Eiri, are you actually pro-life?

EiriForLife wrote:

Why does she think abortion is the right choice?

Because it is her life, not yours.

EiriForLife wrote:

I think your DOCTOR should have that right to discuss it with you and determine if you are at risk. A doctor is not going to allow his patient to continue a pregnancy if it is dangerous!

Yes, he will. He can no more force her to abort than he can force her to gestate.

EiriForLife wrote:

I did too, until I realised that the "zef" has a body too, it has organs too, and it has a right to life. It DEFINITELY has a right to life the moment it reaches viability. I have never been and never will be pro-elective-late-term D&C or D&E or suction aspiration or medical etc.

So, is abortion ok before the fetus has it's own organs and body?

Eiri,

It pains me to see such an intelligent person buying into pro-life propaganda.
*sigh*

Anyway, here is the bottom line:

Women have had abortions since the beginning of time.
Women always will have abortions, until unwanted pregnancy ceases to exist.

We, as a society, can do one of two things in this situation:

1) Make abortion illegal, as you wish to do, and force women to endanger their health and their lives by resorting to illegal abortions
or
2) We can treat women with compassion and respect and allow them to have professional medical care
when they need and want it.

Roe vs. Wade wasn't passed for people to "start" having abortions. It was passed because women were aborting ANYWAY, and they demanded the right to safe, legal medical treatment, and they refused to be maimed and killed in back alleys any longer.

Countries who criminalize abortion have higher rates of abortion than countries with legal abortion.

The core of the pro-life movement, like those on pla, wants birth control outlawed along with abortion. The Bush administration already has taken steps to redefine abortion to include taking the pill.

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

I did too, until I realised that the "zef" has a body too, it has organs too, and it has a right to life. It DEFINITELY has a right to life the moment it reaches viability. I have never been and never will be pro-elective-late-term D&C or D&E or suction aspiration or medical etc.

So, is abortion ok before the fetus has it's own organs and body?

No, it's not ok if the mother and unborn are healthy. There is a "body" from the moment of fertilization. It doesn't look like a human body, but the human's entire set of DNA needed to guide it through development and life is complete at fertilization.

futureshock wrote:

Eiri,

It pains me to see such an intelligent person buying into pro-life propaganda.
*sigh*

Anyway, here is the bottom line:

Women have had abortions since the beginning of time.
Women always will have abortions, until unwanted pregnancy ceases to exist.

We, as a society, can do one of two things in this situation:

1) Make abortion illegal, as you wish to do, and force women to endanger their health and their lives by resorting to illegal abortions

I would only want abortion illegal in cases where both the mother and the unborn are healthy. I do not feel a woman has the right to kill another human being unless her own life is at risk.

Quote :

or
2) We can treat women with compassion and respect and allow them to have professional medical care when they need and want it.

To allow women to kill their unborn babies before they are born, just because they do not want them. I have absolutely no problem with abortions done for medical reasons. But I don't feel a woman who is completely physically and mentally healthy should have the right to kill a perfectly healthy unborn child. Embryo, fetus, it doesn't matter what you call it. It is a human being.

Quote :

Roe vs. Wade wasn't passed for people to "start" having abortions. It was passed because women were aborting ANYWAY, and they demanded the right to safe, legal medical treatment, and they refused to be maimed and killed in back alleys any longer.

I completely understand the need for safe, regulated abortions. I don't want to overturn Roe v Wade straight out. However, just as there are currently limits on when women can have elective abortions, I wish to lower that limit. To at least 17 weeks for now.

Quote :

The core of the pro-life movement, like those on pla, wants birth control outlawed along with abortion. The Bush administration already has taken steps to redefine abortion to include taking the pill.

I am not a stereotypical pro-lifer. I was not a stereotypical pro-choicer. I don't fit any mold, so don't compare me to the "core pro-lifers". They bother and frighten me, just as "core" pro-choicers frighten me.

I still consider myself pro-life, but not 100%. I could call myself pro-choice too, but I'm not 100% on that either.

I have a plan, as I'm sure many pro-lifers do. But my plan has steps, and I believe it is smart. I'd first like to see the limit for elective abortions lowered to 17 or even as low as 12 weeks. 6-12 is when most elective abortions take place anyway, so lowering the elective abortion to 12 weeks isn't going to change much of anything. In fact, most people wouldn't even notice.

Past 12 weeks, and up to 25 weeks, the limits would be stricter, though it wouldn't be down to only medical emergencies. Rape, young age, incest, mental health, and cases where being pregnant and giving birth would severely and negatively impact the woman's life should be allowed an abortion, as well as any other exception you can think of. This is where the woman would have to go through a psychological evaluation if mental health is her claim, and a physical exam/history if predicted severe physical reactions to the pregnancy is the claim. Her life may not be in danger yet, but if she can prove that it will be, or that it has happened so in past pregnancies, then she should be allowed an abortion at this time.

Past 25 weeks, and up to 35 weeks, the woman will have to be in physical danger or suffering from clear mental distress. Rape cases will no longer be allowed, because the baby is viable. Her chances of mortality must be significantly higher than for a normal pregnancy and preventative measures should be taken if they would safely prolong gestation without causing undue stress to the mother. Her health, mentally and physically, is still primary and if she is under duress that can only be solved by aborting, then that's the answer.

After 35 weeks and up to birth the unborn should never been purposely killed unless it is absolutely and acutely necessary. I can't think of a single situation where removing it dead would be faster than removing it alive. C-section is identical in either case. Such a case would probably be due to an injury not caused by the pregnancy itself, and the woman needs operated on to save her life. Most doctors will fight to save her life first. Again, that's going to be incredibly rare.

I believe (in the end) abortion should not be legal if the woman is mentally and physically healthy AND the unborn is also healthy. Please read ahead before responding to this comment.

I still feel abortion should be legal in all cases of medical necessity. This means even predicted danger to the mother. If a woman has a significant possibility of death, then she should be allowed to abort. If the unborn is ill, she should have the right to abort.

If she was raped, she should have the right to abort. If she is very young, she should have the right to abort.

So the ONLY case where a woman should not be able to abort in my opinion is if she is having a healthy pregnancy with no unusual ill effects on her body or mind. Pregnancy isn't all flowers and roses, but I should think women can withstand discomfort as opposed to slaughtering their children.

Sex is a right. Sex can cause pregnancy, but women shouldn't be punished for having sex by being forced to give birth in all cases. Each woman's case should be investigated to determine if she really needs an abortion.

People can be refused for all kinds of procedures and it's not called an invasion of privacy. Why is abortion suddenly an invasion of privacy? It makes no sense. There are two patients, and while pro-choice tries to obscure the fetus, pro-life tries to obscure the woman. Their rights are nearly equal, but in cases of maternal danger, her life comes first especially if the unborn is not yet viable.

I think of it just like triaging patients in a disaster. Doctors will operate on not just the most severely injured, but those who have the highest chance of survival. In the case of a problem pregnancy, that's the woman.

What do you all think about the following statistics?

Quote :

24.3% of women will have complications in future pregnancies due to abortion.
Acta/ obstetrics and Gynecology

The risk of having a tubal pregnancy after one abortion is 30%, 160% after 2 or more abortions.
American Journal of public health.

The risk of Placenta Previa increase 600% after an abortion.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

There is a 200% increased risk of miscarriage after an abortion.
AMA Journal

50% of Women who have an abortion have experienced emotional and psychological disturbances.
British journal of OB/GYN

EiriForLife wrote:

Sex can cause pregnancy, but women shouldn't be punished for having sex by being forced to give birth in all cases.

Glad you finally admit you want to punish certain women for having sex. What punishment plan are you going to have for the men? Or do they get off scott free?

xwoman74 wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Sex can cause pregnancy, but women shouldn't be punished for having sex by being forced to give birth in all cases.

Glad you finally admit you want to punish certain women for having sex. What punishment plan are you going to have for the men? Or do they get off scott free?

I'm still not responding to you; but keep trying. Taking my posts out of context is a terrible debate strategy and considered extremely dishonest. It's a pity, because I'd love to answer the second half of your post, but I refuse to.

[quote="EiriForLife"]

xwoman74 wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Sex can cause pregnancy, but women shouldn't be punished for having sex by being forced to give birth in all cases.

Glad you finally admit you want to punish certain women for having sex. What punishment plan are you going to have for the men? Or do they get off scott free?

EiriForLife wrote:

I'm still not responding to you

Duh... yes you are!

EiriForLife wrote:

It's a pity, because I'd love to answer the second half of your post, but I refuse to.

You won't answer it because you are caught in your own lie. You said women shouldn't be punished for having sex in all cases, not me. Don't say what you don't mean.

EiriForLife wrote:

Erulissë wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Erulissë wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

I can't, but an experienced doctor can.

But prolifers aren't experienced doctors and prolifers want to dictate to me what i can do with my body and make their own decisionas far as what is dangerous to me and decide what risks I can take.

what gives them the right?

Nothing!

There are experienced doctors who are pro-life AND pro-choice. Those doctors are the ones who should determine if it is safe for the woman and child for the pregnancy to continue. Personally, a doctor's political stance on abortion shouldn't affect his ability to diagnose a woman and determine her health. If she is in danger, she should abort if that is the safest option. In late-term pregnancy, a birth is often the process of abortion anyway, so I don't see why the child can't simply be given birth to, unless the abortion is faster.

If the child can be saved without risking the mother's life, then it should be saved.

You shouldn't want to kill your own offspring. I feel that's my goal: to convince women to choose life, not death.

You are prolife. you say a doctor should make that decision-for certain situations- (i hope along with the woman) but if you got yourway abortion would be illegal for any other situation. You think you should have the right to determine what risks I should take and what direction mylife should go in. where does that come from? youhave no idea who i am but youwant to force me to give birth? and youtell me what I should want-why do you get to tell me that? I think you should want me to be happy and make my own decisons.

I know I'm pro-life, thanks for telling me lol.

I believe a woman should not be allowed an abortion if she is mentally and physically healthy and the unborn is healthy. That's the ONLY situation I would disallow abortion. There are literally thousands of conditions that negate it, such as young maternal age, diseases, conditions, hormonal imbalances etc.

It's just to me, a perfectly healthy woman killing a perfectly healthy fetus is so pointless. Why does she think abortion is the right choice? Is it societal? There are two human lives at risk here.

I do not think I should have the right to determine what risks you can take. I think your DOCTOR should have that right to discuss it with you and determine if you are at risk. A doctor is not going to allow his patient to continue a pregnancy if it is dangerous!

Of course I have no idea what you want; well, actually I do on one point. You want to kill another human being and get away with it repeatedly with no one questioning it.

you don't understand that if you are prolife and want elective abortions illegal then that means you want to determine the risks a woman can take for pregnancy. youwant to define it into what makes you feel comfortable-not the woman carrying the pregnancy.

Erulissë wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Erulissë wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Erulissë wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

I can't, but an experienced doctor can.

But prolifers aren't experienced doctors and prolifers want to dictate to me what i can do with my body and make their own decisionas far as what is dangerous to me and decide what risks I can take.

what gives them the right?

Nothing!

There are experienced doctors who are pro-life AND pro-choice. Those doctors are the ones who should determine if it is safe for the woman and child for the pregnancy to continue. Personally, a doctor's political stance on abortion shouldn't affect his ability to diagnose a woman and determine her health. If she is in danger, she should abort if that is the safest option. In late-term pregnancy, a birth is often the process of abortion anyway, so I don't see why the child can't simply be given birth to, unless the abortion is faster.

If the child can be saved without risking the mother's life, then it should be saved.

You shouldn't want to kill your own offspring. I feel that's my goal: to convince women to choose life, not death.

You are prolife. you say a doctor should make that decision-for certain situations- (i hope along with the woman) but if you got yourway abortion would be illegal for any other situation. You think you should have the right to determine what risks I should take and what direction mylife should go in. where does that come from? youhave no idea who i am but youwant to force me to give birth? and youtell me what I should want-why do you get to tell me that? I think you should want me to be happy and make my own decisons.

I know I'm pro-life, thanks for telling me lol.

I believe a woman should not be allowed an abortion if she is mentally and physically healthy and the unborn is healthy. That's the ONLY situation I would disallow abortion. There are literally thousands of conditions that negate it, such as young maternal age, diseases, conditions, hormonal imbalances etc.

It's just to me, a perfectly healthy woman killing a perfectly healthy fetus is so pointless. Why does she think abortion is the right choice? Is it societal? There are two human lives at risk here.

I do not think I should have the right to determine what risks you can take. I think your DOCTOR should have that right to discuss it with you and determine if you are at risk. A doctor is not going to allow his patient to continue a pregnancy if it is dangerous!

Of course I have no idea what you want; well, actually I do on one point. You want to kill another human being and get away with it repeatedly with no one questioning it.

you don't understand that if you are prolife and want elective abortions illegal then that means you want to determine the risks a woman can take for pregnancy. youwant to define it into what makes you feel comfortable-not the woman carrying the pregnancy.

I don't personally want to: I want a doctor to. It's not going to be ME sitting in the clinic, it is the woman and a doctor. I don't see why that's hard to understand.

And currently, as I've said, I only want SOME elective abortions illegal past the week of 12. Since 90% of all abortions take place before week 12, it's unlikely anyone is going to throw a fit about that. I feel these risks and reasons need to be discussed with doctors so it's NOT just "me saying what I want". I want educated research and discussion to go into this, centered around giving the unborn the rights it deserves while protecting the woman's life.

but before this random, arbitrary 12week time line you do not want abortions legal?

that means that YOU want to tell women what risks they can take and thenyou want to define what risks are okay or not okay.

like, a woman risking abuse from her partner that's not okay because it's not medical, or a woman risking everything she's worked for in life that's not okaytoo, because it's not medical. Or a womanrisking her mental sanity that's not okay, too? See?

EiriForLife wrote:

What do you all think about the following statistics?

Quote :

24.3% of women will have complications in future pregnancies due to abortion.
Acta/ obstetrics and Gynecology

The risk of having a tubal pregnancy after one abortion is 30%, 160% after 2 or more abortions.
American Journal of public health.

The risk of Placenta Previa increase 600% after an abortion.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

There is a 200% increased risk of miscarriage after an abortion.
AMA Journal

50% of Women who have an abortion have experienced emotional and psychological disturbances.
British journal of OB/GYN

I don't believe any of them. Every woman I know has had an abortion, including myself, and none of us have had ANY after effect.

However, many of them have had permanent damage from giving birth.

So you do not have a problem with 90% of abortions, so I don't know why we are even arguing.

Since you are against second trimester abortions, you should shed the pro-life label because it is the pro-life movement which is responsible for many second trimester abortions:

from prochoicetalk.com

futureshock3 wrote:

Since any abortion after the first trimester is already rare (less than 10% which already includes medical/therapeutic abortions), it doesn't make sense to put in undue burdens for women to overcome to abort, because they are already rare in the first place, so most of them would meet your "qualifications anyway.

What would help is to reduce restrictions currently in place that cause delays in obtaining first trimester abortions.

Ironically, these delays causing second term abortions are the result of "pro-life" legislation.

Hyde Amendment banning federal funds for abortion causes delays in terminations because the woman must raise the money to pay for the procedure.

Mandatory waiting periods (24, 48 hours,etc.) cause delays because many women must travel and stay overnight to obtain an abortion. They must secure childcare (61% of women seeking abortion already have at least one child) and time off from work. They must save the money to pay for food and lodging on top of the cost of the procedure.

87% of counties in U.S. have no abortion provider, which is another situation caused by the "pro-life" movement. Protesters, bomb threats and other violence, unnecessary clinic regulations, etc. cause clinics to close.

Parental consent laws have had a dramatic affect as well. Teens delay abortions until they turn 18, or they must travel to the next closest state without these restrictions, or they try to get judicial bypasses which can take up to 3 weeks.

Following you will find data backing up these assertions, along with much more detail explaining how pro-life legislation is the cause of many second trimester abortions.

See next post for the rest.

Quote :

In Missouri, the odds of minors' traveling to another state for abortions increased by 53% when the parental consent law took effect. By contrast, the odds of out-of-state travel increased only 13% for 18-19-year-olds and 18% for women aged 20-24. Furthermore, analyses of data on Missouri minors who obtained abortions in neighboring states suggest that travel may have accounted for the entire decline in the in-state teenage abortion rate after the law went into effect.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3634/is_199807/ai_n8807776/print

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Quote :

The Impact of Mandatory Waiting Periods and Parental Consent Laws on the Timing of Abortion and State of Occurrence among Adolescents in Mississippi and South Carolina

In Mississippi, however, both laws are associated with an increase in the proportion of abortions performed out of the state and the parental consent statute with later abortions. The conclusion is that Mississippi's 24-hour as compared with South Carolina's one-hour delay requirement, and Mississippi's two-parent as contrasted with South Carolina's one-parent consent statute explain the stronger behavioral response in Mississippi. © 2001 by the Association for Public Policy Management and Ananlysis.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/79502504/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Quote :

In his 1990 book, "Abortion, The Clash of Absolutes," Laurence H. Tribe says, parental notice/consent laws, "while perhaps intended to foster communication within families, may only compound desperate situations where communication just is not possible. In families whose children feel free to discuss such things with a parent, neither consent laws nor notification requirements are necessary. And even if one could as a general matter legislate intrafamily communication, something that seems most unlikely, there are some circumstances in which the consequences of the attempt would surely be devastating."

Adolescents are more likely than older women
to obtain abortions later in pregnancy.

In homes where abuse is present or where communication about sex is not encouraged, young girls may not feel they can go to a parent. For those young girls, it's critical that medical confidentiality be available to them.

{L}egislating parent-child communication will always fail to produce the desired outcome. We believe that education and skill building in parent child communication has the potential of producing the desired outcome without placing a child's health and life at risk, which parental notice/consent laws would do.



{S}uch laws are intended by the anti-abortion movement as another way to further restrict access to abortion services, and has no basis in a genuine desire to protect the health or life of any teenage girl.


Approximately 3.2 million cases of child abuse (emotional, physical, psychological, sexual abuse, and neglect) were reported in 1997.2

In 1989 Spring Adams, was a 13-year old from Idaho, who became pregnant when her father raped her. Her age was at issue in paying for an abortion or traveling the nearly six-hour journey to the nearest abortion provider. Social Services in Idaho would not cover the abortion cost because there was a law preventing public funding of abortions - even in cases of rape and incest. A private organization stepped forward to pay for her abortion, travel and lodging expenses but the day before she was to leave, her father found out. When she went to sleep, her father went into her room and shot her to death with a rifle.

Around the same time period, news reports were a flutter with the story of a 15-year old honor student at a Catholic high school who became pregnant. She knew she could not seek her mother's help. Seven years earlier her mother had sought an abortion and had regretted it. Since that time, her mother had repeatedly stressed to her children that abortion was murder. So rather than tell her mother, she tried to self-abort. Her mother found her, dead on the bathroom floor. She had died from a pulmonary air embolism caused by the wound she had inflicted on herself as she tried to self-abort.

And of course, the now very well known story of 17 year-old Becky Bell who lived in Indiana, where a parental consent law is enforced. Rather than disappoint her parents who believed they had a wonderful and communicative relationship with Becky, she, just shy of her 18th birthday when she would not have been subjected to the consent law, sought an illegal abortion. She died.

A 1991 study based on a nationally representative sample of more than 1,500 unmarried teenage girls having an abortion, where no mandatory parental consent or notice laws are enforced revealed that, 61% of parents knew of their daughter's pregnancy and abortion.

Additionally, 57% of the mothers who knew about their daughter's pregnancy did not tell her father.

Further, the study revealed that the young girls who did not tell their parents were disproportionately older (aged 16 or 17), white and employed.5

In this study, these teens revealed the most common reasons for not telling their parents. First, there was a desire to preserve their relationship with their parents and a desire to protect the parents from stress and conflict.

And of those who didn't tell their parents, 30% had experienced violence within their home and was afraid that violence would occur or were afraid they would be thrown out of their home.6

Additionally, and as equally as important, was the revelation by 52% of the young girls whose parents were not aware of their pregnancy and abortion that they had consulted with another adult, other than clinic staff about having the abortion. Twenty-two percent said they had consulted with a professional.7

But the fact that is most revealing and disturbing, is that nearly 40% of the teens that would not go to a clinic if they were forced to tell their parents in order to do so, say they would instead self-abort or find an illegal abortion.8 The stories above bear out that stark reality.

Having noted all that, it is important to note why the number of teenage deaths from attempts to self-abort or seek an illegal abortion in states where parental involvement laws are enforced, hasn't skyrocketed. In addition to not being able to stop desperate teenage girls from self-aborting or seeking an illegal abortion, these laws have not created a decline in the teenage rate of abortion as was alleged and hoped for by their sponsors. Rather, they have created an influx of teenage girls seeking an abortion into states who do not have such laws. When a teenage girl believes she can make the arrangements and garner the money, sometimes by seeking the help of another adult, a friend, aunt or grandmother, or even her much older adult boyfriend, she seeks a legal abortion in another state that does not require parental notice or consent.

For teenagers who already have a history of delaying an abortion decision or procedure because they don't discover they are pregnant until later in the first trimester or the beginning of the second trimester, or put that knowledge out of their mind until they can no longer ignore the truth, or because they are frightened and do not know what to do or where to turn, and because they must find a way to pay for the abortion itself, these laws add additional considerations that will delay an abortion procedure even further into the second trimester.

Now these young girls must find additional funds to support a trip out of state and perhaps even an overnight trip. She has to figure out how to account for her time away as well and she must find the transportation.

All these considerations can add weeks to an already very progressed pregnancy. Currently, Planned Parenthood notes in their web site Fact Sheet, Abortion After the First Trimester, January, 2000, "Adolescents are more likely than older women to obtain abortions later in pregnancy. Adolescents obtain 29% of all abortions performed after the first trimester (CDC, 1998). Among women under age 15, more than one in four abortions is performed at 13 or more weeks gestation (CDC,1998). The very youngest women, those under age 15, are more likely than others to obtain abortions at 21 or more weeks gestation (CDC, 1998)."


The American Medical Association also concluded in a 1992 study that parental consent and notice laws, "increase the gestational age at which the induced pregnancy termination occurs, thereby also increasing the risk associated with the procedure."
The Planned Parenthood Fact Sheet referenced above, also said, "Overall , abortion has a low morbidity rate. Fewer than 1 percent of women who undergo legal abortion sustain a serious complication.10 The rate of complication increases by about 20 percent for each additional week of gestation past eight weeks. Presently the death rate from abortion at all stages of gestation is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 10 times as high as that associated with abortion. The risk of death associate with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every 530,000 abortions at eight or fewer weeks to one per 17,000 at 16-20 weeks, and one per 6,000 at 21 or more weeks.11 After 20 weeks gestation there is no statistically significant difference in maternal mortality rates between terminating a pregnancy by abortion and carrying it to term.12

Clearly, while legal abortion remains one of the safest surgical procedures done in this country, the risks increase for abortions performed in the second trimester.

Anti-abortion supporters of parental consent/notice laws have called the safety of legal abortion into question for the purpose of justifying this type of legislation. However, considering that the statistics have always shown legal first and early second trimester abortions to be safer for a woman than carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth, it belies their true motivation, which is to place another obstacle in the way of every young girls access to safe and legal abortion. They also want the opportunity to stop their daughter's from accessing legal abortion. However, as has been made clear here, there is no way to make a young girl tell a parent but that seems to have had little effect upon anti-abortion extremists. They also are apparently not swayed by the fact that these laws will endanger every mother and father's daughter in America for what is an unattainable goal.

Anti-abortion judges often ignore the standards given them by
the Supreme Court and deny a bypass petition despite its merits.

For example, in Indiana, lawyers and clinics routinely refer teenagers out of state because local judges either refuse to hold hearings or are widely known to be anti-abortion. In Massachusetts, a number of judges refuse to handle judicial bypass petitions while others focus inappropriately on the morality of abortion and are insulting and rude to the minors and their attorneys. The Supreme Court even found that in Minnesota, many judges refuse even to hear bypass proceedings. In Ohio a 17 year-old who testified that her father beat her was denied a judicial bypass. She was a senior in high school with a 3.0 average who played team sports and worked 20-25 hours a week, paid for her own car expenses and medical expenses. In Louisiana, a judge denied a 15 year-olds bypass petition after asking her a series of inappropriate questions including what the minor would say to the fetus about her decision. Her request was granted only after a rehearing by six appellate court judges. (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League - Web Site "The Child Custody Protection Act and the Inadequacy of Judicial Bypass Procedures"

Court proceedings in Minnesota routinely delayed abortions by more than one week, and sometimes up to three weeks (ACLU, 1986) Further, Planned Parenthood's web site said, "In Minnesota, the proportion of second-
trimester abortions among minors terminating their pregnancies increased by 18 percent following enactment of a parental notification law. Likewise, since Missouri's parental consent law went into effect in 1985, the proportion of second-trimester abortions among minors increased from 19% in 1985 to 23% in 1988 (Donovan, 1992)."

In rural areas, judicial bypass is seen as a threat to young girls confidentiality. For example, in one instance that the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League cites, a young girl discovered that her former Sunday school teacher would conduct her bypass hearing.

In the single year following the elimination of a parent consent
requirement for HIV counseling and testing in Connecticut, the number of
teens aged 13-17 obtaining HIV tests at publicly funded facilities doubled.

Finally, Life and Liberty for Women believes that requiring parental consent/notice for minors to obtain STD testing, AIDS testing, or contraceptives is as dangerous and deadly to young girl and young boys health and life as such a requirement to obtain abortion services is.

Approximately 23 states and the District of Columbia give minors the authority to consent to contraceptive services. About 27 states and the District of Columbia authorize a pregnant teenage girl to obtain prenatal care and delivery services without parental consent or notification and 49 states and the District of Columbia give teenage girls and boys the authority to consent to the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. I think the implications of these facts are especially important to note here. Planned Parenthood, on their web site fact sheet Teenagers, abortion, and Government Intrusion Laws, says, "many of these laws allow minors
to give consent to treatments that involve greater medical risk than a first-trimester abortion, such as surgical interventions during pregnancy and Caesarean sections."

The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) on its web site, "Mandatory Parental Involvement In Family Planning Services Threatens Minors' Health," said, "In the single year following the elimination of a parent consent requirement for HIV counseling and testing in Connecticut, the number of teens aged 13-17 obtaining HIV tests at publicly funded facilities doubled. Fifty-eight percent of high school students surveyed in 3 public schools in central Massachusetts reported having health concerns they would like to keep from their parents. Approximately 25% of the students said they would forgo seeking certain types of medical treatment if there were a possibility of disclosure to parents by physicians."

anti-abortion supporters of parental consent/notice laws,
are intent upon trying to stop all abortions and the health and life
of this nation's youngsters pales in importance to that ultimate goal
http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/issues/issues_parental_involvement.html

See next post for the rest.

Quote :

[b]Such restrictions as biased counseling and mandatory waiting periods have made access to abortion services more and more difficult. The same is true of unnecessary clinic regulations, another legislative tactic of anti-choice groups. [b]In 1995, anti-choice lawmakers in eleven states sponsored bills that sought to make "mini-hospitals" out of otherwise safe, efficient, and cost-effective outpatient abortion facilities. They demanded that the facilities conform to new specifications for minimum square footage in hallways and examining rooms, costly air circulation mechanisms, intrusive record-keeping and reporting, and mandatory ultrasound testing, to name just a few.
http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/abortion/16524res19960301.html

Quote :

Unnecessary Reporting Requirements Put Abortion Providers And Their Patients At Risk Of Harassment And Violence

Almost half of the women having abortions beyond 15 weeks of gestation say they were delayed because of problems in affording, finding or getting to abortion services.
Teens are more likely than older women to delay having an abortion until after 15 weeks of pregnancy, when medical risks associated with abortion increase significantly.

The number of abortion providers declined by 11% between 1996 and 2000 (from 2,042 to 1,819). 87% of all U.S. counties lacked an abortion provider in 2000. These counties were home to 34% of all 15–44-year-old women.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904509.html

Erulissë wrote:

but before this random, arbitrary 12week time line you do not want abortions legal?

that means that YOU want to tell women what risks they can take and thenyou want to define what risks are okay or not okay.

like, a woman risking abuse from her partner that's not okay because it's not medical, or a woman risking everything she's worked for in life that's not okaytoo, because it's not medical. Or a womanrisking her mental sanity that's not okay, too? See?

12 weeks is not random. It is firstly, the end period for the most common abortions performed - they drop extremely in amount past 12 weeks - and secondly, it is the earliest that the unborn is theorized to feel pain.

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

What do you all think about the following statistics?

Quote :

24.3% of women will have complications in future pregnancies due to abortion.
Acta/ obstetrics and Gynecology

The risk of having a tubal pregnancy after one abortion is 30%, 160% after 2 or more abortions.
American Journal of public health.

The risk of Placenta Previa increase 600% after an abortion.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

There is a 200% increased risk of miscarriage after an abortion.
AMA Journal

50% of Women who have an abortion have experienced emotional and psychological disturbances.
British journal of OB/GYN

I don't believe any of them. Every woman I know has had an abortion, including myself, and none of us have had ANY after effect.

However, many of them have had permanent damage from giving birth.

So you do not have a problem with 90% of abortions, so I don't know why we are even arguing.

Because I want informed consent and counseling for the other 10%, and I want the legal limit for elective abortions lowered to 12 weeks.

EiriForLife wrote:

Erulissë wrote:

but before this random, arbitrary 12week time line you do not want abortions legal?

that means that YOU want to tell women what risks they can take and thenyou want to define what risks are okay or not okay.

like, a woman risking abuse from her partner that's not okay because it's not medical, or a woman risking everything she's worked for in life that's not okaytoo, because it's not medical. Or a womanrisking her mental sanity that's not okay, too? See?

12 weeks is not random. It is firstly, the end period for the most common abortions performed - they drop extremely in amount past 12 weeks - and secondly, it is the earliest that the unborn is theorized to feel pain.

and the rest of thepost?

good reading futureshock, thank you.

Adolescents are more likely than older women
to obtain abortions later in pregnancy. That denial part of adolescents-'this can't be happening if I ignore it it'll go away'.

Such laws are intended by the anti-abortion movement as another way to further restrict access to abortion services, and has no basis in a genuine desire to protect the health or life of any teenage girl. yeah.

So after reading your posts i'm coming away with parental consent laws lead minors to have abortions later, (if they don't try to do it themselves and hurt themselves) which is past the point many people think abortions should be illegal, and is a manipulative way to eliminate abortion.

EiriForLife wrote:

Because I want informed consent and counseling for the other 10%, and I want the legal limit for elective abortions lowered to 12 weeks.

There is already informed consent for every single medical procedure performed in the U.S., and there is counseling before every abortion, regardless of trimester.

Erulissë wrote:

good reading futureshock, thank you.

Adolescents are more likely than older women
to obtain abortions later in pregnancy. That denial part of adolescents-'this can't be happening if I ignore it it'll go away'.

Such laws are intended by the anti-abortion movement as another way to further restrict access to abortion services, and has no basis in a genuine desire to protect the health or life of any teenage girl. yeah.

So after reading your posts i'm coming away with parental consent laws lead minors to have abortions later, (if they don't try to do it themselves and hurt themselves) which is past the point many people think abortions should be illegal, and is a manipulative way to eliminate abortion.

yup. They obviously don't care about any THEORIZED pain of the fetus, because they CAUSE second trimester abortions.

Erulissë wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Erulissë wrote:

but before this random, arbitrary 12week time line you do not want abortions legal?

that means that YOU want to tell women what risks they can take and thenyou want to define what risks are okay or not okay.

like, a woman risking abuse from her partner that's not okay because it's not medical, or a woman risking everything she's worked for in life that's not okaytoo, because it's not medical. Or a womanrisking her mental sanity that's not okay, too? See?

12 weeks is not random. It is firstly, the end period for the most common abortions performed - they drop extremely in amount past 12 weeks - and secondly, it is the earliest that the unborn is theorized to feel pain.

and the rest of thepost?

Can you prove being pregnant would "risk everything a woman has worked for in life"? There are risks for abortion too. Abortion could risk everything a woman has worked for too. PLUS a child dies, so I personally feel the risks of a normal pregnancy and the risks of a normal abortion cancel each other out. Women are not normally turned into debilitated whales when they are pregnant. IF the side effects are so severe she can't work, then that would be grounds for an abortion.

As for the abuse situation, that would fit into the "etc" cases of exceptions. There will ALWAYS be exceptions, and I am NOT going to discuss them. So stop trying.

futureshock wrote:

EiriForLife wrote:

Because I want informed consent and counseling for the other 10%, and I want the legal limit for elective abortions lowered to 12 weeks.

There is already informed consent for every single medical procedure performed in the U.S., and there is counseling before every abortion, regardless of trimester.

Then why do women constantly tell their counselors and therapists "I had no idea what I was killing, I didn't know it was a baby". Why do women regret their abortions if they "know everything" about the procedure? For God's sake, I still hear the LIE that "The embryo is just a blob of cells!!!" There is a body with limbs by 4 weeks, and by 6 weeks it's definitely NOT a blob.

Do women have the opportunity to see videos of the procedure they are about to undergo? They shouldn't be forced to watch, but videos of every procedure known to man are available... except abortion. You have NO idea how hard it is to find a video of a proper abortion being performed before or at 12 weeks. I can find gastric bypass, plastic surgery... all sorts of ELECTIVE procedures. But not abortion. Why do you think that is? I think it's unfair: I can see what breast implantation looks like if I WANT to, but I can't see what an abortion looks like. The video should be available.

Secondly, a detailed packet (not just a 3-page pamphlet briefly touching on each trimester) should be provided discussing the capabilities of the unborn at the stage of pregnancy the woman is in, during the week she will abort (if different), and what it would be capable of just one week later. Sometimes all a woman needs to know is that her child is going to have a heartbeat to stop her from aborting. If she were to learn that knowledge later, she could regret that abortion.

Basically, I don't think the counseling provided is consistent across the nation OR adequet.