BAIPA - sleeper issue?

[30ashopper]

I believe the current standard is 21 weeks. I seem to remember a primi that lived after 21 weeks a year or so ago.

Wikipedia to the rescue -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_Babies

The have a nice table in there, as well as references. 24 weeks looks to be the current "standard" but children have lived after being born as early as 21 weeks.

There's an interesting side discussion on this - the viability point will no doubt continue to move backward as medical science improves. At some point the viability point will no doubt be the point of conception. Hopfully by then women won't need abortions for any reason, but it would be interesting to step into the future and see how this all plays out by then.

 

[30A Skunkape]

Wikipedia to the rescue -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_Babies

The have a nice table in there, as well as references. 24 weeks looks to be the current "standard" but children have lived after being born as early as 21 weeks.

There's an interesting side discussion on this - the viability point will no doubt continue to move backward as medical science improves. At some point the viability point will no doubt be the point of conception. Hopfully by then women won't need abortions for any reason, but it would be interesting to step into the future and see how this all plays out by then.

I am skeptical of this and wonder why anyone would advocate pushing the envelope regarding viability. Viability is a misleading term since no baby born at 24 weeks is viable without several harrowing weeks of intensive care.

 

[rapunzel]

In the case of late term abortions, shouldn't the child have some say in the matter? And if the child is unable to speak for his / herself, shouldn't the state speak for them?

The late term argument frustrates me, simply becuase these are children who are regularly born early and live if they are not aborted. I understand it is a rare case, and in a situation where the mother's life is in danger (i'm not talking mental stress here, I'm talking life threatening) aborting the child is an option. But pushing this idea that women should have the right to walk in at the last minute and, for any reason, kill their kid is perposterous.

I think you may have missed my point...if the majority of these late term 'induced abortions' are the result of ectopic pregnancies, are you advocating the ectopic fetus have a say in whether or not it is removed from the mother's body before her fallopian tube ruptures and she either bleeds to death along with the fetus or her life is saved but her fertility severely damaged via emergency surgery? When a pregnancy develops in the fallopian tube, the fetus is not going to live. These are not 'abortions' in the common use of the term, they are medically necessary procedures that just move along the inevitable. A fallopian tube does not expand large enough for a child to develop to term.

Third trimester abortions of a elective nature of an otherwise viable fetus just don't happen. It's a red herring.

 

[LuciferSam]

I don't think the state should speak for the child any more than they should for a dying relative with a living will. I think by default, the mother, who has carried the fetus in her own body should be the one to make these decisions by default. What would the state use as a criterion as to whether or not to let the child live or die, and why should anyone trust the state's judgment any more than the mother's? We've already seen how politically fueled the state's decision making capability can be with the Terry Schiavo case.

 

[30ashopper]

I think you may have missed my point...if the majority of these late term 'induced abortions' are the result of ectopic pregnancies, are you advocating the ectopic fetus have a say in whether or not it is removed from the mother's body before her fallopian tube ruptures and she either bleeds to death along with the fetus or her life is saved but her fertility severely damaged via emergency surgery? When a pregnancy develops in the fallopian tube, the fetus is not going to live. These are not 'abortions' in the common use of the term, they are medically necessary procedures that just move along the inevitable. A fallopian tube does not expand large enough for a child to develop to term.

Repunzel, in the case where the mother's life is in danger (I mention this above) terminating the pregnancy is completely acceptable in my book.

Third trimester abortions of a elective nature of an otherwise viable fetus just don't happen. It's a red herring.

The point I was trying to make is that many pro-choice supporters use the slippery sloap argument to advocate the idea that women should have the right to have elective abortions during this period. I do not support that.

 

[30ashopper]

I don't think the state should speak for the child any more than they should for a dying relative with a living will. I think by default, the mother, who has carried the fetus in her own body should be the one to make these decisions by default. What would the state use as a criterion as to whether or not to let the child live or die, and why should anyone trust the state's judgment any more than the mother's? We've already seen how politically fueled the state's decision making capability can be with the Terry Schiavo case.

If the mother has the right to make a decision like this and the state should not represent the child (which, um is a violation of the childs constitutional rights, but hey, who cares about that) why stop at late term abortions? Lets give the mother the right to decide the fate of her child throughout the childs life? Is there really any difference?

 

[LuciferSam]

If the mother has the right to make a decision like this and the state should not represent the child (which, um is a violation of the childs constitutional rights, but hey, who cares about that) why stop at late term abortions? Lets give the mother the right to decide the fate of her child throughout the childs life? Is there really any difference?

I'm just trying to be consistent with current law to the best of my knowledge. The fact is that people do indeed under some cases have the ability to make life or death decisions involving relatives who are dying and near death. They can be legally authorized to issue do not resuscitate or do not feed orders if the patient has provided authorization.

Actually, the parents do have the authority to decide the fate of their child throughout life. Parental authorization is required for things such as life-saving surgery. Is this a violation of the childs constitutional rights if the parent denies such authorization? What about Christian Scientists who deny medication for their child or Jehovah's witnesses who refuse blood transfusions. Does the state step in?

 

[30A Skunkape]

I'm just trying to be consistent with current law to the best of my knowledge. The fact is that people do indeed under some cases have the ability to make life or death decisions involving relatives who are dying and near death. They can be legally authorized to issue do not resuscitate or do not feed orders if the patient has provided authorization.

Actually, the parents do have the authority to decide the fate of their child throughout life. Parental authorization is required for things such as life-saving surgery. Is this a violation of the childs constitutional rights if the parent denies such authorization? What about Christian Scientists who deny medication for their child or Jehovah's witnesses who refuse blood transfusions. Does the state step in?

Yes.

 

[Rose Anna]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30ashopper
Repunzel, in the case where the mother's life is in danger (I mention this above) terminating the pregnancy is completely acceptable in my book.

Since there are no late term abortions that are not to save the mother's life then you must be fine with any that happen in the third term, since all are medically necessary.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 30ashopper
The point I was trying to make is that many pro-choice supporters use the slippery sloap argument to advocate the idea that women should have the right to have elective abortions during this period. I do not support that.

I understand what you are saying, but you actually have the argument in reverse. Pro-choice by definition is neither for or against abortions, but is in fact just in favor of governments and groups backing off and letting the woman, her doctors and whatever her support group is make the decisions concerning her body.

The anti-choice forces use the slippery slope argument to say if we allow any they will eventually progress to infanticide, therefore the government should force to end all decisions by making all illegal. There are several state laws on the books that make it illegal even if the mother's life is in danger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30ashopper
If the mother has the right to make a decision like this and the state should not represent the child (which, um is a violation of the childs constitutional rights, but hey, who cares about that) why stop at late term abortions? Lets give the mother the right to decide the fate of her child throughout the childs life? Is there really any difference?

If you want to argue that point, then it stands that the fetus' legal guardian is the mother, just as you are the legal guardian of any children that you have. Do you want the government usurping your rights over your children, or do you think that you can look out for their best interest and your own?

The key to all of this is education, health care and prevention. There are a lot of diseases out there that are much worst. No one wants an abortion. No one wants to be in the position to have to make the decision to abort or not. In a time where we are constantly criticizing our government for being too big, too intrusive and incapable of making good decisions, why are we asking that they start legislating the function of private body parts.

 

[LuciferSam]

Yes.

I was just wondering. Could you elaborate on the legalities involved in these situations? I would like to know more about this. I was under the impression that parents had to give authorization for certain medical prcedures. Don't get me wrong, I find that very disturbing that parents have tried to withhold medical treatment.