While DRC likes to claim that it is 'I' that is approaching this issue in a manner that doesn't represent a 'sane and civil' discussion, I believe that much of what is passed off as a 'discussion' on this issue--especially by the tag-team--seems to perhaps inadvertently--or perhaps intentionally--disregard much of what I've said that they offer no direct comment on (even to refute it if they can).
Jesus, you're thick. The point is, pregnancy CAN be fatal and becomes MORE potentially fatal as the pregnancy nears term.
And, the point that you are missing--or ignoring--D_NATURED is that abortions done near the time of delivery are just as potentially fatal. And, that is supplemented by two things that all of you keep ignoring: one, it's not the presence of the fetus, itself, that is usually risking the mother's life but more the hemodynamic complications of the pregnancy; and, two, killing the fetus at this time before deliverying it doesn't make the risks of the delivery any less. If you can address those points (even to refute them if you can find a resource anywhere that does), then I want feel compelled to respond to your accusation on my 'thickness' with a like response...because, only to me, DRC seems to say that, when I say it, it's not 'sane and civil'....but, of course, when you say it, that's just part of the 'tag team'--that, of course, DRC is part of 'collectively'....with the same willingness to ignore in friends what one accuses in enemies.....but, of course, that has nothing to do with 'saneness and civility'.....and, sometimes, it is really hard to be 'civil':
. So, while I'm sure you're reassurance to women that they could die either way is very comforting, I believe becasuse it is THEY who bear the risk, it is THEY who should be able to decide which risk they desire to take.You thinking they are the same risk is meaningless until you have your own fetus infection.
Now, let's see if I can reassert this point in a way that you will recognize it, D_NATURED. Follow this for a bit and tell me where you have a problem with this assessment. First off, whether you kill the fetus or not in late stage abortions does nothing to affect the risks of the pregnancy that may be present at that time. Not a thing. In other words, whether you kill the fetus or not, the risks that are present and the complications that can occur will not change. Is that understandable to you? Do you see that point? Now, I don't mind you looking--and even finding--a resource that refutes that point but I really do mind you ignoring it. And, I'm not even sure how it's 'civil and sane' for you to do so in a respectful conversation--but, then, according to DRC, that seems to be only my problem, not yours. But, I doubt that DRC is making that assessment in as 'civil and sane' a manner as DRC accuses in me--and allows in you.
But, let that point sink in just a little bit, D_NATURED. I know it seems to be a hard one for you to acknowledge but sit there for a bit and realize something here. There is no reason to kill the fetus at the time of birth for 'the threat to the mother'--because, once again, killing the fetus does not change that threat at the time of birth. Understand that? So, the only reason to qualify killing the fetus is only if the mother desires that--not if the fetus 'threatens the life of the mother'. Understand that? And, the only contention to have to consider here as someone thinking about any poliitcal implications of this action is whether or not you are going to give that fetus any right to live at that point. We are to agree that that fetus has the right to live right after birth, is that correct? I mean, once the fetus is out alive, that fetus offers no more threat to the 'mother's life', does it? However, and to further qualify my point in this as the pregnancy being the primary risk to the mother regardless of the fetus, that does NOT mean that the mother is completely out of the woods even when the fetus is out. She may still have complications related to the pregnancy--especially with an eclamptic condition that will not magically 'disappear' the instant the fetus is born. So, at least at the point of birth, we are to agree that the choice of the mother to kill it is no longer valid. Is that correct? Now, their are some of us (in fact, many) who would say that that choice of the mother to kill that fetus isn't valid right before birth--especially since it is really the point that killing that fetus at that time does nothing to change the direct physical risks of the pregnancy that that mother may face....in other words, as I have been trying to say all along, the choice to kill the fetus in late stage abortions has nothing to do with how that can affect the direct risks of the pregnancy the mother may face.
And, once again, most elective abortions have nothing to do with the direct physical risks of the pregnancy to the mother--they have only to do with the mother not wanting to be pregnancy. Offering 'direct threats to the mother's life' as representing elective abortions neither represents the free choice involved in elective abortions nor any consideration to be made on that behalf. DRC wants to 'leave this alone'--perhaps in a way to justify DRC's idea on what represents a 'sane and civil course' for elective abortions--but, that has never been how this issue has been addressed in a 'sane and civil society'. In fact, I suspect that there are more people in this society to claim that 'crushing a fetal skull and sucking out its brains right before birth if the mother wants it' represents an insane and uncivil society than those that do--and I also suspect that there are more people willing to say that 'cutting the dick off, cramming it down the throat, shoving a hot rod up the ass, and slowly exsanguinating a DNA-proven child rapist-murderer' is more in line with the rational judgment of a 'sane and civil society' intent on protecting its most innocent members than the fetal skull crushing and brain sucking manuevers of D_NATURED offered here--but, rational (ie. comparative) methods to assess any course of action isn't apparently what this 'liberal tag team' wants to relate to as being 'sane and civil'.....
Now, once again, that's not to mean that 'I' disagree with a mother having a choice to end an unwanted pregnancy. I agree with it being offered when that fetus is totally dependent upon that mother's uterus to be alive--I disagree with it being offered when that fetus could come out alive. Who has the more 'sane and civil' position here on elective abortions?
If I were a pregnant woman who feared for my life and decided a fetus in pieces would pose less of a risk, in its extrication, to my person, the medical community having no data, apparently, to asuage my concerns better get chopin'. It is MY body and if I don't want that little killer inside me, you as a doctor have an obligation to assist me in re-establishing health. Surgeries are ALL elective except when they are done on the unconscious. Abortion is a surgical procedure.
You see, with regards to the 'life-threatening' risks to the late term pregnant mother, and with regards to whatever affect the life or death of the fetus at that stage has to such risks, the 'medical community' has a whole lot of data--and, moreover, a valid reason and theory behind it. Killing the fetus doesn't affect those risks becuase, if there is a threat, it's the hemodynamics of the pregnancy that is what is creating the risks--not the fetus, itself. Now, to be sure, getting the fetus out--and ending the pregnancy--may certainly eventually get rid of those risks--but, KILILNG THE FETUS to do so doesn't improve those risks. So, in late stage pregnancies, this continued barrage of 'the fetus killing the mother' as an argument to justify late stage abortions is invalid on any ground that killing the fetus improves the risks. It does not. That appears to be something you continue to ignore....how that represents a 'sane and civil' conversation--or, as I would like to have, a 'rational conversation', I have no idea....
Once again, 'killing the fetus' in late stage abortions does nothing to 're-establish health' if any potential life-threatening condition that the mother may have with that pregnancy exists. And, I am certain that any doctor that claims that as a reason to perform a late-stage abortion can face significant professional scrutiny and sanctioning if that were to occur. At this stage in the pregnancy, the ONLY reason to kill the fetus is because the mother doesn't want the pregnancy. If the doctor doesn't want the pregnancy for 'medical reasons', it better be because it can be shown that that fetus has a condition that is not conducive its own life (not the mother's life)--and that doctor better be able to justify that in court as any 'due process' removing rights would do....Do you understand that?
If a woman was diagnosed with breast cancer in the second trimester, would you make chemotherapy illegal because it could hurt the fetus?
OK, I'm trying to stay 'sane and civil' here, D_NATURED--but, is it really that hard for you to follow my position here? If there is something that is causing a decision to be made to end a pregnancy, if, at the point that that decision is being made, the fetus could come out alive, the fetus should come out alive. There may be many times when, even if attempted, that isn't what ends up. But, that's not the point, if, at the time the decision is being made to prematurely end the mother's pregnancy for 'medical reasons' (realize that this is still NOT the point behind 'elective abortions'), if the fetus can come out alive, the fetus should come out alive.....and if a woman with cancer has carried that fetus to a viable stage before this decision occurs, I am almost certain that every one of them would attempt to have that fetus delivered alive--not KILL IT before getting it out. I know how the real world seems to not matter with your intent here, but I think that it does. So much so as to recognize that if a mother is going all the way to term before even deciding to end this fetus's life, there must be something wrong with how that mother faces 'personal responsibility'. In that case, don't blame the fetus--if the mother can't take care of that child because of her inability to be personally responsible for that child, delivery it--and adopt it out....
What is it with Texans that they think everyone's reality is subject to their interpretation.
All of this requires 'interpretation', D_NATURED. Despite how you liberals want to package this as 'concern for the mother's health because the fetus might be killing her', that doesn't actually ever happen. Making that a justification for elective abortions is disingenuous at best--and a lying affront intent on not really having to address the hard questions involved in elective abortions at worst. And, the hard questions are when does a mother have the RIGHT to abort that fetus as a free choice regardless of any consideration of the fetus. It's OK if you say 'at birth'--but do NOT try to use 'medical emergencies' as the excuse--it's really not a rational and adult position to take on this. What's rational and adult is to understand this isn't about 'medical emergencies'--this is about the mother's free choice--and when is that appropriate. If you can't approach it in that manner, don't be too surprised when others that think they are taking a 'caring and concerning' position--even 'community and/or collectively centered'--do so more for the fetus--not the mother. And, that manner is not medical--it's political--and legal....