When does pro-choice become pro-abortion?

[tracy]

are D&C's and D&E's humane?

Define humane.

Older fetuses (those capable of sensation) that I've seen aborted were first killed by injecting them with potassium chloride. They didn't feel pain. They were all wanted babies who turned out to have horrible birth defects or chromosomal conditions that were incompatible with life. Would you consider that inhumane? It is a more peaceful way to go than the vast majority of us will experience.

Early abortions are done on embryos and fetuses incapable of sensation as we know it. I have never participated in them, so I don't feel comfortable in judging the procedures one way or the other.

 

[jimshort19]

Pro-propaganda

Karrie, "But at what point is our country no longer a 'pro-choice' country, and merely a 'pro-abortion' country?"

This question is stilted. You assume that a country must be one thing or the other and cannot be both or neither like, is erroneous. Your implicit suggestion that morality should be nationalised is dangerous.

I'm glad that you are not writing our tourist brochures:

'Visit Canada - a pro-abortion country!" or why not the national anthem?

"We're pro-choice strong and free!"

And where is pro-life to be found? You refrain from speaking the name, because it is yours, and we would have you! You are being deceptive.

 

[lone wolf]

No there have not. There is absolutely no reputable neonatalogist in the world who would claim to have saved a 17 weeker. 21 weeks is so far considered the absolute edge, though even those claims are debatable. Most hospitals won't treat under 23 weeks. At that point a fetus has about a 50% chance at survival, and the chance of them surviving without serious health issues is much smaller. A 17 week fetus doesn't have the capability to have gas exchange in its lungs because it doesn't have true lungs yet.

I beg to differ with you. Perhaps you should check with the Hospital for Sick Childern neonatal intensive care (where I'm sure you might find the odd neonatalist of repute) Although the 17 week, fetus did not survive for more than a day due to extremely immature lungs and a very frail heart, they did try. It was a start and will likely be surpassed.

Woof!

 

[tracy]

I beg to differ with you. Perhaps you should check with the Hospital for Sick Childern neonatal intensive care (where I'm sure you might find the odd neonatalist of repute) Although the 17 week, fetus did not survive for more than a day due to extremely immature lungs and a very frail heart, they did try. It was a start and will likely be surpassed.

Woof!

I worked across the street from them. If they did that, everyone involved with the care of that fetus did something extremely unethical. Please provide me with some link to that in the news or something. Otherwise it's just word of mouth and those stories are always prone to exaggeration and details changing. But, you realize that I said no doctor would claim to have saved a 17 weeker and your account would still prove me right. Keeping a fetus' heart beating for a couple hours isn't saving a baby. That isn't "survival".

I doubt it's true though, since the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto doesn't even have a labor and delivery unit. Their patients are transported in from other hospitals. How would their transport team even know to show up where a 17 week fetus was being delivered? The referring hospital would have had to keep that fetus alive until they got there and that's unlikely. Labor and delivery is across the street at Mount Sinai which has their own level 3 NICU. They do about 7000 births a year. I can't imagine any of them treating a 17 week fetus. A true 17 week fetus is about 150 gms (less than half of a can of coke). There aren't even endotracheal tubes small enough to intubate them with. Labor and delivery wouldn't even call the NICU team to attend the birth of a fetus at that gestation. It is possible a mother was wrong on her dates and the fetus was actually older than they thought, but barring any evidence to the contrary there is no way I could believe they treated a 17 weeker.

Once you understand the anatomy of fetal development you understand why our current treatment options can't just be "pushed" to treat younger fetuses. It's going to take a whole new development in their respiratory management. The most amazing development in neonatal care in the last 40 years was the advent of exogenous surfactant to treat premies' lungs. It's a fluid that allows their lungs to expand and contract and function properly. Under 28 weeks or so, they're all deficient in that substance so their lungs wouldn't work properly and therefore the mortality rate below that age was huge. Surfactant is what allowed us to treat infants as young as 22-23 weeks. It was revolutionary. We can treat their surfactant deficiency and ventilate them using machines (not to say most of them won't die). Below that age, they don't have real lungs yet. It's like they only have lung buds. They don't have the structures they need to have gas exchange. So, even if we are able to intubate them at such a tiny size (it's extremely difficult even for an excellent doc to intubate under 400gms) and give them surfactant, they are still going to die. Surfactant won't help if they don't have real lungs. To save a fetus without lungs would require we have some way to do gas exchange for them (we have such a machine, but it doesn't work long term, doesn't work on teeeeeeny babies and has really bad risks associated with it). At the same time, we'd need to be able to provide them with an environment in which their lungs could continue to grow. We'd have to create a womb for them, filled with fluid, providing them with nutrition to survive. It sounds simple, but it's so far beyond what our technology can do that it's unrealistic to expect it to happen anytime soon enough to have any impact on our laws.

 

[lone wolf]

Mt Sinai, Women's College and TGH are right there. Both Mount Sinai and Women's College have L&D and all are interconnected by tunnels. Which street did you work across?

From what I understand on the day that fetus came up to 5E, the young mother aborted in HSC ER following a traffic accident. My daughter was in Neonatal ICU at the time so it was very hard to miss hearing some details - and the fact they didn't expect the baby to survive long.

Woof!

Woof!

 

[tracy]

You either heard some details incorrectly or the dates were off. Unless that baby was 150gms or so, it wasn't a 17 weeker. If it was 150gms, they wouldn't have even been able to intubate (that's less than 1/2 of the size of the smallest surviving baby in the world). If they treated a 17 weeker rather than allowing it to die peacefully being held by its mother or a nurse, then they acted so unethically I couldn't even express the outrage I would feel over it.

I worked at Mount Sinai's NICU for 2 years before moving to the US (women's college is up the street and I worked extra shifts there on occasion which was nice since they are closer to Fran's diner and they also have a level 3 nicu). I've made the trip to Sick Kid's with patients before because the nicu surgeries are done there and then we'd take our kids back when their operation was done. I've always had good experiences with their staff (nurses and docs). I would be truly shocked if they acted in such an unethical manner.

 

[Kreskin]

Mt Sinai, Women's College and TGH are right there. Both Mount Sinai and Women's College have L&D and all are interconnected by tunnels. Which street did you work across?

From what I understand on the day that fetus came up to 5E, the young mother aborted in HSC ER following a traffic accident. My daughter was in Neonatal ICU at the time so it was very hard to miss hearing some details - and the fact they didn't expect the baby to survive long.

Woof!

Woof!

What a horrible tragedy.

 

[Hathor]

ok I was totally missing the idea here when I posted earlier, I think. I was just generally talking about abortion, not the issue karrie was trying to bring up here. forgive me if I am still missing it but I'm just going to say the way I would write the laws:
I am anti-abortion/ pro-life, try to think of it this way: you go out and buy a cat. at some point you decide you don't want it anymore, so you just go ahead and kill it. but maybe you didn't want the animal to begin with, someone just left it on your doorstep? is it still right to just kill it? someone else offers to take care of the cat, you just have to keep it for a few months first.
now I know this is a stupid and inaccurate comparison, but don't you think a human life is worth as much as a cat?
'oh no I got raped, it's not my fault!' well then that sucks for you, but what's it going to cost you to give birth to a baby? I'm pretty sure that the discomfort and inconvenience it will cost you is worth a life. well you would rather go through that than die, which means its worth a life, no?
and that's of course the vast majority of situations, usually it's just some irrisponsible girl who goes out and gets herself pregnant, and feels that a pregnancy might disrupt her social life a little bit. oh dear.
I know I said I was pro-choice earlier, but I wasn't really thinking about how stupid it is to kill this thing just cause you were out being a ****. yeah, no one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes, but everyone has to pay for those msitakes as well.
and by the wway, I do NOT think that an accidental miscarriage should result in penalization for the mother, and comparing a fetus to a born child is inaccurate, even though I think a fetus has value.
and jeez, i guess I'm still missing the point but there r my views anyway

 

[gerryh]

What a horrible tragedy.

While "I" agree that wolf's story is tragic, I'm at a loss to understand why it is tragic to you Kreskin, or any other pro-choicer? After all, it's not human, it's not a "baby", it's just so much tissue to be thrown into the garbage.


Is the statement above harsh? You bet it is, but think about it now. If abortion is just fine and dandy, then why be upset when someone miscarries?



and in answer to Karries OP....... There is no difference between the 2 terms. If we are a "pro-choice" nation then we are a "pro-abortion" nation. Those that try to differentiate the 2 are only doing so to try and make themselves feel better o assuaging some guilt.

 

[tracy]

While "I" agree that wolf's story is tragic, I'm at a loss to understand why it is tragic to you Kreskin, or any other pro-choicer? After all, it's not human, it's not a "baby", it's just so much tissue to be thrown into the garbage.


Is the statement above harsh? You bet it is, but think about it now. If abortion is just fine and dandy, then why be upset when someone miscarries?



and in answer to Karries OP....... There is no difference between the 2 terms. If we are a "pro-choice" nation then we are a "pro-abortion" nation. Those that try to differentiate the 2 are only doing so to try and make themselves feel better o assuaging some guilt.

I'm pro choice. That doesn't mean I don't feel sympathy for a woman who lost a pregnancy. It doesn't mean I couldn't express compassion for her. She lost something that was important to her. She'll grieve the loss of the future child she thought she would have. Just because I can rationally acknowledge the difference between a 16 week fetus and a term newborn doesn't mean I think her feelings are invalid. I acknowledged a friend's grief when she lost a pet. It may not be important to me, but it was important to her and that's what mattered.

It also doesn't mean I don't feel anything for the babies in the NICU. That's where I've spent the last 5 years of my career. I would be heartbroken if my coworkers ever subjected a doomed baby to painful procedures rather than letting it pass away peacefully.

 

[gerryh]

I'm pro choice. That doesn't mean I don't feel sympathy for a woman who lost a pregnancy. It doesn't mean I couldn't express compassion for her. She lost something that was important to her. She'll grieve the loss of the future child she thought she would have. Just because I can rationally acknowledge the difference between a 16 week fetus and a term newborn doesn't mean I think her feelings are invalid. I acknowledged a friend's grief when she lost a pet. It may not be important to me, but it was important to her and that's what mattered.

It also doesn't mean I don't feel anything for the babies in the NICU. That's where I've spent the last 5 years of my career. I would be heartbroken if my coworkers ever subjected a doomed baby to painful procedures rather than letting it pass away peacefully.

Why are you referring to these preterm "beings" as babies? Are they human? They can't be since in your mind there is no problem with slicing and dicing and throwing away the "product" of an abortion. You can't have it both ways, if they are human babies then you are killing them during an abortion. If they are just a "tissue growth" then they are no more than a benign tumor to be excised and disposed of. No need for tears.

 

[tracy]

Why are you referring to these preterm "beings" as babies? Are they human? They can't be since in your mind there is no problem with slicing and dicing and throwing away the "product" of an abortion. You can't have it both ways, if they are human babies then you are killing them during an abortion. If they are just a "tissue growth" then they are no more than a benign tumor to be excised and disposed of. No need for tears.

They are babies when they are born. Preterm and alive is a baby. That's the medical reality. However, in a woman's mind her perception could be that it's a baby as soon as she knows she's pregnant (as could her partner's). That's her perception and I honour that because that's being respectful of her right to interpret the meaning of events in her own life. I don't go into a woman's hospital room after she's lost what she considers her baby and call it a fetus. I use whatever language she does because there is no conflict for me. I can believe abortion should be legal and believe that a woman's feelings of loss were valid when she miscarried because both come down to accepting a that each woman will come out of experiences with a different meaning attached to them and there isn't one right answer for everybody.

My mother had 5 miscarriages. She didn't mourn them like she would have a 2 month old baby. She didn't mourn the ones she lost early like she mourned the ones she lost later. She mourned her loss of fertility. She mourned the loss of her expected future. She mourned the loss of her expectations for what her life would be. She doesn't call them babies. That's her choice. Another woman might. That's her choice. I respect them both.

 

[Kreskin]

Why are you referring to these preterm "beings" as babies? Are they human? They can't be since in your mind there is no problem with slicing and dicing and throwing away the "product" of an abortion. You can't have it both ways, if they are human babies then you are killing them during an abortion. If they are just a "tissue growth" then they are no more than a benign tumor to be excised and disposed of. No need for tears.

It doesn't matter what you call it. If I lived inside you I can't claim it's my right to stay and you have no right to say otherwise. If you decide I must leave then I must. If I can't survive outside of you then I won't. If I can then I will.

 

[gerryh]

It doesn't matter what you call it. If I lived inside you I can't claim it's my right to stay and you have no right to say otherwise. If you decide I must leave then I must. If I can't survive outside of you then I won't. If I can then I will.

That would be fine if you had the choice originally to be there, but a baby doesn't. The mother and the father made that choice to put the baby there when they decided to have sex.

 

[Kreskin]

That would be fine if you had the choice originally to be there, but a baby doesn't. The mother and the father made that choice to put the baby there when they decided to have sex.

They didn't make a choice. They had sex.

 

[gerryh]

They didn't make a choice. They had sex.

and what is the direct result of having sex? Getting pregnant.

and remember, the only form of birth control that is 100% effective is abstinence, or a complete hysterectomy for a woman.

 

[Kreskin]

and what is the direct result of having sex? Getting pregnant.

and remember, the only form of birth control that is 100% effective is abstinence, or a complete hysterectomy for a woman.

It's the occasional result not the absolute result nor is always the intention. People are human beings and they have sex so 100% abstinence is not going to work. And since people have the right to their own bodies...well you know the story.

 

[gerryh]

It's the occasional result not the absolute result nor is always the intention. People are human beings and they have sex so 100% abstinence is not going to work. And since people have the right to their own bodies...well you know the story.

and we're back to taking responsibility for ones actions.

 

[Kreskin]

and we're back to taking responsibility for ones actions.

What you are asking for is the impossible.

Using that reasoning, someone who gets an STD outside of a monogamous wedded relationship should be denied public healthcare (or they should prove to the doctor that they didn't have an affair) since they are responsible for their actions. Or the vasectomy and hysterectomy patients should be denied public healthcare since someone feels everyone must be abstinent or pay the consequences. Lets go back to outlawing contraception since someone says everyone must be abstinent or pay the consequences. What possible reason could there be for having any public funding of sexual health when all we need are HeeHaw doctors:

"Hey Doc, it hurts when I do this."

"Well don't do that!"

We could use that standard for just about anything. No one needs to ski or go tubing yet everyone does so risking injury. Should we deny them public heallthcare because "everyone should be responsible and not do it?"

Sorry Gerry, too many slippery slopes when the responsibility police decide who gets what. And since "God" gave us the biological urge to have sex I'm not going to judge people by what they do and when they do it in the bedroom.

 

[Pangloss]

Actually, kids in abstinence programs have a higher pregnancy rate than those who use contraception.

News flash from the Department Of The Crushingly Obvious: people have sex. Sometimes it isn't planned.

Also, why mention hysterectomy and not vasectomy? Guys getting their boys chopped is a much less invasive procedure and works just as well.

Pangloss