You cannot be serious?

[rubato]

Rube, you would be correct if Roe v. Wade were still the law of the land. But alas, about the only abortions that are causing legal distress these days are the ones where the baby is born alive, then killed. The third trimester thing died many years ago.

Witness the coverage of this butcher in Philadelphia. He has been performing third trimester abortions for many years, and the only ones that are getting his teat in a wringer now are the living babies he killed.

You are amazingly ignorant.

The "third trimester thing" governs nearly all medical practice in that area. You really don't know what you're talking about. There are very very few doctors who even perform late-term abortions no matter what the risks to the mother nor how genetically damaged the fetus.



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Personally there should be no third trimester abortions. Adoption, not abortion.

But, there was never a dearth of doctors/practioners ready, willing and (somewhat) able to perform abortions when it was illegal. So I expect nothing less now.

Personally, I don't think abortion should be a form of birth control, but I would not force a woman to have/not have an abortion and let it be her choice. I would hope it is life for the baby, but.......

What if the pregnant woman was diagnosed with recurrent cancer just after the end of the 2nd trimester. She has a chance of survival if treatment is started immediately but little chance 3 months from now. The treatment is known to be fatal to the fetus. She already has 2 children at home who will be orphans if she dies.

This was a case my wife had a few years ago.

What if the pregnant woman was diagnosed with cardiomyopathy at that time? That condition has a good chance of killing her if she goes through the rest of the pregnancy. This has also happened to a patient of hers.

According to you those women must all be killed.

What if there is a genetic problem which is diagnosed late? No brain has developed in the fetus? Anencephaly? Should the woman be forced to endure months of physical distress and the risks of death in childbirth for the sake of a fetus which has no chance of survival?

I think we should leave it to the women involved and their doctors.

yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

Regarding - "the amendment prevents the health department from using taxpayer dollars to cover abortion for Medicaid recipients" -

The irony is that I'd bet that most people who would support the above are the same people who believe that our government should sterilize welfare recipients so they can't have any more children.

[dgs49]

The availability of unavailability of doctors who are willing to perform abortions (third trimester in particular) has nothing to do with it's Constitutionality, but a great deal to do with availability. The Oath of Hippocrites prohibits a doctor from, in effect, doing abortions.

Third trimester abortions go on incessantly in this country, sometimes legally and sometime with a bit of gamesmanship by the medical team.

A baby is a baby.

[Scooter]

Hippocrites was against abortions because the only means available at the time to perform them carried huge risks for the life of the pregnant woman. Which is the same reason why anti-abortion statutes came into vogue in the mid 1800's - new surgical techniques providd the means to perform abortions without apparent physical harm to the woman, but no one yet had a clue about maintaining an aseptic surgical field in order to prevent secondary infections which killed and maimed many women who procured abortions.

[rubato]

The availability of unavailability of doctors who are willing to perform abortions (third trimester in particular) has nothing to do with it's Constitutionality, but a great deal to do with availability. The Oath of Hippocrites prohibits a doctor from, in effect, doing abortions.

Third trimester abortions go on incessantly in this country, sometimes legally and sometime with a bit of gamesmanship by the medical team.

A baby is a baby.

You are an ignorant jackass.

3rd trimester abortions are rare events.

And women die because of it.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

Legal Third Trimester abortions, on demand:
http://www.drhern.com/?gclid=CPeY25bxiqcCFQTNKgodDzMqgA


THE OATH OF HIPPOCRATES
“I SWEAR by Apollo the physician and Æsculapius, and Health…I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion...”

The idea that abortions were prohibited because they were not safe to the mother is nothing but made-up bullshit. Abortions were illegal in most states at the time of RvW, and they were medically "safe" when done by trained physicians for many decades before then. They were illegal because, then as now, the American population knows the difference between a baby in the womb and a sexually-transmitted disease. You don't kill a baby because its life is inconvenient.

[Andrew D]

The statement that one "will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion" does not tell us why one declines to do so. It could be because such things endanger the woman. It could be because such things kill human beings as embodied in fetuses. It could be both. It could be something else entirely.

[Big RR]

And anyway, the oath is to a false god (or gods), so it doesn't apply or have any force. Do you really want to go to a doctor who takes an oath to Apollo seriously (especially after Rocky defeated him)?

edited to add: And are pessaries (which I think are like vaginal suppositories) ever used for abortion now? I would think they would be much more dangerous to the woman than, say, a pill or a surgical abortion.

[Scooter]

You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

Would you agree that distinguishing fact from opinion also requires recognizing what words actually say, rather than the meaning one wishes they had? For example:

“I SWEAR by Apollo the physician and Æsculapius, and Health…I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion...”

I adjusted the bolding to draw attention to the fact that the highlighted words are included because they mean something i.e. if Hippocrites wanted to include a prohibition on ALL abortions, he would have said so, and not included a qualifier which limited the prohibition to a specific form of abortion i.e. the use of a vaginal suppository or tampon infused with a drug or drugs which would induce an abortion. Because, as I said, such substances were in themselves noxious enough to pose a danger to the woman, and fatal infections often resulted, which today we understand to be toxic shock syndrome.

So thanks for providing that citation and proving my point.

The idea that abortions were prohibited because they were not safe to the mother is nothing but made-up bullshit.

Then why did abortion remain legal in most states until the mid-1800's, and in some states until close to 1900? Was the concept of the personhood of the fetus something that developed spontaneously in the 19th century that explains this legislative vacuum? Most abortion statutes included exceptions for rape cases. Why, if, as you allege, the wellbeing of the woman was not a factor? Was a fetus who was conceived in rape considered to be less of a person than a fetus conceived otherwise? Many statutes imposed penalties only person performing the abortion, and not on the woman procuring it. If abortion laws were all about protecting the fetus, why weren't women universally prosecuted for their complicity in killing the fetus? Abortions were illegal in most states at the time of RvW, and they were medically "safe" when done by trained physicians for many decades before then.

You don't kill a baby because its life is inconvenient.

Leave it to a man to call pregnancy an "inconvenience". If a born person attempted to inflict the degree of disability that a pregnancy causes, it would justify deadly force to repel it. That's all the justification necessary to abort a fetus doing the same thing.