The Abortion House of Horrors Case

[Coito ergo sum]

I do care if she has an abortion at 8 months

Anywhere in the world where that isn't highly restricted or just illegal?

Sure.

Although, it's not highly restricted in the US or Pennsylvania, so the point is irrelevant when wear talking about this part of the world. Not sure why one wouldn't just c-section the baby out, zip the mom up and send her on her way (absent medical reasons rendering that unfeasible). Why cut the spinal cord at that time?

[Tyrannical]

I heard he was racist too.

[MrJonno]

I do care if she has an abortion at 8 months

Anywhere in the world where that isn't highly restricted or just illegal?

Sure.

Although, it's not highly restricted in the US or Pennsylvania, so the point is irrelevant when wear talking about this part of the world. Not sure why one wouldn't just c-section the baby out, zip the mom up and send her on her way (absent medical reasons rendering that unfeasible). Why cut the spinal cord at that time?

Wikipedia seems to imply abortion is available on demand up to viability in the US which is still 24 weeks, after that its highly restricted ie usually illegal. UK its 24 'if it would cause psychological damage to the mother ie on demand in practice', after thats its serious handicap or threat to a woman's life

[Coito ergo sum]

There is a constitutional right to an abortion through viability. That means that no state may prohibit or restrict abortions to that point.

Afterwards, states may reasonably regulate, and in Pennsylvania abortion is unrestricted through viability (24 weeks) and thereafter it is allowed if a doctor says it's necessary (e.g. to preserve life of mother or prevent substantial health risk).

24 weeks is almost 6 months. Full term is 36 or 37 weeks.

You seem to think that the law is more liberal in the UK, but it is not. In the UK an abortion can only be done legally if TWO registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith - (a) that the pregnancy is less than 24 weeks and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or (b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or (c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated (d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

So, in Pennsylvania, abortion is on demand through 24 weeks. The law in the UK is more restrictive than that. And, both are about the same for abortions after 24 weeks.

Pennsylvania's law is typical of that in the US.

[Tero]

The babies in the jars is gross, but most of them were fetuses. Journalists turn all fetuses into babies.

[MrJonno]

You seem to think that the law is more liberal in the UK, but it is not

Depends, and its different in theory and practice. Not being Americans we tend to treat some laws as more a guide than written in stone. Few things are a right either they are either legal or not legal.

For up 24 week with the most common non physical medical reason is pyschological harm, wrongly after 24 weeks up to birth you can get an abortion up to birth on the grounds of 'serious medical handicap' which no one bothered to define. Then again its perfectly acceptable in Europe and I assume in the US to not treat and leave to die a baby whose prospects are so poor that to give them treatment would only be prolonging suffering. The Dutch have a policy of never treating a baby born at 24 weeks, in the UK we do sometimes try but as only 1% of 24 week babies survive and only 1% of those are without serious handicaps ie a vegetable I'm not convinced that's such a good idea.

The two doctors signature I believe was to protect women from being pressurised, its normally a GP referring a patient to a hospital/clinic. Refusal is incredibly rare, an individual doctor is allowed to refer a patient on ethical grounds but they are legally required to find the patient a doctor who will. It's free of course but being a public funded healthservice waiting lists are 2-3 weeks (unless its near the legal limit) and many people go private. I doubt if there is anyone more than 10 miles away from somewhere they can get a free abortion.

Northern Ireland is of course different, abortion is banned so people just get a ferry over to the mainland and get it for free there. Best way to reform Northern Ireland is just to get rid of (give it to Texas or Argentina)

[Coito ergo sum]

You seem to think that the law is more liberal in the UK, but it is not

Depends, and its different in theory and practice. Not being Americans we tend to treat some laws as more a guide than written in stone. Few things are a right either they are either legal or not legal.

For up 24 week with the most common non physical medical reason is pyschological harm,

It doesn't depend. You still need a medical reason. We don't.

If someone suggested that women ought to have to give a reason to get an abortion early in the pregnancy, much less have two doctors CERTIFY in "good faith" that the reason is legitimate, that person would be called a right wing anti-choicer, and by some a misogynist and anti-feminist -- it would be part of the "war on women."

[Animavore]

Abortion isn't banned in Northern Ireland any more

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oc ... c-protests

[MrJonno]

If someone suggested that women ought to have to give a reason to get an abortion early in the pregnancy, much less have two doctors CERTIFY in "good faith" that the reason is legitimate, that person would be called a right wing anti-choicer, and by some a misogynist and anti-feminist -- it would be part of the "war on women.

If a woman asked to have nose job from plastic surgeon and the surgeon didn't ask the patient why they wanted it that surgeon would be struck off. Saying I want elective surgery is not sufficient justification for surgery . All medical procedures put the burden of the doctor to prove if required that the patient understands what they agreeing to and why (informed consent).

The two doctors was put in for protection for women, I've not heard of any women's group asking for it to be dropped but the doctors union has asked for it to go (too much paper work I guess)

[Warren Dew]

Damn... is PA abortion law THAT restrictive that such butcher shops still exist? I thought the aftermath of Roe v Wade had allowed to make them a bad memory of an extinct past.

The video suggests that the clients were people who couldn't afford to pay for an abortion at a legal clinic.

However, if a woman is going there for an abortion at month 7 or 8, then it's hard to describe it in a way that doesn't sound horrific. At that stage of development, it could be born premature and survive outside of the womb, either with assistance or sometimes even without. And, if an abortion comes out alive at that stage, I can't see cutting a spinal cord with scissors as anything other than butchery.

The survivability of a fetus born in the seventh month is exaggerated. Even with heroic measures in the neonatal infant care unit, only a very small fraction of these babies survive, and nearly always with moderate to severe disabilities. It's not really until the beginning of the ninth month that a significant proportion of fetuses are survivable without special medical intervention.

I'm not saying that live birth followed by execution is a good abortion method, mind. I'm just pointing out the facts about survivability.

Don't claim to represent anyone but myself but in my opinion the worst thing a person can do apart from murder is to give birth to someone they can/don't want to look after. Compared to that abortion is a very good thing, as the alternative is highly likely to be a lifetime of pain/poverty/crime for the unwanted kid (and society in general).

Yes, unless there is a prearranged adoption. Every child should be a wanted child.

[Tero]

It's around 38-40 weeks you can do a C section to yank out a baby at risk for something later on. C sectionat 36 is risky.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 074555.htm

[hadespussercats]

Well, fetuses have spinal cords long before month eight.

Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby's back is closing and your baby's heart is pumping blood.

I must have missed where it said in the article the doctor was snipping the spinal cords of 8-month fetuses in particular.

[Warren Dew]

I don't know about others, but I was kind of hoping he would not be charged with murder if it were only nonviable fetuses involved.

[MrJonno]

Yes, unless there is a prearranged adoption. Every child should be a wanted child.

Why would a woman want to put herself through months of pain and emotional bonding and then give up a child, an abortion is a far less stressful option for anyone sentient involved.

It's the reason the number of new born baby adoptions doesn't even reach double figures in the UK, in fact in one year the number of baby adoptions was exactly zero

[Kristie]

Yes, unless there is a prearranged adoption. Every child should be a wanted child.

Why would a woman want to put herself through months of pain and emotional bonding and then give up a child, an abortion is a far less stressful option for anyone sentient involved.

Because there are other women out there that dream of nothing more than being a mother. I'm sure the bonding happens with toddlers and older children, but there's something extra special about bonding with a baby. If I could give that to a mothers that couldn't have her own baby, that would be way better than an abortion. Kind of like being a surrogate, which is something I would definitely do if I had a close friend of family member that asked me to.