I will NOT be moving to South Dakota!

[pruritis_ani]

I'm not sure why religion is any less satisfactory of a reason to have an opinion than any other basis. Non-religious people act as if being religious nullifies anything you say. Then it's the religious people are the ones accused of being intolerant......funny.

I never said religion invalidates an opinion. I merely said that legislation based on religion is expressly prohibited by the constitution.

I think opinions based on ANYTHING are great. What I have a problem with is people trying to impose religion and religious beliefs on others through legislation.

Clearly, it is GAdocs opinion that life begins at conception, which is rooted in his/her religious beliefs. That is great. But, by trying to impose his religious definitions on the rest of us, he/she is attempting to force us to follow his religious teachings. That is unacceptable.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[buttercup77]

I never said religion invalidates an opinion. I merely said that legislation based on religion is expressly prohibited by the constitution.

I think opinions based on ANYTHING are great. What I have a problem with is people trying to impose religion and religious beliefs on others through legislation.

Clearly, it is GAdocs opinion that life begins at conception, which is rooted in his/her religious beliefs. That is great. But, by trying to impose his religious definitions on the rest of us, he/she is attempting to force us to follow his religious teachings. That is unacceptable.

The framework of our country is based on Judeo-Christian values thanks to our founding forefathers. And why do you chose to comment that GAdocs is "imposing" his religious beliefs on everyone else? Who cares where his belief system comes from? It is awful that you are so intolerate (or at least come across that way) of religious people. My pro-life beliefs do not come from my religious beliefs, but the thought that women have been failed by the institution of abortion.

 

[pruritis_ani]

How on earth do I come across as intolerant to religious people??? I couldn't care less about religion. All I ask is that you do not attempt to force me to follow your religious beliefs by legislating them. Simple.

If your religion precludes you from doing something, don't do it. Don't try to make me buy into your beliefs, as I am not trying to force you into mine.

 

[pruritis_ani]

And why do you chose to comment that GAdocs is "imposing" his religious beliefs on everyone else? Who cares where his belief system comes from?

I commented on this because GAdoc basically came out and said that his position on abortion is a religious position. Therefore, in encouraging legislation based on these religious beliefs, he is imposing them everyone else.

Call me crazy, but if somebody says my religion tells me this is right, so I am going to do my best to make it law, I consider that imposing.

 

[Flea girl]

My pro-life beliefs do not come from my religious beliefs, but the thought that women have been failed by the institution of abortion.

Wow, woman are failed by the institution of abortion?!!!! I find that statement so repulsive. So, basically you think if a woman or child is raped and gets pregnant from that she should be forced to carry out the pregnancy? That is what I call a failure to woman. Remember, you can not have you cake and eat too.

 

[Larch]

Oh yes. I was wondering how long it would take before someone came up with a variation of "women deserve better than abortion." Such a patronizing point of view. It suggests that women would always want to be pregnant and give birth, if only their situations were better. It's unfathomable to some people that there are women out there who just don't want to be pregnant at that time (or ever). Why is there this idiotic delusion that all women want to be "mommies" every time they have sex? Probably the same reason there is this fabulous daydream of pregnancy suddenly transforming women into baby-talking, kid-coddling incubators when they had no previous interest in children.

 

[new_avatar]

Article from SF Chronicle

(03-09) 16:10 PST Nashville, Tenn. (AP) --


The state Senate on Thursday passed a proposal to amend the Tennessee Constitution so that it doesn't guarantee a woman's right to an abortion.


The 24-9 vote was the first step of many toward officially amending the state constitution. The measure would go before voters if the General Assembly approves it twice over the next two years...

 

[pruritis_ani]

The more I read this thread, the more disturbed I get. I would just like to clarify my views, and then consider me done with this....no offense to anyone intended at all. I have enjoyed the discussion, and it is always enlightening to hear from those who feel differently than I do.

The first thing I would like to clarify is the accusation leveled at me that I am "intolerant of religion". That could not be further from the truth. I think that every person is entitled to their beliefs, and I would defend to the death their right to that belief. But, inherent in the right to having your own belief system is an obligation to give that same right to others who believe differently. You cannot have it both ways.

My opposition to the outlawing of abortion is based on several things. First and foremost, it is based on the fact that I consider it an inviolable right of each woman to decide the terms under which she handles pregnancy. It is a physically dangerous situation with far reaching implications into an individuals physical, mental, social and financial well being. My position is that NOBODY can decide for a woman when she must accept a risk that she may find unbearable. That is for her to decide alone. That is my philosophical stance on abortion.

My legal position is that it is just to precarious and uncertain to provide such broad restrictions based on such ambiguities. The questions are endless and without good answer. When does life begin? Who has more rights? At what point do these rights overlap, become equal, etc? At what point is the pregnacy determined dangerous? If a fetus is alive, how can it ever be ok to legally "kill" the fetus in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother? All of these questions are going to be answered differently by each of us, and usually they are lacking a logical or philosophical cohesion that is standard in most laws. Compare it to murder, speeding, rape, etc...in each of these instances there are very strict definitions that society as a whole generally agree with.

Without a solid position that is logically defensible, we will resort to legislating based on "feelings", and this will invariabley trample the rights of somebody.

Ironically, I feel that the strongest argument agains abortion is the religious argument. If your religion teaches you that abortion is wrong, then there is not much room for discussion. And I respect this view. However, the people of other belief systems are protected from legislation based on this argument alone. So, while I find it a very valid reason for a personal belief, I will fight tooth and nail against applying this as a legal standard. The seperation of church and state exists for a reason, and to attempt to undermine that is to attempt to undermine a founding principle of our country, and principle that is a crucial part of what makes the US a great place to be.

In the end, it is really a simple matter, IMHO. Believe what you want. But, as doctors, we are obligated to provide the best care to the patients on an individual level, a standard of care based on the patients needs and beliefs, not our own. While we are all free to have our own opinions, the price of this freedom is to respect the freedom of others to make decisions about their own body based on their personal beliefs.

All the best,
itchy_butt

 

[GAdoc]

How on earth do I come across as intolerant to religious people??? I couldn't care less about religion. All I ask is that you do not attempt to force me to follow your religious beliefs by legislating them. Simple.

If your religion precludes you from doing something, don't do it. Don't try to make me buy into your beliefs, as I am not trying to force you into mine.

Let me tell you how you are intolerant. The more I read, the more I realize how true my definition of liberalism is. It is an intoleration of people with intolerations! You hypocrits! Ask yourself what system of justice EVERY law in this country is rooted in. It may not be based on any one sectarian belief, but it is definately based on Judeo-Christian principals. If you do not like the religious principals reflected by our Constitution, go to a country with a system of government you can agree with.

 

[pruritis_ani]

Let me tell you how you are intolerant. The more I read, the more I realize how true my definition of liberalism is. It is an intoleration of people with intolerations! You hypocrits! Ask yourself what system of justice EVERY law in this country is rooted in. It may not be based on any one sectarian belief, but it is definately based on Judeo-Christian principals. If you do not like the religious principals reflected by our Constitution, go to a country with a system of government you can agree with.

I love it. You call me intolerant and a hypocrite, then tell me to get out of the country if I don't like it.

Still have not shown me to be intolerant, BTW. Your debate skills could use a little sharpening. All you did was make the same baseless claim, then threw in a new one.

Again, the seperation of church and state is guaranteed. While many of our laws do reflect Judeo-Christian priniples, these same principles happen to be reflected in most major religions. And, what are you trying to say by this? That it is ok to legislate your religous belief, and force others to follow it?

You know, this time I really am done. The last defense of those that lose the debate is the hurling of unbased, personal insults. It is pretty clear that you must now resort to that. Enjoy yourself.

Good luck in med school, hopefully you will gain a bit more perspective after that experience.

 

[GAdoc]

I love it. You call me intolerant and a hypocrite, then tell me to get out of the country if I don't like it.

Still have not shown me to be intolerant, BTW. Your debate skills could use a little sharpening. All you did was make the same baseless claim, then threw in a new one.

Again, the seperation of church and state is guaranteed. While many of our laws do reflect Judeo-Christian priniples, these same principles happen to be reflected in most major religions. And, what are you trying to say by this? That it is ok to legislate your religous belief, and force others to follow it?

You know, this time I really am done. The last defense of those that lose the debate is the hurling of unbased, personal insults. It is pretty clear that you must now resort to that. Enjoy yourself.

Good luck in med school, hopefully you will gain a bit more perspective after that experience.

The diffenence between someone who merely follows a religion and someone who has absolute faith in the absolute authority of Jesus Christ is that my ideas of right an wrong are not original. I didn't cook them up. In fact, I would suggest that an attitude of "let everyone choose what's right for themselves" is the EASIER thing to go around thinking. If my words are offensive please forgive me. Know that these are not my own thoughts...they come from the Bible. And it is understandable why you would simply write me off at this point as a poor debator. If you do not believe in the absolute standard set by God in the Bible you will have no problem with this line of thought "I may not personally agree with X, but I can't force what I believe on someone else". My line of thought is "X is wrong according to God, and while I need to love every person regardless of who they are or what they believe, I need to stand against X because God stands against it". And some things are true no matter how hard we wish they weren't.

This is not hate speech. As a doctor, there is not a person who could come into my office who I wouldn't care for as if they were my own family. And I back this up with COUNTLESS hours of experience seeing patients at Volunteer Clinics. I would never judge a person, and I would never condemn their behavior as if I somehow lived a sinless life. Please recognize that there is a difference between me wanting laws making abortion illegal and the kind of care I provide women who are considering abortion of who have had an abortion.

I'm not self-righteous and I don't put myself on a pedestal. I sin daily, and I don't consider that sin any better than the sin of abortion, etc. But here's what I don't do...I DON'T pretend like what I did was justifiable.

Four years at an extremely liberal university only strengthened my resolve as a Conservative. I seriously doubt that medical school will change my mind. And being open minded is only beneficial in understanding where others are coming from. There is no benefit do going through life thinking any idea that comes down the pike is valid.

Again, I am sorry if I spoke to harshly or offended you or anyone else on this forum. It was not my intent.

 

[pruritis_ani]

I admire your faith. I just wish you could see that your god is not mine, and his rules are not mine. The bible may be very important to you, but to many millions of others it is not. So, I applaud the fact that you are a faithful follower and believer, I just wish you could see how it goes against this country (which I assume you also have faith in) to attempt to impose your religion on those of us who disagree.

Your strength of conviction does not equal a right to force us to follow your beliefs.

 

[GAdoc]

I admire your faith. I just wish you could see that your god is not mine, and his rules are not mine. The bible may be very important to you, but to many millions of others it is not. So, I applaud the fact that you are a faithful follower and believer, I just wish you could see how it goes against this country (which I assume you also have faith in) to attempt to impose your religion on those of us who disagree.

Your strength of conviction does not equal a right to force us to follow your beliefs.

I absolutely do not intend to push my faith on anyone. Please know that I say this in all sincerity. Hopefully, the example I set by the way I live my life will cause people to notice the difference in me. Jesus certainly never set an example of forcing people to faith in Himself (though Christians at different times in history seem to have forgotten that). And obviously committing a sin like blowing up an abortion clinic is as wrong as what goes on in the clinics. There is no excuse for it. As I mentioned, I hold more than just beliefs. My faith is as real as the air I breathe. And as I said, some things are true whether we believe them or not. And we will all one day give an account for how we've spent our lives. You may never come to see things this way, and I'm not going to turn this post into a religious debate forum. So allow me, one more time to steer things away from my religious beliefs and lets go back to the law.

The facts are:

1. When our Forefathers wrote the Constitution, they imposed all sorts of their personal and religious beliefs into that document. Nowhere in those beliefs is a "right to privacy"
2. Until Roe v. Wade a physician providing an abortion to a woman would loose his/her license because it was illegal.
3. The members of the Supreme Court who decided Roe v. Wade later admitted that they believed abortion needed to be legalized and they were determined to find a Constitutional basis for it (even though it didn't exist).
4. Supreme Court justices trampled the rights of millions of Americans and sidestepped two branches of government in their decision...something even you would be furious about if it had included making prayer mandatory in school. And the principal is the SAME...both cases would involve justices with personal agendas using their positions to sidestep two branches of government to get their way. Remember, they are the ultimate authority on what is and isn't legal, so all the challenges about separation of church and state wouldn't amount to a hill of beans if the Supreme Court decided it didn't. And for the record, the wording in the Constitution concerning "Separation of Church and State" merely states "Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion". I'm not going to comment on how I interpret this, but its just food for thought.

 

[3dtp]

Pruri-,

You made a comment above, stating "legislation based on religion is expressly prohibited by the constitution."

This is simply not true. It doesn't say that. Where it speaks about religion at all is in Article XI, Qualifications of elected officials, saying, "no religious Test shall be ever be required as a Qualificaton to any Office or public Trust under the United States." US Const. Art XI Sect. 3.

My understanding is that you cannot ban someone from public office because she is a Catholic, Jew, Mormon, Muslim or because they are not. So, the Constitution is clear: the religious persuasion of office holders may not be considered as a qualification for office holders.

It is otherwise silent on this issue, concerning the activities of the elected and appointed representatives.

The founders were clearly concerned about this since many of our founders fled England and Europe to escape religious persecution, and in particular, the Church of England. They wanted no one to be excluded from participating in our democracy. See Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776.

This concern is embodied in the First amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or the press or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." U.S.Const. First Amend. 1789.

Congress cannot decide that we will be an Anglican Christian nation and make it the law. It cannot decide that we will be a Fundamentalist Evangelical Jerry Falwell nation and make it law. It cannot decide we will be an Islaamic fundamentalist nation and make it law. It cannot decide that we will all be Conservative Jews and make it law.

It can decide that the Torah was correct in its public health code and declare that only kosher food is permitted to be sold in the US. That is if it could garner the support of enough people, which it can't. And besides the hog farmers have a pretty good lobby, I suspect. But, based on religion, we have a Food and Drug Administration and food purity laws because we want to eat good and healthy food.

Concerning Privacy, The Fifth Amendment is the only mention and that with respect to limiting the deprivation of property, or life, without due process of law or just compensation. So, in fact, the constitution is silent on this as well, unless we are to consider other human beings a property, which I think the Civil War Amendments did away with under the equal protection amendments. Heretofore, the property rights included slaves, women, children and many of the original 13 states carried a "Poll Tax" that had to be paid prior to voting by a man, but with sufferage, women did not have to pay it. Most of these taxes disappeared with the 1960s voting rights acts.

So, basically our legal code of conduct is in fact based on the fundamental values that Judaism, Christianity and Islaam hold dear. If we were to accept the arguement that legislation based on religion is unconstitutional, then we would have to completely abolish our criminal code, adopt a purely libertarian viewpoint, which is what the pro-abortion at any and all levels of debate is, and we would surely devolve into a might makes right society. Namely, I have the right to do whatever I want unless you are powerful enough to stop me. I think we all agree that we do not want to live in this type of society. So, we have a code of legal conduct that originates in theological (i.e. religious) principals of conduct which have served society well for thousands of years. And we are better for it.

Now, something else to consider. I just heard about a case in Michigan where a 25 yo FOB is challenging a court ordered child support payment to a woman on the grounds that he told her to get an abortion when he learned she was pregnant, she refused, and since he had no say in the decision, he likewise has no obligation to support the child!

Personally, I think this is crazy, and I hope and believe that whatever courts review these things shoots this argument down, but it is, to me a frightening bit of legal strategy, that goes to further absolve people of personal responsibility. Does this mean that a man who loses control of his sperm in the heat of passion bears no further responsibility for his actions? Interesting twist to this discussion. I sure hope not.

--It's been an interesting discussion.

 

[pruritis_ani]

Now, something else to consider. I just heard about a case in Michigan where a 25 yo FOB is challenging a court ordered child support payment to a woman on the grounds that he told her to get an abortion when he learned she was pregnant, she refused, and since he had no say in the decision, he likewise has no obligation to support the child!

Personally, I think this is crazy, and I hope and believe that whatever courts review these things shoots this argument down, but it is, to me a frightening bit of legal strategy, that goes to further absolve people of personal responsibility. Does this mean that a man who loses control of his sperm in the heat of passion bears no further responsibility for his actions? Interesting twist to this discussion. I sure hope not.

--It's been an interesting discussion.

I am not going to respond to the entire first portion of your post, other than to say my interpretation of the consition's points on religion are very different from your's. But, I have signed off of that portion of this thread.

As for the other case, I read about that as well. Tough to say where I stand on it, but if you read the case, the guy does have a point. He alleges that the woman assured him it was not possible for her to get pregnant (not that she was using contraception, but that it was physically impossible for her to get pregnant). He alleges that he clearly informed her that he did not want to be a father, and she assured him falsely that it was not possible. In this case, he makes a good argument. If what he says is true, it wasn't that he "lost control of his sperm". If what he says was true, than the woman clearly manipulated her position, lied to him and to me, that is pretty wrong.

Legal minds seem to agree that it is a bit of a quandry, but as one lawyer said, the law will likely say it is not fair to the man to have to pay, but it is less fair that society would have to pay. So, it appears likely that he will lose. But, it does bring up some interesting points that are worth considering. I think all of us would agree that accidental pregnancies are surely the responsibilty of both parties. But, what about when a woman misleads a man, and tricks him into getting her pregnant....I doubt this happens that often, but that poor guy sure got screwed for believing this woman!

 

[toofache32]

...The more I read, the more I realize how true my definition of liberalism is. It is an intoleration of people with intolerations! ...

Liberals are for everything and everyone...except people who are against something.

 

[new_avatar]

Oh yes. I was wondering how long it would take before someone came up with a variation of "women deserve better than abortion." Such a patronizing point of view. It suggests that women would always want to be pregnant and give birth, if only their situations were better. It's unfathomable to some people that there are women out there who just don't want to be pregnant at that time (or ever). Why is there this idiotic delusion that all women want to be "mommies" every time they have sex? Probably the same reason there is this fabulous daydream of pregnancy suddenly transforming women into baby-talking, kid-coddling incubators when they had no previous interest in children.

There's an answer to that.
It's called BTL.

 

[Flea girl]

There's an answer to that.
It's called BTL.

And those Never fail right?!!! Please note the sarcasm

 

[new_avatar]

And those Never fail right?!!! Please note the sarcasm

They can, but they greatly reduce the chance of becoming pregnant and are a useful tool in those who do not wish to achieve pregnancy.

A BTL in combination with OCP, a barrier method like condoms, and chemical product like foam would greatly reduce a woman's chance of becoming pregnant.

But a reminder would be that the only way not to become pregnant in absolute is not to have penile vaginal intercourse.

I hope this helps.

 

[Flea girl]

They can, but they greatly reduce the chance of becoming pregnant and are a useful tool in those who do not wish to achieve pregnancy.

A BTL in combination with OCP, a barrier method like condoms, and chemical product like foam would greatly reduce a woman's chance of becoming pregnant.

But a reminder would be that the only way not to become pregnant in absolute is not to have penile vaginal intercourse.

I hope this helps.

Give me a break!!!! What do you practice? Most of my patients can not get their spouse to wear a condom, much less a vas. Look you were the one that brought up the whole BTL. So, are you going to tell your patients that A BTL in combination with OCP,and a barrier method like condoms, and chemical product like foam would greatly reduce a woman's chance of becoming pregnant. I would like to see how many of your patients actually let you do a BTL on them, especially if you tell them they have to be on OCP and foam and condom. Man are you deluded Find me a woman who would get a btl and still use condoms, ocp, and foam...I think that my friend is called OCD. Frankly at this point I am ready to sign out on this. Getting a bit ridculous. Though what you say is the truth in regards to preventing pregnancy(yes, anyone who has done on OB rotation, or just familar with diffrent methods of BC would know this), the reality is just not there. My point (Which I have noted that you have repeatly missed), someone who is responsible and trying to prevent pregnancy can still get pregnant. What I mean my being responsible IS NOT BEING OCD!!!! Good Luck in your future as an OB.

 

[Larch]

And we all know that it's so easy for women who are unmarried and under 30 to find a doctor who will perform a surgery to permenantly sterilize them!

Also, that does nothing to help the women who don't want to be pregnant this time, but who may want to have children in the future.

I also find it ridiculously funny that someone is getting outraged that liberals aren't tolerant of intolerance. "Waaaah! You don't accept my sexism. You're a hypocrite! Waaaaah! You're supposed to be tolerant of other's beliefs, but you don't accpet my ridiculous prejudice! Waaaaah! Life is so hard for me! No one likes me because I'm a misogynist!"

For all you people arguing that abortion is murder, I've got 20 questions for you:

1) Should women who abort get life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
2) If a woman's husband knows she is aborting, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
3) How about her friends who know?
4) Should abortion doctors receive life sentences in prison and/or the death penalty?
5) If a woman smokes during her pregnancy and the fetus dies as a result, should she be charged with murder?
6) If her husband knew she was a smoker and could kill the fetus, is he criminally negligent?
7) If a woman eats unhealthily during pregnancy and the fetus dies, should she be charged with negligent homicide?
8) If the husband knew, should he, too, be charged?
9) If a woman has a serious medical condition that would almost always lead to the death of a fetus, but gets pregnant anyway, should she be criminally liable if the fetus dies?
10) If her husband knew of this condition, should he, too, be criminally liable?
11) If a company manufactures a product which lights a fire in a fertility clinic, destroying 1500 frozen embryos, should they be liable for mass murder?
12) If an electric company has a power failure which cuts power to a fertility clinic, thawing embryos and rendering them unusable, should they be liable for mass murder?
13) If a pregnant woman reports to her doctor that she is smoking during her pregnancy, should her doctor be mandated to report it to the appropriate agency for dealing with child abuse?
14) If a woman has cancer and her chemotherapy kills a fetus, should she be given a life sentence and/or sentenced to die?
15) If her doctor was aware of her pregnancy, should he be charged as an accessory to murder?
16) Should children who are disabled be allowed to sue a parent for any negligent conduct during pregnancy that may have caused their disability -- for instance, smoking or consuming alcoholic beverages?
17) Should a person with 15 frozen embryos in storage be required to carry each embryo as soon as possible?
18) If I had 15 embryos in storage, should I be able to claim them as dependents on my tax paperwork?
19) If a government agency determined that a woman was being neglectful to her fetus during her pregnancy, should she be forced by the Department of Children and Families to care for the child and/or have it forcefully removed?
20) Should one in three American women be imprisoned or sentenced to death?

 

[Flea girl]

Give me a break!!!! What do you practice? Most of my patients can not get their spouse to wear a condom, much less a vas. Look you were the one that brought up the whole BTL. So, are you going to tell your patients that A BTL in combination with OCP,and a barrier method like condoms, and chemical product like foam would greatly reduce a woman's chance of becoming pregnant. I would like to see how many of your patients actually let you do a BTL on them, especially if you tell them they have to be on OCP and foam and condom. Man are you deluded Find me a woman who would get a btl and still use condoms, ocp, and foam...I think that my friend is called OCD. Frankly at this point I am ready to sign out on this. Getting a bit ridculous. Though what you say is the truth in regards to preventing pregnancy(yes, anyone who has done on OB rotation, or just familar with diffrent methods of BC would know this), the reality is just not there. My point (Which I have noted that you have repeatly missed), someone who is responsible and trying to prevent pregnancy can still get pregnant. What I mean my being responsible IS NOT BEING OCD!!!! Good Luck in your future as an OB.

Wait a sec...I noticed on Your other post that you are not EVEN going into OB...So what you are saying about telling woman to use OCP, BTL, Condoms, AND FOAM, is really a bunch of bs, because you have never had to do something like that right?!!! And probably never will... WOW that really explains alot. Again someone speaking from NO experience!!

 

[3dtp]

Ok, now let's look at the physiologic impact of voluntary terminations.

There have been numerous studies that seem to indicate that a voluntary termination in the first or second trimester is associated with increased incidence of preterm delivery in subsequent pregnancies. These apparently rise the the level of statistical significance.

From the University of Washington,
Muhlemann et al, J. Epidemiology 1996; 7:194-198 Found that prior terminations do not provide protective effect on subsequent pregnancies from intrauterine infection. This is contrasted with NSVD, which the authors assert does enhance protection from subsequent infections. I didn't see a hypothetical mechanism elaborated. Intrauterine infections lead to preterm birth, sometimes with bad outcomes.

From Britain, Pickering and Forbes (Br. J. Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1985:92:1106-1112) found that prior terminations did increase the risk of preterm delivery and SGA births in a population study.

From France, Ancel, P-V, et al, Very and Moderate Preterm Births: are the risk factors different? Br. J. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1999;106:1162-1170.

These studies seem to indicate that a termination significantly increases the risk of preterm delivery in subsequent pregnancies. The rate of preterm delivery has been increasing in the US for many years. While I knew this rate was increasing, until this thread, it never occured to me that there might be a relationship between early termination and perhaps d&C as well. I did a brief literature search and came up with the above papers. I could not find any papers that demonstrated the converse.

So, now, I have a new question (at least new to me). Are we increasing the risk of adverse outcome in future pregnancies? If so, wo is responsible? The patient who chooses to increase the risk? The doc performing the abortion? The obstetrician?

 

[Larch]

These studies seem to indicate that a termination significantly increases the risk of preterm delivery in subsequent pregnancies.

Actually, the first study suggested that terminations "do not protect against" infection that can lead to preterm birth. That's a far cry from "increase the rate of preterm birth."

Unless you provide more information about the second one to show otherwise, it looks to me that it only has correlative evidence and does not take into account other factors. Not to mention, that study is 21 years old by now. I would want to see more recent research than that.

The third one, you provide absolutely no information about other than the name, so we are just taking your word that it says what you say it does. No, I don't care to take the time to go find it and read through the whole thing myself. It's up to you to provide evidence here to prove your point.

So, now, I have a new question (at least new to me). Are we increasing the risk of adverse outcome in future pregnancies? If so, wo is responsible? The patient who chooses to increase the risk? The doc performing the abortion? The obstetrician?

1. If the studies your provided are all that are out there, I would say no.
2. The patient is responsible. Blaming the doctor would be like blaming the store clerk who sold cigarettes to someone who eventually develops lung cancer.

 

[APGAR10/10]

For all you people arguing that abortion is murder, I've got 20 questions for you:

Your questions are interesting, but in essence are strawman arguments. The main issue of contention is the morality of abortion. We must first establish that stance before deciding on policy regarding how to handle the matter in the legal system. Your questions attempt to accomplish the opposite: deciding policy and then morality based on assent or dissent to said policy. From a logistics standpoint, that jump is rather impossible.

I understand that you addressed your questions to the pro-life crowd, but any response on their part would immediately distract from that main line of conversation and lead to attacks on policy stances, rather than addressing the issue at hand.

I think this is an interesting and relevant comment thread. Just wanted to keep it that way.

 

[Larch]

Wow, I'm having flashbacks to the smells from last week's lab where I palpated cows...

For your info, that actually was not from a medical ethics textbook. Those were from a blog. Their source isn't important, their point is... that in this country, the vast majority of people do not view fetal life to be equally as valuable as the life of born persons. We all know it is human. We all know it is alive. The point is that most people, to a certain degree, simply disagree that a fetus should be considered "equally" (for most anti-choicers, the fetus is really considered more important than the woman) as important than the person who is gestating it. Many people are uncomfortable with abortion. Many people find it unethical. But most people do not truely consider abortion to be murder. You can see the same thing by looking at the sentences proposed by South Dakota for abortion providers. They are nowhere near as harsh as they are for real murderers.

As for your answers, it's good to know that you would support such legislation that would place almost half of the country in prison (since the number of abortions prior to Roe vs Wade was roughly equivalent to the number just after, we can assume little will change if abortion is criminalized now). Women who abort, their significant other, their friends, the doctors, the people who knew the doctors did what he or she did... Bravo. I'm looking forward to hearing how feasible you think that is.

That said, anyone who uses the term "Partial Birth Abortion" is someone who has little to no experience with women's health other than sites like abortionismurder.com Methinks you watched "The Silent Scream" too many times.

 

[Larch]

You make it sound like most pro-choicers think theres a jelly doughnut growing inside a pregnant woman. We ALL know it's human and that it is alive, but many confuse "humanity" with "personhood" and "living" with "having a life." Oh yes, I am so closed minded for bing pro-choice. Damn me and my insistence on allowing people to choose to have an abortion, put a child up for adoption, or raise their own child!

Look, if you don't want an abortion, you don't have to have one. No one (in America) is forcing women to have abortions. If people really, truely felt abortion was immoral, no one would choose to have them. But the fact of the matter is that abortion has been around for thousands of years. Women will ALWAYS find a way to control what goes on inside their own bodies. This isn't a phenomenon that began in 1973. Hell, even women who picket abortion clinics and protest louder than their male anti-abortion peers have abortions. ("The only moral abortion is MY abortion!")

You say you have "proof" to back up your belief that abortion is murder. Well, where is it? Simply killing something that is human is not automatically murder. You haven't got jack. You have an opinion, which is all any of us have. The difference between your opinion and mine is that you want to force women into compulsory gestation, placing them at risk for any number of medical problems, all because you think that the fetus should have the right to parasitize another person's body without consent.

There's something very simple you just don't seem to be getting. Pregnancy is like sex. It is beautiful and wonderful it you want it. If it is forced on you, or you are powerless to stop it once it has begun, it is a gross violation of your bodily autonomy.

 

[new_avatar]

Sorry double post.

 

[new_avatar]

"Simply killing something that is human is not automatically murder. "

You ought to post that under your med school diploma for all your patients to see. That's the most ludicrous statement I've heard in a long time! Heck, you're going to estrange a lot of your pro-choice base with statements like that. Most of them DEPEND on the argument that until birth, they fetus is NOT alive.

Well, how about a BKA? Would that be murder? Or a hemicolectomy? Wisdom tooth extraction? Save the teeth!

What we have to come to grips with is how much we are willing to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. Some people do not place value on the life of a foetus and others do. I just think it should be up to the peoples' elected representatives to decide this and not legislation from the bench.

Making abortion illegal in some jurisdictions won't stop women from getting them unless you propose to put every woman in a jurisdiction that makes abortion illegal in protective custody if she threatens to leave the jursidction to one that tolerates foeticide, which has been proposed. Barring that you can always look at the Irish experience and its close proximity to the United Kingdom. And even if it were illegal in all 50 states which seems unlikely women will always be able to travel to Canada or the UK.

We can also promote a culture of life in society and by law. Also we can discourage ob/gyn trainees from performing terminations in the future. Many people in my program don't do elective terminations as well as many in my residency program's leadership. By discouraging the providing of the service we can make the legality of it a moot point. And by making it onerous to terminate, we can promote a culture of life.

We can promote a culture of life by our daily actions.

Some more food for thought. Abortion has disproportinately hurt the African American community. It is almost as if we have lost a whole generation of African Americans out there. I stumbled upon this site called http://www.blackgenocide.org/ and it provides some very chilling stats.

Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That number is surpassed in less than 3 days by abortion.

1,452 African-American children are killed each day by the heinous act of abortion.

3 out of 5 pregnant African-American women will abort their child.

Since 1973 there has been over 13 million Black children killed and their precious mothers victimized by the U.S. abortion industry.

This line of discussion has degraded dramatically.

G-d bless you all.

 

[GAdoc]

Well, how about a BKA? Would that be murder? Or a hemicolectomy? Wisdom tooth extraction? Save the teeth!

What we have to come to grips with is how much we are willing to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. Some people do not place value on the life of a foetus and others do. I just think it should be up to the peoples' elected representatives to decide this and not legislation from the bench.

Making abortion illegal in some jurisdictions won't stop women from getting them unless you propose to put every woman in a jurisdiction that makes abortion illegal in protective custody if she threatens to leave the jursidction to one that tolerates foeticide, which has been proposed. Barring that you can always look at the Irish experience and its close proximity to the United Kingdom. And even if it were illegal in all 50 states which seems unlikely women will always be able to travel to Canada or the UK.

We can also promote a culture of life in society and by law. Also we can discourage ob/gyn trainees from performing terminations in the future. Many people in my program don't do elective terminations as well as many in my residency program's leadership. By discouraging the providing of the service we can make the legality of it a moot point. And by making it onerous to terminate, we can promote a culture of life.

We can promote a culture of life by our daily actions.

Some more food for thought. Abortion has disproportinately hurt the African American community. It is almost as if we have lost a whole generation of African Americans out there. I stumbled upon this site called http://www.blackgenocide.org/ and it provides some very chilling stats.



This line of discussion has degraded dramatically.

G-d bless you all.

OK, I did a double take on this post because it is the best one I've seen yet. I thought you were totally against everything I was saying. I agree with you that it needs to be left up to legislators. We are a republic. We get to choose our legislators and President. Then we have to trust the checks and balances in our system. Legislating from the bench is WRONG! And that goes for ANY decision. I'd be just as angry if the bench decided to make all public school children say the Lord's Prayer every day. That's clearly not constitutional. Neither is abortion.

Awesome statistics about African Americans. How sad. At the clinic where I volunteer I saw a young lady recently who had had three abortions so far. She was my age (23). Something has to be done.

 

[pruritis_ani]

GAdoc, just a quick point...if you truly consider abortion murder, than it is impossible to reconcile that with your assertation that it is ok if mom's life is threatened. Why? Well, let's see..

1) Mom's life is in danger the entire pregnancy. Period. By leaving this open as a condition that is acceptable, you are going to have to start defending at what exact point mom's life is worth more than the baby...
2) You used the "self defense" argument...there are actually two problems here. First, in order for their to be self defense, you would be implying that the fetus is imposing on the mother's right to live. If you think that at any point mom has more of a right to live than the fetus, you are pretty clearly on the pro-choice side of the fence. It is just a matter of degree, or where you personally draw that line. The second hole in this argument is that it is not self defense at all. If two people are on a life boat in the middle of the ocean, and only one can be on the boat or they both will die...it is NOT ok to kill the other person to save your life! That is what you claim is ok...you say the fetus is a life, with equal (or greater) rights than mom, then you pick an arbitrary moment to take away those rights, and give the mom preference.

Basically, you cannot have it both ways. If fetus has all the rights of a living and independant human, you cannot simply take them away because the act of living endagers a different human.

This is a pretty big flaw (along with many others) in pro life logic.

 

[Larch]

Black genocide? Oh, please. The reason more AAs have abortions is that they disproportionately come from less privileged backgrounds. This means that they have less access to good sex education and contraception. Poor people of ANY ethnicity have the same problem. This isn't a race issue, this is a class issue. Wake up and smell the reality.

That reality thing is something you should keep in mind when considering the effects of making abortion illegal. Maybe wealthy women will be able to spare the time and money it takes to go have an abortion elsewhere, but that option is not there for women who are poor. Can I get a privilege check on aisle five?

Also, I think that people should be allowed to make their own medical decisions. Not elected representatives. Not judges. No... how about the individuals who will actually be effected by the decision?

As for legislating from the bench... Can I get a Brown vs Board of Education hoo-rah? Or were you under the impression that people really wanted schools desegregated?



Oh, and for the record:
I support decriminalization of drugs and prostitution (why the hell not, when we have cigarettes and pornography).

 

[new_avatar]

Black genocide? Oh, please. The reason more AAs have abortions is that they disproportionately come from less privileged backgrounds. This means that they have less access to good sex education and contraception. Poor people of ANY ethnicity have the same problem. This isn't a race issue, this is a class issue. Wake up and smell the reality.

That reality thing is something you should keep in mind when considering the effects of making abortion illegal. Maybe wealthy women will be able to spare the time and money it takes to go have an abortion elsewhere, but that option is not there for women who are poor. Can I get a privilege check on aisle five?

Also, I think that people should be allowed to make their own medical decisions. Not elected representatives. Not judges. No... how about the individuals who will actually be effected by the decision?

As for legislating from the bench... Can I get a Brown vs Board of Education hoo-rah? Or were you under the impression that people really wanted schools desegregated?



Oh, and for the record:
I support decriminalization of drugs and prostitution (why the hell not, when we have cigarettes and pornography).

Realise the centre of Davis politics is not the centre of American politics.

Prostitution is a local issue already, some places in Nevada have decriminalised it. Fine. But there is not a constitutional right to prostitution.

Drugs. Fine. As long as they don't hurt others. Unfortunately they do.

Brown v Board of Ed was based on separate not being equal under the equal protection clause.

Where is the privacy clause? That's the huge extrapolation.

People can make their own medical decisions within the confines of the law.
You may support euthanasia and while a few jurisdictions support it, it is not generally a recognised position.

I will fight to protect life and I feel the momentum of the U.S. political system and society in general swaying my way. A culture of life is a beautiful thing. If there is no momentum in this direction why is it that the day Roe is overturned likely 30 states will ban abortion? Is there something those people in those states aren't privvy to that you know?

Poor black women deserve better than abortion. All women deserve better than abortion. And I hope there are less people oh so willing to kill their unborn babies in the future. Believe me, that abortion clinic in Jackson's days are numbered.

I may not be a Davis liberal, but I do know there is right and there is wrong and after my OBG rotation and seeing what is being terminated, I sure know that ain't right.

 

[pruritis_ani]

If there is no momentum in this direction why is it that the day Roe is overturned likely 30 states will ban abortion? Is there something those people in those states aren't privvy to that you know?

Why? Ignorance and religious fanaticism. Simple.

Poor black women deserve better than abortion. All women deserve better than abortion.

You're right. They deserve to be forced to carry a child they don't want, to accept risks that they do not wish to be exposed to. All this because you presume to know what is best for them.

 

[Larch]

What, exactly, gave you the impression that I was ever talking about "Davis politics?" In case you didn't notice, drugs, prostitution, and euthanasia are all illegal where I am. There are people out there who we like to call "activists." These "activists" try to change the way things currently are.

By the way... drugs hurt other people the same way that alcohol and cigarettes hurt other people (or would, if they were illegal... take a moment to remember the temperence movement, if you will).

Obviously, just going through an OBG rotation doesn't proove the morality of abortion. There are large organizations of physicians who support the right to reproductive choice. There are millions of women who have had abortions who have not changed their minds about the issue. The majority of people in this country support the right to abortion, but with certain limitations (which are nowhere near as restrictive as the ban passed by South Dakota, mind you). The vast majority do not consider abortion to be murder. You are on the fringe of even your own movement (as am I, by the way, for mine).

As for why 30 states will ban abortion if Roe is overturned... that's easy. Those are the laws that were in effect prior to Roe vs Wade. They have not been challenged because it was not necessary to do so as long as abortion was a federally protected right. They reflect the attitudes of legislators prior to 1973. I imagine that many of these laws will be reconsidered and struck down if Roe vs Wade is overturned.

As for "women deserve better than abortion." Oh yes, making them carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is much better for them! Why didn't anyone think of this sooner? I thought it was common knowledge that women suffer from hysteria and therefore cannot be trusted to make rational, informed decisions on their own!

 

[new_avatar]

As for why 30 states will ban abortion if Roe is overturned... that's easy. Those are the laws that were in effect prior to Roe vs Wade. They have not been challenged because it was not necessary to do so as long as abortion was a federally protected right. They reflect the attitudes of legislators prior to 1973. I imagine that many of these laws will be reconsidered and struck down if Roe vs Wade is overturned.

Hey this info is from the pro abortion lobby and not just 1973 laws.
Ohio is a pretty centrist state.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/10/05/national1241EDT0560.DTL

 

[Larch]

I am lazy, and it is late. Here's the webpage I use to track states' positions on abortion (I prefer pictures and charts to scattered numbers... easier to organize):
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/cho.../who-decides/maps-and-charts/map.jsp?mapID=16

Related to gauging support for abortion rights, here is an interesting article from the Washington Post about a poll earlier this year:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR2006031200388.html
To me, this poll does not say that the majority of the nation wants abortion to be illegal or classified as murder. To me, this says that the nation is heavily divided, and most see legal abortion as necessary, even if they have moral qualms with it.

 

[GAdoc]

GAdoc, just a quick point...if you truly consider abortion murder, than it is impossible to reconcile that with your assertation that it is ok if mom's life is threatened. Why? Well, let's see..

1) Mom's life is in danger the entire pregnancy. Period. By leaving this open as a condition that is acceptable, you are going to have to start defending at what exact point mom's life is worth more than the baby...
2) You used the "self defense" argument...there are actually two problems here. First, in order for their to be self defense, you would be implying that the fetus is imposing on the mother's right to live. If you think that at any point mom has more of a right to live than the fetus, you are pretty clearly on the pro-choice side of the fence. It is just a matter of degree, or where you personally draw that line. The second hole in this argument is that it is not self defense at all. If two people are on a life boat in the middle of the ocean, and only one can be on the boat or they both will die...it is NOT ok to kill the other person to save your life! That is what you claim is ok...you say the fetus is a life, with equal (or greater) rights than mom, then you pick an arbitrary moment to take away those rights, and give the mom preference.

Basically, you cannot have it both ways. If fetus has all the rights of a living and independant human, you cannot simply take them away because the act of living endagers a different human.

This is a pretty big flaw (along with many others) in pro life logic.

My stance is if there is the possibility of saving both lives, even at great risk to both, everything should be done to do so. However, if several doctors and the evidence agree beyond a reasonable doubt that either the mother or child will die, the mother's life takes precedence. This is not because the mother's life is intrinsically more valuable. Only God can create life and HE created both (and if that is religious fanaticism than you're making that claims against more than a billion people).

The choice is made not because the woman doesn't want the pregnancy or for any other reason elective abortions are performed. The choice is made because one WILL die. Now I'm going to blow your mind again with my fanaticism. When I took my solemn vow to love, honor, and protect my wife above ALL others, I made an oath before God to love her above all others...even my own children. But having to choose based on the knowledge that one will die is FAR different than "choosing" based on the fact that YOU COULDN'T KEEP YOUR PANTS ZIPPED!!! It's like asking if my wife and child are in a car that is sinking and I can only save one who would I save. We all hope to never be put in such a situation, but my responsibility is to my wife. That does not imply that I view my child's life as less valuable. Such a decision could certainly never be illegal. Elective abortion to me is like saying "well we really didn't want that kid so lets chuck him in the dumpster".

Anybody out there performing elective abortion? Hmmm? Got bad news. Lots of revenue for you is fixing to disappear. Some of you may truly be confused into laying blame anywhere but the mother, but for those of you who are in it for the money-the days of legal abortion on demand are numbered. Roe will never be overturned. It doesn't have to be. It will be strangled with numerous other battles.

 

[3dtp]

Black genocide? Oh, please. The reason more AAs have abortions is that they disproportionately come from less privileged backgrounds. This means that they have less access to good sex education and contraception. Poor people of ANY ethnicity have the same problem. This isn't a race issue, this is a class issue. Wake up and smell the reality.

Larch,

I'm afraid I must disagree with this assertion. Yes, they do come from less privileged backgrounds. This emphatically does not mean they have LESS access to good sex education, nor does it mean they have less access to contraception. In the extremely poor urban community I work, with a large immigrant and non-white, low SES population, the city and county have spent extravagant sums on sex education in middle and high school (6-12), contraception is readily available at county and city health clinics, the STD clinics and the numerous public health clinics in the city. These clinics are all on public bus routes, and are geographically dispersed. I personally work in one on Saturday mornings. In addition the several Planned Parenthood offices, to their credit do distribute birth control, but they charge for it. The public clinics do not.

I agree that the issue is significantly higher in the low SES, but do not have the statistics to support this belief at hand. What is puzzling, is why this seems to be so? This is an issue not limited to birth control/abortions, but all areas of health in general. I have seen more bulky cervical cancer on initial exams in this group than I do in the suburban clinic, too. Paps are available in both communities, they cost the indigent far less than the suburbanites pay (free), yet women ignore something as basic as an annual.

Both issues are huge public health concerns, the cost for the low SES population in my community is borne by the county and state, (and probably the feds - which means you and I), yet, it remains a serious issue.

That reality thing is something you should keep in mind when considering the effects of making abortion illegal. Maybe wealthy women will be able to spare the time and money it takes to go have an abortion elsewhere, but that option is not there for women who are poor. Can I get a privilege check on aisle five?

Certainly, Isle Five, is any number of impoverished communities in the US and I'm sure, elsewhere. With a full court press of education, free availability of contraception, we still have the problem, and abortions are still performed, and, if we consider abortion contraception, it is costly to the impoverished and wealthy alike, since the government is prohibited from paying for it, which is why electives are done off campus.

 

[GAdoc]

Larch,

I'm afraid I must disagree with this assertion. Yes, they do come from less privileged backgrounds. This emphatically does not mean they have LESS access to good sex education, nor does it mean they have less access to contraception. In the extremely poor urban community I work, with a large immigrant and non-white, low SES population, the city and county have spent extravagant sums on sex education in middle and high school (6-12), contraception is readily available at county and city health clinics, the STD clinics and the numerous public health clinics in the city. These clinics are all on public bus routes, and are geographically dispersed. I personally work in one on Saturday mornings. In addition the several Planned Parenthood offices, to their credit do distribute birth control, but they charge for it. The public clinics do not.

I agree that the issue is significantly higher in the low SES, but do not have the statistics to support this belief at hand. What is puzzling, is why this seems to be so? This is an issue not limited to birth control/abortions, but all areas of health in general. I have seen more bulky cervical cancer on initial exams in this group than I do in the suburban clinic, too. Paps are available in both communities, they cost the indigent far less than the suburbanites pay (free), yet women ignore something as basic as an annual.

Both issues are huge public health concerns, the cost for the low SES population in my community is borne by the county and state, (and probably the feds - which means you and I), yet, it remains a serious issue.


Certainly, Isle Five, is any number of impoverished communities in the US and I'm sure, elsewhere. With a full court press of education, free availability of contraception, we still have the problem, and abortions are still performed, and, if we consider abortion contraception, it is costly to the impoverished and wealthy alike, since the government is prohibited from paying for it, which is why electives are done off campus.

3dtp makes a good point. I failed to delve into my personal experiences on this subject. The volunteer clinic where I work treats employed but uninsured residents of our county. This basically puts most patients just above poverty level (they have a job but not the kind that offers benefits). I'd say 90% of our patients are black or Hispanic. When I first started volunteering, I just figured abnormal paps were probably the norm at every ob/gyn office. The physician I work with had to explain to me that cervical cancer is essentially an STD and that in developed nations it should be nearly non-existent.

Most of the young, black women we see have had at least one abortion. Let me emphasize that I sit in the room while the doctor asks about these unwanted pregnancies. We've had young ladies tell us that they thought they could show loyalty to "their man" by having his baby only to have the man find out and dump her. After hearing this type of thinking from several women, the doctor (who is staunchly pro-choice) just snapped at this one girl and told her she had no clue how she was damaging herself. She had had 3 abortions by age 23! And contraception is available for free at the health department. IN fact, if you're embarrased, they'll leave a bag of condoms on the door step after closing time for you to retrieve anonymously. Sex ed is crammed on students in public schools. Yet the problem continues. Our community has one of the highest AIDS populations in GA. I recently spoke to a MS4 who was doing her infection disease rotation. She said it was depressing seeing all the Hep. C and HIV patients. Its time to stop enabling women to continue this lifestyle. Whether you're pro life or pro choice you cannot honestly think a lifestyle like this is best for women. These women DO deserve better.