There is no such thing as an “abortion survivor” (02/25/2019)
By: Mr. Frost
As usual, the pro-female slavery crowd attempts to play to emotions, not facts.
There is no such thing as an “abortion survivor”
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The US Senate is set to vote on a bill to protect “ abortion survivors ” today (Feb. 25.)
The bill, introduced by Nebraska senator Ben Sasse, a Republican, would “ prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”
In other words, the bill peddles the false narrative that abortions happening later in pregnancies could result in live babies left to die by physicians who fail to provide care that would otherwise keep them alive and healthy. This is not a practice that exists, yet the bill seeks to criminalize it.
The measure is misleading in other ways. An abortion is performed with the intention of ending a pregnancy, so there are no survivors. What the bill’s sponsors seem to be targeting are the rare situations in which a woman decides to have abortion at the later stages in her pregnancy because it can’t proceed healthily for her, the fetus, or both.
Why do the lawmakers talk of survivors?
The Sasse bill would only apply to a sliver of abortions that happen late in pregnancy—which are already a small fraction of all abortions.
The usual procedure for these type of abortions is “dilation and evacuation”—similar to an aspiration abortion, except the birth canal needs to be dilated since the fetus is larger. The fetus dies before it leaves the birth canal. But in some cases, in very advanced stages of pregnancy, women have so-called induction abortion, which is similar to labor. It is done rarely because it’s a riskier procedure, and it can lead to the fetus leaving the body alive, albeit in a terminal state.
The practice at this point is to give the baby hospice care, though Sasse’s bill would require doctors to medically intervene, potentially prolonging the suffering of both mother and child, and disregarding the painful decision that the woman had to make beforehand.
How common are later-term abortions?
The percentage of women seeking abortions at this stage in their pregnancy is very small— likely well below 1% —and in 43 states the procedure is legal only in case of grave health concern for the mother, rape, or incest. Even where elective later-term abortions are allowed, they are not easily available. Only a handful of doctors in America perform the procedure, which women overwhelmingly seek because of some serious fetal issue was overlooked in previous testing, or due to severe psychiatric issues on the mother’s part.
In the few states that allow abortions after viability, a woman might decide to end her pregnancy after the doctor has told her that her fetus has very serious conditions that are either incompatible with life or would condemn it to a painful, and often short, life. It is a typically a heartbreaking, traumatic experience, and often a tragic choice for wanted pregnancies that are no longer viable.
Rather than having a stillbirth, going through with a hopeless pregnancy, or delivering a babies with terrible abnormalities , women have the choice to have an abortion. Were it to pass, Sasse’s bill would deny women the choice of sparing themselves and their babies from extra trauma and pain, because it would either force doctors to provide care that would prolong the suffering, or potentially even dissuade them for performing the procedure for fear of prosecution.
Tags
Who is online
43 visitors
If you don't like abortions, don't get one. Seems pretty simple to me.
It never ceases to amaze me that pro-lifers almost never line up to adopt 10 or 20 kids, and they always vote against welfare. They are pro-birth, not pro-life. They just don't want women making decisions for themselves, that's what it really boils down to.
I tend to think so too. But apparently for some, it's too complicated. They seem to want no choice at all, which really simplifies the issue.
Exactly.
And some act all sanctimonious about it too.
Removed
Is there supposed to be a point? Or is copy & pasting nonsense all you have to offer?
[deleted]
deleted
portion of an article about an abortion survivor off topic to a a topic denying that there are abortion survivors?
Because irrational zealots don't like their make believe world view challenged.
[deleted]
I know what it said. All it pointed out was someone's claim. I have yet to see anything to collaborate the story.
Oh the irony of that statement.
Make believe? As in you guys believing that there are such things as abortion survivors?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Such an irrational statement. More irony.
Which is not collaborated and quite suspect too!
How exactly is a portion of an article about an abortion survivor off topic to a a topic denying that there are abortion survivors? Remind me not to post to any seeds you have moderating powers over. Talk about a a case of viewpoint discrimination content control.
Why are you asking me? I'm not the author or seeder of this article.
You posted a link to an article that is already here on NT. If you want to post on that article, do so, it's not the same article as this one. Last warning.
Wrong.
Agreed.
If you want to have kids, fucking support them yourself. Not my kid, not my responsibility.
Common sense would seem to be that if they don't want to raise welfare, or support it at all, they would be all for pro-choice.
I made it clear (I figured) that I support abortion.
What we have is too many people having kids they can't afford.
That isn't my responsibility. It is THEIR choice to have a kid and they should be adult enough to pay for their own decisions.
I would go as far as having the federal government PAY for up to two abortions. After the second one, tie her tubes.
Same with males--after having two kids you can't afford, have the feds pay for a vasectomy.
It isn't society's responsibility to pay for dumbass decisions because someone else is too lazy or too stupid to provide for the kids they choose to have.
I am aware. I just prefer the term, "pro-choice", since I know of no one that actually supports abortions... But your point is well made.
Also true. I was married 10 years before the decision to have a kid was made for exactly that reason, we waited until we were financially stable.
While I agree, none of us gets to determine where our tax dollars are spent. We all spend money, (taxes), on shit we don't want to support.
Can't agree with you here. Hatch act. Same with males. Also, forcing a medical procedure on anyone...not ok with it.
I could agree with the first part of your comment. However, I can not agree with the second part. Forcing a woman to tie her tubes is something I can't agree with. It is simple, the government can just refuse to pay for any further abortions for the same person after the first two. And would need to be clarified with the Mother up front.
Although, if the Mother requests that her tubes be tied after the second abortion then that is her choice to make.
Something is wrong, we mostly agree on something for the second time in like a week. Just not the forced medical procedure part.
And I can't afford to support people unwilling to support their kids and their choices.
At some point the science will evolve where tying tubes will be as easily reversible as a vasectomy is to reverse.
I say do it and as proof that they can now afford to take care of a kid, pay for the reversal themselves.
Why should we continually be on the hook for others' poor choices?
Well, those concerned enough to want to continue to support poor choices are certainly free to do so with charitable contributions. The government doesn't always have to be the provider for stupid people.
Either way you're going to help like it or not. Fund abortions, or pay for welfare. Like I said, we don't get to pick and choose where our tax dollars go.
Humans make bad choices every day.
To be fair, that was Texan that said that. I was just quoting them.
Any medical procedure will leave scar tissue. The surgery may fix a problem in the here and now, but in the long run, that scar tissue could cause problems down the road.
Never have I disputed that.
But if the government is going to pay for abortions, I believe there should be a limit of two. Beyond that and I think the person has demonstrated they cannot learn.
All I want is for people to be held responsible for their personal choices. i don't think that is asking too much, and if someone thinks it is asking too much, screw them.
Again, not the point and no one here is disputing it.
Still shouldn't be my responsibility for what stupid people do or decide.
As with most surgeries, it comes with risks involved. Maybe that should influence their decision -making BEFORE they get there.
And yet I’m pro life and have adopted and taken in foster kids and worked my entire career with either severely emotionally disturbed at risk and or special needs youth in both residential and educational settings.
If all that's true how do you possibly have time for this forum and all the others you in which participate ?
It is good you are able and willing to adopt and take in kids and made a career helping them
[deleted]
My son is an adult now and I’m on medical leave figuring out what’s going on with me health wise before I get back into it if I can.
Then you may have a cookie. If that's true, good for you but you are the exception, not the rule.
[deleted]
Having more kids than you can afford leads to generations of poverty, it is a repeating cycle
And yet, some anti-choicers want women to continue to have kids regardless if they are impoverished or not by taking away their choice. It's quite short sighted.
True enough, and its a damn shame those people expect everyone else to pay their way.
Heading for bed, play nice please.
it might be better to lock a wedge issue seed than to create the impression it will be temporarily without moderation to the local anti-choice vermin.
True, guess I have a lingering hope that people will try to have a civil discussion on wedge issues.
[[off topic]]