Comments on: Intentionally Choosing

By: Bill W.

Bill W. — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:55:30 +0000

I never said that the mother’s health should ever be superceded by the the fetus’ plight. I would never jeapordize a mothers health or safety. I just suggest that in a situation where the mother’s health is not an issue, the fact that there is another life involved should perhaps hold some weight against the mother’s right to choice.
Secondly, while there may be times to end a pregnancy to protect a woman’s life/health, partial birth abortion is not ever a medical necessity.

By: Emburii

Emburii — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:39:28 +0000

(To the person who commented above)

You speak as a physician, saying you can find no medical reason, but you do not respond to, for instance, the ‘serious health complications’ mentioned on one of the above paragraphs. Those complications were mentioned by a physician in connection to the birth of the baby, which I’d consider a pretty good medical reason to have this procedure available.
You also seem to ignore the part where this particular decision/medical practice/debate isn’t about lazy mothers who don’t want to carry perfect children to term. It’s about quality of life both for an unfortunate younger life and the mother. In the end, the choice can often come down to harming the mother to deliver another life into pain and death in a few years anyway.
Why does the fetus’s plight ‘supersede’ any consideration of the mother, anyway? Complicate it, certainly. Supercede it? A potential life of poor quality is completely worth ignoring the mother’s health and safety, or even deliberately damaging her by denying medical recourse? I’m glad you’re not my doctor.

By: Bill W.

Bill W. — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:05:38 +0000

As a physician, I can honestly say that there is no circumstance that I can think of where a “partial-birth” abortion is medically necessary. It is a very lucrative procedure. The Supreme Court has in no way ruled against abortion. They have upheld a ban on a particular procedure. The fedral government often imposes itself into medical decision making. I am limited on what medications I can prescribe and even what I can or cannot charge patients. The courts often stop what they consider harmful medical practices. No one generally gets upset over this. Think about the legislation aimed at banning smoking. Is not smoking a “right” (albeit a very unhealthy choice)? Where is the outrage?
I am not a supporter of abortion. I think women have a rights over their own body. No one should ever deny them that right. When a child is involved though, those rights are superceded by the child’s right. (i.e. a parent has no right to abuse or neglect their child). The question is when a fetus becomes a child. Why is it that if an individual murders a pregnant woman, they are guilty of 2 deaths. Is a fetus a human in that instance? The main issue with the specific abortive procedure in question is that because only the head of the fetus is delivered, the fetus can have its brains suctioned out and its skull collapsed. This is defined as a medical procedure. However, should the entire fetus be delivered, rather than just the head, then we have not a fetus, but a human infant, and the same procedure is a hideously inhumane practice.
I’m sure you have a way that resolves this incinsistency. I however cannot. If there is even a question of depriving an individual their life, isn’t it at least worth considering?

By: Kelly O

Kelly O — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:21:41 +0000

This was an amazing post. On behalf of women everywhere, Thanks, man.

By: Sheelzebub

Sheelzebub — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:21:33 +0000

Thank you for this, Terrance.

By: Copan

Copan — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:36:00 +0000

This is revoltingly inhumane. I can’t imagne the wisdom with which Congress wants to intervene in medical procedures. I can’t imagine forcing women to risk their lives to give birth to children who can’t possibly survive. And I can’t imagine being the President whose Medicaid cuts are going to make these childrens’ lives even more difficult.

By: Katharine

Katharine — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:57:04 +0000

One of the things I’ve always respected about you and just been so, so incredibly grateful for from you as a human being and as a good friend, is just how completely and totally you get it. You really do understand that it’s one of the most heart-wrenching, terrifying decisions that anyone can ever be faced with, and yet, that it must remain a choice.

I am appalled by the Supreme Court’s ruling, not only because of the specific issue involved, but also because of the larger issue of interference in practitioner-patient decisions. Taking away the autonomy of the doctor and the patient in determining what is best for the well-being and health of the individual is damaging and limiting health care; not improving it.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:03:17 +0000

Thank you.

I made this awful choice myself a year and a half ago. That the supreme court feels they can make this decision for parents outrages and saddens me. I am grateful I was able to – as awful as it was. The worst time in my life. But sitll, a choice I would make again. That others may now not be able to…

I also find it odd that they are, in fact, practicing medicine without being doctors themselves. How can they know what procedure is best for each case? They cannot.

Further, let’s also not forget there is no health exception of the mother this time. Once again, men know best, women and their bodies, their choices, do not.

It is a sad day in this country.

By: a bird and a bottle

a bird and a bottle — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:58:53 +0000

[...] Terrance at The Republic of T (via Jill) talks about what it means to be able to choose whether or not to terminate a second trimester pregnancy, and reminds us about the ramifications when choices are taken away from women. [...]

By: Hawise

Hawise — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 20:58:32 +0000

I live in Quebec and the province has had a history of declining birthrate. This has been dramatically turned around- it cost but it has turned the corner. What it took was paid parental leave for both parents, subsidized early childcare, generous family allowances, organized health units in the community combining social and health services or in other words, massive support for families to take on the task of raising children. Trick is that it costs a ton in taxes and takes years for it all to integrate, what with training of personel and locating the services where needed. There are no quick fixes but denying reasonable medical choices to families is hardly a good start.