 at the bottom of the page for more information. And independent studies have been done, like this one in Australia, showing that it's a complete fabrication. As one noted feminist blogger has stated, "I can firmly say that I do not believe that any woman uses the equivalent of a jackhammer to the guts followed by bleeding and clotting as well as no intercourse and 'light duty' for several weeks as birth control. "

And if you know someone who IS, contrary to all findings? I want to know where they're getting the $800-1500 to pay for each one. It sure ain't from federal funding; abortion isn't covered under Medicaid.

Pro Choice can easily mean having the option to have one, even if the way you use it is just plain screwed up. No one, including me, is saying that reasoning matters. But even though I think people should be able to have abortions for whatever reason tickles their fancy, I can still have an opinion about the people based on why.

An opinion is judgment; judgment is in fact Not Approving.

[Andara Bledin]

My apologies; I thought you would be quite familiar with the current issue of bodily integrity and autonomy as it relates to current social justice agenda in feminism, especially as implemented by the patriarchy.

So you did use the About.com source I found.

I like how you conveniently omitted and/or ignored the part just a few lines down that states the point about how the Pro-Choice camp only fights for the right to choose an abortion through the 2nd trimester, not up until the point of birth. Pro-choice as a political stance is not as unlimited as you are claiming.

Then for your second citation, you link to a report that must be purchased. Either link to something free or don't link at all; linking to pay content is just plain tacky.

As for your third, it mentions neither the pro-choice movement nor abortions at all, so I'm not quite sure why you are using it in support of the notion that to be pro-choice is to be in favor of legalizing abortion in any and all circumstances.

^-.-^

[tabbyblack13]

Let's talk about the hospital and the doctors involved for a little bit. From what I understand this was an accident and the wrong fetus was injected. What was the cause of this accident? Was the ultrasound tech not fully trained? Did the fetuses consistently move during the procedure? Did the doctor listen to the tech on the positions of the fetuses?

Also, was there a true medical issue with the targeted fetus? If I found out that I was carrying a fetus with a potentially deadly condition I would ask for a second opinion from both a OB/Gyn and someone who specialized in these issues. Here's a big question. Did this woman do this or was given the information to do this? Did the doctor pressure her to do this right now and didn't give her a chance to look into this?

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered for me to understand what happened.

[Andara Bledin]

No, it's a myth in that NO ONE uses it as a primary form of birth control. It's a myth, an urban legend, bullshit. But don't take my word for it:

You're making this way too easy. It's like you're not even trying.

To say that no one, not a single person ever, used or uses abortion as a primary form of birth control is easily provable as false.

It's like you've constructed a straw man under the delusion that you think it'll hold up as a solid argument.

I was actually frightfully common in Russia. This might not be the case today, but it was the case then.

Also, a 1991 paper published by the US National Library of Medicine cites that abortion was also the primary form for Greece, as well. Unfortunately, all I can find on this is an abstract of the article titled The Triviality of Abortion in Greece.

Finally, I will leave this link to a fascinating article by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan exploring the entirety of the spectrum of the abortion issue, from absolute Pro-Life to absolute Pro-Choice. This is an excerpt from the book Billions and Billions, published in 1997.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

So you did use the About.com source I found.

I'm giving it as an example.

I like how you conveniently omitted and/or ignored the part just a few lines down that states the point about how the Pro-Choice camp only fights for the right to choose an abortion through the 2nd trimester, not up until the point of birth. Pro-choice as a political stance is not as unlimited as you are claiming.

The majority of the "pro-choice" camp, whom is more accurately named the "lukewarm choice" camp. They don't really believe in choice and are a primary problem in making sure that women have adequate access to make that choice.

Or in short: Most people who say they're pro-choice, aren't.

Then for your second citation, you link to a report that must be purchased. Either link to something free or don't link at all; linking to pay content is just plain tacky.

Tacky or not, if you don't want to pay go to your university and request a copy of the article, as long as you are a student. I make no apologies for using REAL sources as much as possible.

As for your third, it mentions neither the pro-choice movement nor abortions at all, so I'm not quite sure why you are using it in support of the notion that to be pro-choice is to be in favor of legalizing abortion in any and all circumstances.

It's a paper on bodily autonomy, just like this one, which is what we're talking about. When we say "pro-choice", what we're really saying is "pro-female bodily autonomy", the right of women to govern their bodies without having input from the patriarchal rape culture that dominates and oppresses women in modern American society. That's all the "choice" about abortion is really about; do you have the right to govern your own body or does the kyriarchy govern it for you? It's no coincidence that the heart of the pro-life movement are the Christian Patriarchy advocates and that these make up the base of the kyriarchy.[1]

And this is merely the tip of the iceberg, since the issue has intersectionality with several other issues of gender, race, class, disability, and other axes of identity that interact on multiple and simultaneous levels, contributing to systematic social inequality.

[1] The kyriarchy is the term for the ruling white supremacist colonialist ableist ageist lookist sex-negative heteronormative cissexist capitalist patriarchy that dominates Western society and culture.

[Andara Bledin]

Except that anti-abortion sentiments in western culture are actually relatively recent, apparently in large part a reaction to drastically lowered birthrates.

Even the Catholic Church was largely ambivalent about the issue until more modern times. The penalty for abortion was only changed to Excommunication (also the penalty for homicide) as a way to punish prostitutes, not for any issue related to the unborn child, and that only lasted three years, when a new pope immediately changed things back to near how they had been prior. In fact, the majority of the Church's objection to abortion was its use to hide sexual sins - still no consideration regarding the aborted fetus. It wasn't until the late 19th century and Pope Pius IX that the fetus was given any actual consideration and abortion declared homicide in the eyes of the church.

And in the US, abortion laws only started as a response to a push by newly accredited doctors acting to protect their own financial interests by preventing non-doctors from performing, and then by making any determination regarding, abortions. This push began only 130 years ago, and were replaced by Roe vs Wade nearly 40 years ago.

No matter how you consider it, however, there is a point where a fetus turns from a potential human being into a viable human being. That point is most likely somewhere in the early to middle part of the third trimester. So, when weighing the rights of the woman versus the rights of the viable but unborn human being, it is unreasonable to favor the woman to the exclusion of all else; there must be a line, and it is most reasonable to draw that line at the end of the second trimester.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

I was actually frightfully common in Russia. This might not be the case today, but it was the case then.

Apparently less well known is the fact that birth control pills and effective condoms in the Soviet Union were available only to the ruling nomenklatura and were not available to the Soviet people at large. In the USSR and other members of the Warsaw Pact, abortion was the only family planning available. Once Communism fell and birth control and effective condoms became widely available, the rate of abortion fell to current Western levels in proportion to the population and abortion laws have been modified to be more religious in nature. Thus, the two situations are not remotely analogous, unless we're prepared to claim that the USSR was comparable to the USA or another Western nation.

Also, a 1991 paper published by the US National Library of Medicine cites that abortion was also the primary form for Greece, as well. Unfortunately, all I can find on this is an abstract of the article titled The Triviality of Abortion in Greece.

And the reason is able to be determined. From here:

What is evident in comparison with other European countries is two particularities of the Greek situation in regard to the attitudes towards contraceptive methods. First, Greek society has not fully adopted the use of modern methods of contraception. According to the statistical data provided by the pharmaceutical companies (Margaritidou et al. 1991), such methods are not easily available and their use is relatively low (i.e., IUD sales are 20,000 annually). Thus, the condom, which is available through pharmacies, supermarkets, and kiosks, is still the most widely used method of contraception. Second, there is a tendency for many Greek couples to prove their fertility by not using contraception and resorting to frequent abortion. I

In other words, the high incidence of abortion is primarily due to a) lack of availability of modern birth control methods, much like most of Africa and b) systematic boasts of fertility coming from a macho perspective involving pervasive rape culture-style aggressive boasting. Again, not analogous to Western culture. This abstract as well confirms the lack of modern methods available.

Finally, I will leave this link to a fascinating article by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan exploring the entirety of the spectrum of the abortion issue, from absolute Pro-Life to absolute Pro-Choice. This is an excerpt from the book Billions and Billions, published in 1997.

Carl Sagan was a brilliant man...about astronomical science. (Ann Druyan, too, is a cosmologist.) He frequently expressed opinions on things that were not in his field. That doesn't mean I'm going to consider him to be an expert on anything that isn't astronomical science. The article you reference is an excellent example of his use of humanism as a philosophy. However, I am an anti-humanist, in that I oppose humanism on philosophical grounds, arguing that "human reason" is only an illusory source of morality, as it is only a reflection of societal norms and social practices and nothing intrinsically special.

[FArchivist]

No matter how you consider it, however, there is a point where a fetus turns from a potential human being into a viable human being. That point is most likely somewhere in the early to middle part of the third trimester.

No, that has been determined by law. In pretty much every legal system in existence, a fetus is not an actual live human with rights and freedoms and responsibilities until it is born. Pre-birth: Not a person. After-birth: Person.

If we wish to state that a fetus in the early to middle part of the third trimester is a legal person as such, then we need to alter the personhood laws, as they tried to do in MS.

[Sleepwalker]

Doesn't matter if they are a person. No person can force use of your body against your wishes. Your born child is not legally entitled to even your breastmilk, much less your uterus.

[Sleepwalker]

People who go, "Oh, hey, it's a girl and I wanted a boy, so I'm going to flush this perfectly healthy baby that I would otherwise give birth to if it matched up to my expectations" are frivolous. That's like giving your kid to the foster system because he turns out to have red hair or he doesn't have blue eyes.

No, it is not like giving your kid to the foster system, since an aborted fetus never becomes a kid. Abortion is a way to end unwanted pregnancy. Simply because you don't like the reasons they don't want it is irrelevant. It is not your fetus or your body. That you hate the 'frivolity' of the woman is not a reason to force said woman to bear a child, nor for said child to be born unwanted.