Warnings on the dangers of NOT aborting?

[RadFemRocker]

In a rare 11-judge hearing, a federal appeals court is considering whether physicians in South Dakota should be required to tell women seeking an abortion that they will be terminating "the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," and observers say the outcome could reverberate nationwide.

Oral arguments began April 11 before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, which must decide whether an injunction imposed by a federal judge on a law enacted by the South Dakota legislature in 2005 was appropriate. The law would have required doctors to tell women verbally and in writing that abortion ends a human life, could cause depression and suicide, and ends a woman's constitutionally protected relationship with her unborn child.

Baptist Press - Court ponders if abortion kills a human - News with a Christian Perspective

What's your opinion on this? Should doctors be forced to do this, and is what the proposal claims accurate?

But more importantly again, if doctors should be forced to warn women of the dangers they may face if they abort, does it not make sense that they should also warn women that continuing their pregnancies may cause them physical/mental damage and put them at risk for suicide and depression? Particularly in light of the fact that Post-Natal depression is a medically recognised condition whereas PAS is not, should doctors not have to present both sides of the story if the government insists on forcing words into their mouths?

 

[1069]

Perhaps when doctors diagnose pregnancy, they should "warn" patients that gestation and delivery are about 18 times riskier than first-trimester abortion.

Just an idea.

 

[RadFemRocker]

Perhaps when doctors diagnose pregnancy, they should "warn" patients that gestation and delivery are about 18 times riskier than first-trimester abortion.

Just an idea.

The info I can find says 0.6 deaths per 100000 procedures from legal abortion:

In 1998 and 1999, as in previous years, deaths related to legal induced abortions occurred rarely (<1 death per 100,000 abortions).

Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2000

This is compared to:

The maternal mortality rate of 8.9 per 100,000 live births was not significantly different from those reported in recent years.

Child Health USA 2004 > Maternal Mortality

So when childbirth is far moire dangerous, why is there not a rush to warn women as their is with abortion? In my opinion this is evidence of legislators attempting to scare women out of making their own choices and is a deplorable use of women's mental health as simply a political pawn. Shows how much they value us, ay ladies?

 

[Jerry]

Baptist Press - Court ponders if abortion kills a human - News with a Christian Perspective

What's your opinion on this? Should doctors be forced to do this, and is what the proposal claims accurate?

But more importantly again, if doctors should be forced to warn women of the dangers they may face if they abort, does it not make sense that they should also warn women that continuing their pregnancies may cause them physical/mental damage and put them at risk for suicide and depression? Particularly in light of the fact that Post-Natal depression is a medically recognised condition whereas PAS is not, should doctors not have to present both sides of the story if the government insists on forcing words into their mouths?

Doctors should be forced to follow the law, so if the federal court decides that they should say this, then they should; if not, then no.

 

[RadFemRocker]

Doctors should be forced to follow the law, so if the federal court decides that they should say this, then they should; if not, then no.

And your opinion on whether the federal court shold pass this law is...?

 

[Jerry]

So when childbirth is far moire dangerous, why is there not a rush to warn women as their is with abortion? In my opinion this is evidence of legislators attempting to scare women out of making their own choices and is a deplorable use of women's mental health as simply a political pawn. Shows how much they value us, ay ladies?

Now now, there's no need for that.

PC should fully support such warnings because their existence establishes the fact that PL finds elective abortion acceptable so long as the woman truly is making an informed decision.

This one spicific warning may be uncalled for; however, just as with mandatory ultrasound or similar, the precedent it sets undermines the PL movement.

You need to know which pawns to sacrifice if you are to win the game.

 

[Jerry]

And your opinion on whether the federal court shold pass this law is...?

Link to the law. There can be no informed opinion, one way or the other, without first reading the law.

 

[1069]

So when childbirth is far moire dangerous, why is there not a rush to warn women as their is with abortion?

Because legislators don't care about the health of women, they care about pandering to fundies in a way that won't alienate all their other constituents.
Passing laws that make women seeking abortion jump through more senseless hoops is a good way to do this. It pleases the fundies, while at the same time not being overly offensive to everyone else. Nobody really cares how many papers women have to sign, or how many ultrasounds they're forced to look at, or what lies they have to listen to, or what additional petty inconveniences they have to put up with, as long as they get what they're after in the end.

On the other hand, if a doctor had explained to me the statistical risks involved in my carrying a pregnancy to term when I was pregnant for the first time, in my mid-teens, I suspect I might have chickened out.
That wouldn't have been such a tragedy, except that now I wouldn't have my son (or possibly either of them).

Sometimes it's best not to tell someone- especially someone young, uneducated, and ignorant- every worst case scenario that could possibly happen. They might not have the common sense or life experience to put these risks into the proper perspective (which is, of course, that in today's industrialized society, abortion is extremely safe and so is childbirth, and so your decision should be based on other factors besides personal risk of injury, illness, or death, as all are highly unlikely in both cases).

Knowing every danger (when not possessing the breadth of knowledge necessary to view these dangers in perspective) could easily cause a person to become terrified to do anything.

Doctors must be extremely careful about how they address their patients' concerns.
Frankly, I feel that in most cases (not only ob/gyn cases, but all cases), a patient should be offered as much information about his/her condition and treatment options as he/she wants and requests... and not much more.
Sometimes patients given too much information at once get overwhelmed and fail to process any of it very effectively, and end up making faulty judgments based on a skewed perception of their risks and treatment options.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

I don't care either way but how many laws are we going to make telling people what to do?
Next thing you know they will be telling us when to $hit.

 

[1069]

I don't care either way but how many laws are we going to make telling people what to do?
Next thing you know they will be telling us when to $hit.

I've used this analogy many times; it seems to be a privacy/bodily sovereignty issue that men can understand and relate to.
I ask prolife men: would you like the government telling you when you were allowed to sh!t? Preventing you from sh!tting when you wanted to? Forcing you to sh!t when you didn't want to? Penalizing you for sh!tting or not sh!tting as commanded?
Would you consider such an invasion inappropriate? An insulting and humiliating violation of your privacy and bodily sovereignty/ autonomy?
Are there any circumstances under which you would consider such an intrusion warranted?

Well, that's pretty much how I feel about governmental intrusion into my reproductive choices.

 

[RadFemRocker]

Now now, there's no need for that.

PC should fully support such warnings because their existence establishes the fact that PL finds elective abortion acceptable so long as the woman truly is making an informed decision.

This one spicific warning may be uncalled for; however, just as with mandatory ultrasound or similar, the precedent it sets undermines the PL movement.

You need to know which pawns to sacrifice if you are to win the game.

I think I'll decide what I do and do need to say, hun, but thanks for that anway.

I don't believe that these warnings are a sign that the pro-lifers find abortion acceptable as long as it's an informed choice because pro-lifers, by definition of the describing term, do not agree with abortion. If they found informed decisions by women to be acceptable, they'd be on the side that doesn't believe abortion is unacceptable. Secondly, why should these warnings be issued pre-abortion if not pre-childbirth? Why when many doctors don't see aborton as any kind of universally traumatic event?

 

[RadFemRocker]

Because legislators don't care about the health of women, they care about pandering to fundies in a way that won't alienate all their other constituents.
Passing laws that make women seeking abortion jump through more senseless hoops is a good way to do this. It pleases the fundies, while at the same time not being overly offensive to everyone else. Nobody really cares how many papers women have to sign, or how many ultrasounds they're forced to look at, or what lies they have to listen to, or what additional petty inconveniences they have to put up with, as long as they get what they're after in the end.

On the other hand, if a doctor had explained to me the statistical risks involved in my carrying a pregnancy to term when I was pregnant for the first time, in my mid-teens, I suspect I might have chickened out.
That wouldn't have been such a tragedy, except that now I wouldn't have my son (or possibly either of them).

Sometimes it's best not to tell someone- especially someone young, uneducated, and ignorant- every worst case scenario that could possibly happen. They might not have the common sense or life experience to put these risks into the proper perspective (which is, of course, that in today's industrialized society, abortion is extremely safe and so is childbirth, and so your decision should be based on other factors besides personal risk of injury, illness, or death, as all are highly unlikely in both cases).

Knowing every danger (when not possessing the breadth of knowledge necessary to view these dangers in perspective) could easily cause a person to become terrified to do anything.

Doctors must be extremely careful about how they address their patients' concerns.
Frankly, I feel that in most cases (not only ob/gyn cases, but all cases), a patient should be offered as much information about his/her condition and treatment options as he/she wants and requests... and not much more.
Sometimes patients given too much information at once get overwhelmed and fail to process any of it very effectively, and end up making faulty judgments based on a skewed perception of their risks and treatment options.

Exactly, 1069. Doctors should be around to offer their patients all the information they could possibly need, and while I do believe doctors have a responsibility to give out a certain minimum of information, it needs to be put into context and kept as non-biased as is possible for us humans who all have some form of bias. In this case, I truly believe that if PL cared about women they'd be pushing for better family planning options, better daycare, higher wages, better healthcare and a higher status in society. Instead they focus their attention on scaring women out of making their own choices. Who does this help? Women? Not a chance.

 

[RadFemRocker]

Link to the law. There can be no informed opinion, one way or the other, without first reading the law.

Since you asked so nicely:

HB 1166 establish certain legislative findings pertaining...

 

[Jerry]

I've used this analogy many times; it seems to be a privacy/bodily sovereignty issue that men can understand and relate to.
I ask prolife men: would you like the government telling you when you were allowed to sh!t? Preventing you from sh!tting when you wanted to? Forcing you to sh!t when you didn't want to? Penalizing you for sh!tting or not sh!tting as commanded?
Would you consider such an invasion inappropriate? An insulting and humiliating violation of your privacy and bodily sovereignty/ autonomy?
Are there any circumstances under which you would consider such an intrusion warranted?

Well, that's pretty much how I feel about governmental intrusion into my reproductive choices.

The absurdity of your analogy aside, this law does not force or prevent any woman from having an abortion. It does not regulate when a woman may have a child, it does not penalize her for having a child at any given time.

If you believe that my claim here is in error then please quote the portion of SD state code, chapter 34 (any part) which says otherwise.

 

[Jerry]

I think I'll decide what I do and do need to say, hun, but thanks for that anway.

You called me "hun" :blushing:

I don't believe that these warnings are a sign that the pro-lifers find abortion acceptable as long as it's an informed choice because pro-lifers, by definition of the describing term, do not agree with abortion. If they found informed decisions by women to be acceptable, they'd be on the side that doesn't believe abortion is unacceptable.

34-23A-1.4. Legislative findings--Risks to life and health of pregnant woman.
The Legislature finds that procedures terminating the life of an unborn child impose risks to the life and health of the pregnant woman. The Legislature further finds that a woman seeking to terminate the life of her unborn child may be subject to pressures which can cause an emotional crisis, undue reliance on the advice of others, clouded judgment, and a willingness to violate conscience to avoid those pressures. The Legislature therefore finds that great care should be taken to provide a woman seeking to terminate the life of her unborn child and her own constitutionally protected interest in her relationship with her child with complete and accurate information and adequate time to understand and consider that information in order to make a fully informed and voluntary consent to the termination of either or both.

Secondly, why should these warnings be issued pre-abortion if not pre-childbirth?

If women are not being properly informed about their pregnancy then that is a problem which needs to be adressed. I had assumed that Planned Parenthood, Youth and Family Services and others had covered this information. If you know of any spicific failier of such programs to inform women on what I personaly consider an esential part of sex-ed, please make it known.

Why when many doctors don't see aborton as any kind of universally traumatic event?

I'm sorry, I didn't understand this question. Could you please restate it?

 

[Jerry]

And your opinion on whether the federal court shold pass this law is...?

Given the law in question it is my opinion that SD doctors should be required to make a statement to tell women verbally and in writing that abortion ends a human life, could cause depression and suicide, and ends a woman's constitutionally protected relationship with her unborn child.

Such a statement is legally and medically acuret and serves the purpose of the law in question.

 

[Felicity]

I think informing people fully is always the best choice. The truth is the truth--and for those who think citing the risks of pregnancy is important--fine--good idea! Just be sure to tell those patients that though there may be some maternal and fetal/birth related deaths for women who carry pregnancy to term, in the case of abortion, the death rate is OVER 50%--since abortion ALWAYS takes at least one human life.

 

[nancyboy]

The issue here is the woman's health, not the foetuses.

 

[dottedmint]

What's your opinion on this? Should doctors be forced to do this, and is what the proposal claims accurate?

I don't think there is anything wrong with having doctors tell women this.

I think it is completely accurate to tell a woman that abortion ends "the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,".

I admit that I'm not sure how much abortion increases the risks listed but as long as it does increase the risks the women should be informed about how much the risks are increased.

But more importantly again, if doctors should be forced to warn women of the dangers they may face if they abort, does it not make sense that they should also warn women that continuing their pregnancies may cause them physical/mental damage and put them at risk for suicide and depression?

I don't think there is anything wrong with explaining the risks of keeping the whole, separate, unique, living human being.

 

[1069]

I think it is completely accurate to tell a woman that abortion ends "the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,".

This is an oxymoron.
If the "living human being" is "whole, separate, and unique", then removing it from one's cootch shouldn't "end its life".

If removing it from one's cootch is tantamount to "ending its life", then apparently it is not, in fact, a "whole, separate, unique, living human being".

That's pretty much a no-brainer.

But sure, whatever, tell women that, force them to sign papers stating that they've been told that, who cares?
I'm sure they could care less.
Make them hop around on one foot wearing a clown suit. Whatever.
I'm sure they'll be glad to comply with whatever ludicrous conditions you wish to place on their access to safe reproductive health care, because they really have no choice, do they?
They're mostly poor, after all, and they're always desperate.
That doesn't mean they're going to believe a word you say, or give a crap about it, even if they do.
But whatever. :shrug:

 

[dottedmint]

This is an oxymoron.
If the "living human being" is "whole, separate, and unique", then removing it from one's cootch shouldn't "end its life".

If removing it from one's cootch is tantamount to "ending its life", then apparently it is not, in fact, a "whole, separate, unique, living human being".

That's pretty much a no-brainer.

But sure, whatever, tell women that, force them to sign papers stating that they've been told that, who cares?
I'm sure they could care less.
Make them hop around on one foot wearing a clown suit. Whatever.
I'm sure they'll be glad to comply with whatever ludicrous conditions you wish to place on their access to safe reproductive health care, because they really have no choice, do they?
They're mostly poor, after all, and they're always desperate.
That doesn't mean they're going to believe a word you say, or give a crap about it, even if they do.
But whatever. :shrug:

We've had this debate before.....

When an egg is fertilized a "whole, separate, unique, living human being" is created.

Yes... It is a "whole, separate, unique, living human being" that is dependent on another "whole, separate, unique, living human being" but it is still a "whole, separate, unique, living human being".

 

[Felicity]

The issue here is the woman's health, not the foetuses.

Did you miss what the original post stated?

The law would have required doctors to tell women verbally and in writing that abortion ends a human life

The life being referred to is that of the fetus.
:doh

 

[Jerry]

This is an oxymoron.
If the "living human being" is "whole, separate, and unique", then removing it from one's cootch shouldn't "end its life".

If removing it from one's cootch is tantamount to "ending its life", then apparently it is not, in fact, a "whole, separate, unique, living human being".

That's pretty much a no-brainer.

But sure, whatever, tell women that, force them to sign papers stating that they've been told that, who cares?
I'm sure they could care less.
Make them hop around on one foot wearing a clown suit. Whatever.
I'm sure they'll be glad to comply with whatever ludicrous conditions you wish to place on their access to safe reproductive health care, because they really have no choice, do they?
They're mostly poor, after all, and they're always desperate.
That doesn't mean they're going to believe a word you say, or give a crap about it, even if they do.
But whatever. :shrug:

I accept your concession.

 

[Felicity]

This is an oxymoron........safe reproductive health ....

I just wanted to highlight the irony.

 

[1069]

I just wanted to highlight the irony.

What irony?
I never said "This is an oxymoron........safe reproductive health ....".
You made that sentence by splicing bits of two different statements together, and then falsely attributed it to me.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with it.
Safe reproductive health care is not an oxymoron.
Despite the opposition of people like you, it is a reality, and always will be, if I have anything to say about it.