|
doe not mean that most of those abortions would not end up as mid-term to late term miscarraiges anyway.
Seven out of Ten pregnancies will ens up in spontaneous abortion at some time during the pregnancy is there is no medical intervention.
That is to say if ten women become pregnant and they do not see a doctor for the entire term of the pregnancy, seven out of ten will end in miscarraige at some stage of the pregnancy.
What has happened since Roe v Wade is that these statistics have vanished in the light of the many pregnancies that are stopped early in the cycle so that all those miscarriages which would have cooured normally have been averted.
Other health factors have dramatically gone down. One out of sic pregnancies result in eithre pre-eclampsia, or eclampsia, a condition that can kill and always results in permanent life threatening health problems for the mother, usually permanant high blood pressure, or heart valve damage. THe eleimination of these either during pregnancy or later as a result of the eclampsia have been totally ignired as a factor.
Right to lifers place these life threatening conditions in the category of 'abortions of conveninence"
Many of the Right to Lifers do not place equal value on the mothers right to life. Most of the anti-abortion churches refuse to allow the health of the mother to be a consideration in cases of abortion, but on the other hand demand that advanced medical technology to save the life of the fetus be applied to do so. The stance that the mothers life must be sacrificed for the unborn child, while the child life is not to be sacrificed to save the mother are two inconsistant positions regarding the sanctity of life. To insist that the most extreme medical measures be used to secure the life of the fetus, while denying the mother the most extreme of medical procedures to save the life of the mother(partial birth abortion) is also inconsistant.
I cna see a time when these nuts will hold a poor mother liable to murder if she does not get medical care she needs while pregnant because she cannot afford it, yet will deny the same mother access to the means to save her own life by abortion if this becomes medically necessary. Such positions are not right to life, but merely placing the life of one unborn person above the right to life of the one who already has been born.
While Right to lifers frequently bring up adoption and other methods as an alternative to abortion, there legislative attempts to overturn abortion NEVER contain even preliminary plans to establish the programs by which such adoptions will be made possible. They do not establish a budget for programs to provide financial support for those mothers who would have chosen abortion so that mother can obtain the best pre-natal and neo-natal care to ensure the health and safety of both the mother and the child is abortion is non available.
They do not provide for mothers who MUST quit work accoring to the instrutions of their doctors, to maintain their own health and the health of the unborn child.
They speak continually but the deaths of unborn children, but do nothing to address the vast number of pregnancies which if allowed to continue, wil just given the sinple statistics, result in life threatening miscarriages, or just simple miscarraiges if the mother cannot afford health care or eve begin to deal with the very large number of those likely mothers who have NO access to health care at all. To then create a heath care system for ONLY pregnant mothers and ONLY to address the care of the unborn itself becomes discriminatory. If you must create a universal heath care system oto make sure that the life of the fetus is protected, then you MUST provide free health care to everyone else who cannot afford it.
Which is the prime reason that the right to lifers avoid actually doing anything legislatively to back up the contention that adoption as an alternative to abortion. They cannot create a systems that protect the unborn without extending the same rights to others.
The pro-choice lobby must make this argumenent. Lack of proper medical care during pregnancy itself is life threatening, and if they insist onending abortion, they must come up with an alternative to protect the lives of both the mother and the child. If they do, then this becomoes discriminatory, and they must extend this right to everyone. If they do not, their position on abortion becomes tenous. If they extend the right to life to the fetus, they MUST extent the right to life to the mother. They must contend with the life threatening asprect of pregnancy that have pretty much been reduced to being negligible since Roe v. Wade. Medical technology iha advanced to thepoint where doctos can tell erly on whether a pregnancy is likely to fail later on in the pregnancy, and so fairly goo statistics about what it will cost the government to prevent these failures of life threatening conditions to the mother can easily be obtained. Facts are that such medical cost will easily run in the region of a a half a trillion dollar per year. THis without considereing additional costs to the educational system, and later medical care.
They must be reminded that if they are so anxious to preserve life, they must deal with the additional costs that such legislation will result in.
Fact are that the right to lifers goal is predominantly punative and based on a puritanical religious position that has no overal cultural support. The desire is that an unmarried person who becomes pregnant and dies bacause of it should die. That is the secret unspoken position of the "right to lifers"
Again, there is absolutely NO definition as to when life begins.
The unborn fetus may have potentiality of being a ddistinct human life, but has no actual human life. There are any number of factors that indicate that nature does not intend EVERY ferilized egg to become a living and breathing human.
In fact there are many pregnancies that are terminated becasue the while fertilzation has occured, and the zygote, with its unique "code" is simply not viable. The zygote hasnot attacjed to the uterine wall. Ther a literally hundred if not thousands of situations that occur after fertization in which doctors can tell early on that the pregnancy will not result in a living human. So simply stating that life begins when the egg is fertized is an interpretation, and not a fact. Which is why viabilty became such a large issue in making abortion legal. Not every fertilized egg will end u0p in a birth, and many of these which have zero possibility of birth will certainly end up in life threatening conditions toward the mother. An improperly implanted zygote may live in the womb for months yet eventually will die and in the process seriously effect the life of themother, and result in death if not terminated. Many cases of abortion occur in mothers who want the child, yet are told that the fetus in not viable, adn that the longer you wait to terminate, the more likely that the mothers heath will be endangered, and even her life endangered. These conditions happen modst frequently in the first pregnancies of very young women, or in the first pregnancies of women who wait until they are in their thirties or forties to have a child.
Yet abortions in these cases are lumped in with "abortions of convenience by the "right -to life" groups. If a por outcome or extremely life threatening condition has not occured yet, but dotors are fairly certain that they will occu, this is considered a convenience to those opposed to abortion. It is a rather sick way of defining "convenience" taking rights away from the mother, and giving too much to the unborn.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
