Posted on 03/28/2020 8:11:51 PM PDT by kathsua
The people debating the abortion issue falsely assume that there are only two possibilities for ending a pregnancy. Wait for the baby to be born or kill it and remove it.
There is a third option which would be acceptable under Roe v. Wade. When the baby is sufficiently developed to survive outside the mother with appropriate medical care any doctor attempting to end the pregnancy could be required to attempt to remove the baby alive. The baby would become a ward of the government which would pay for the operation and subsequent medical care until the baby is adopted. The government would also pay for follow up care for the mother including treating mental health problems such as postpartum depression.
Abortion supporters could not claim cost would prevent women from ending pregnancies early because government would pay all costs.
There are numerous complications from abortions that can adversely affect a woman's physical and mental health, including fatal bleeding that can be caused by an extremely primitive procedure which involves pulling the baby out a piece at a time. The baby's blood can prevent the abortionist from seeing if the mother is bleeding
Removing the baby using a cesarean section allows the doctor to easily monitor the situation and catch any source of bleeding. Requiring use of this procedure for premature ending of a pregnancy would have the benefit of the child being removed alive. This approach to ending a late term pregnancy should give both sides what they want. The woman would be allowed to end her pregnancy early and the child would be born alive.
Roe v. Wade allows "In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger."
A baby shouldn't have to die because the mother doesn't want it. A right to end a pregnancy prematurely shouldn't include a right to end the life of a helpless baby .
Gee, what a unique idea . . . let the baby live and then put him up for adoption . . . Didn't they used to do that years ago? That's what my birth mother did many years ago . . . in an orphanage . . . any of those around anymore?
The only concern I would have is where to house all of the preemies; as all of them will technically be. Many will no doubt be born too early, and will have chronic illnesses. People don’t want to adopt children with health problems, past or present. Even though pre-adoption care is paid for by tax dollars under the proposed method, there could be other issues down the road.
If even ten percent of women choose this route, the already overburdened foster and protective services systems, if you can call them that, will be even more overwhelmed. Historically, that has been bad for the children in its care, breeding abusive foster households, piss-poor reviews, and lots of psychological damage.
Solve those problems, and I’m all for it. I’m not a ProAb.
From a point of view of medical ethics, the doctor would be obliged to let the baby develop to full-term, because prematurity would impose unethical and unnecessary health risks to the baby.
Unfortunately, it has long been tacitly acknowledged that what the aborting woman believes she has a right to, is not just a terminated pregnancy, but a dead baby.
Way back in about 1978 or so, I remember the Chicago Sun-Times ran an article called "The Most Dreaded Complication" (or something like that) which was precisely, the birth of a live baby in the course of an attempted abortion.
It was pretty plain that nobody in the damn abortion business wants those babies to survive.
They WORSHIP it!
Doctor sentenced for saving mother and child (LINK)
Looks like the court wanted the baby to be dead even if it killed the mother!!
I had 2 miscarriages, one vaginal birth, one emergency c-section, and one regular c-section.
One miscarriage was like a horrible, long period. One landed me in the hospital because I had an infection and would not stop bleeding after 6 weeks. I was anemic at that point.
I was up and moving around normally just 3 hours after the vaginal delivery (after being awake for almost 40 hours, with 15 of those spent in labor, I was a tad tired).
It took me several days to recover from the c-section both times and the post-OP was even longer.
The body was engineered to give birth naturally, vaginally. C-sections are meant as a last resort for a reason.
I understand where you are going, but you will never get there with this approach. I say this as a former advisory board member for a pro-life group.
Baal demands that worshipers provide more and more human sacrifices. The more innocent the better.
There’s also this thing called *adoption*.
That would be better than making the baby a ward of the state cause we all know what happens when the government gets its paws on anything.
I am. I have also had an unplanned baby, and that baby gave birth to her own unplanned (date rape) baby.
I can tell you what the left’s argument will be. They will say these babies will not be adopted because the majority of them are black, and “America is too racist to adopt black babies.” It’s the left that doesn’t want black babies alive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.