So, WHY would someone want a late-term abortion?

stacey wrote: a woman should have the right to do as she pleases with her body - period!

Does that include prostitution?

MeredithB wrote: Yes, if you think YOUR rights are being overridden by a certain STATE in which you happen to live then MOVE!

Or, as in the case of Roe v Wade, you stand your ground, stake your claim, you file your lawsuit and you fight for your rights.

bohuma wrote: My opinion for what its worth. The Air Force is a federal government agency, the federal government self insures for the health insurance it provides. In all likelihood it only provides coverage for medically necessary procedures that are legal in the state of residence - the medical board in question decided that the late-term abortion was not medically necessary.

I wonder if they took into account mental health necessity.

(great post btw bohuma)

sweet tea wrote: and, heck, i could just move to ireland

btw, abortion is illegal in Ireland.

MeredithB wrote: [quote=Flo]Or, as in the case of Roe v Wade, you stand your ground, stake your claim, you file your lawsuit and you fight for your rights.

So you believe there should be one big government telling all the people of the US how they should live their lives? Or what they can or cannot do with their bodies?

I pick my battles and I argue my opinion. I'm pretty sure that I didn't say "I believe there should be one big government telling all the people of the US how they should live their lives." I think I am arguing that the government, whether federal or state, shouldn't be so big or so powerful as to trample on my personal right to the freedom to choose to end a pregnancy or not. Do me a flavor please and don't mangle my words.

Arguing for abortion rights does not equate to arguing for a bigger government.

MeredithB wrote: The federal government has ruled on the legality of abortion for all states. Maybe some states want to have abortion made illegal. Do you have a problem with that?

I have a problem with that, just like I'd have a problem with some states suspending jury trials, disenfranchising women and minorities, outlawing public assemblies, banning handguns, and so on.

1. the ireland comment was about marriage equality, though i must admit it was also a typo -- i meant northern ireland.

2. majority vote used to take away rights from a minority is tyranny.

3. "big government" is what says you can't have an abortion. suggesting it's the other way around doesn't make a bit of sense.

Do you believe there should be regulations in terms of abortions?

stacey wrote: [quote=MeredithB]Do you believe there should be regulations in terms of abortions?

Only one I can think of is that it be done by a licensed doctor.

So during any trimester is OK?

Oh and just so y'all know, I'm for anyone doing anything at anytime as long as it doesn't hurt anyone and I do not consider a fetus a person.

http://theconversation.blogs.nytimes.com/

Looks like this topic or a tangent relating to it was being discussed elsewhere today.

I try to be careful before weighing in on this debate, because it is so contentious. I am doing so here because there is a distinct lack of vitriol. I am going to refrain from weighing in on the moral/ethical/philosophical issues of right or wrong, or when a zygote/embryo/fetus/neo-nate/infant becomes a person - I've heard well reasoned arguments that range from the moment of conception to the age of reason. I cannot pinpoint the exact time a person (as distinct from anything else) comes into existence.

From a legal point of view (and I am not a lawyer, but have a moderate amount of legal training) I would add this to my previous comments. The government (whether local, state or federal) is obliged to ensure that medical and surgical procedures are only performed by appropriately qualified (and if necessary licensed) persons in suitable settings (regularly inspected as required). The level of qualification and the capabilities of the facility are going to vary with the type of procedure. So for a first trimester termination performed by manual or vacuum aspiration, some states permit physicians assistants (supervised by a physician) to perform the procedure in a day procedure clinic. When dilation and curettage is required (either as the primary procedure or a follow up) physicians need to perform this as the procedure is more invasive and carries greater risk to the patient. When a termination is performed in the second or third trimester, different, more risky procedures are used, and a full surgical team (gynecologist, anesthesiologist, registered nurse(s)) may be required. The government's aim in licensing physicians and facilities is to ensure that patients' health is safeguarded.

The government ought not involve itself in determining whether a procedure is medically necessary. In this country, the vast majority of elected officials are lawyers, not physicians. I don't want my medical decisions being made by a lawyer, nor do I want medical criteria being established by lawyers. When a physician and patient are determining whether to proceed with a medical intervention they consider a range of factors, not least of which is the potential range of outcomes for the patient. From all I've read, physicians are particularly vigilant when considering whether to perform a patient requested procedure rather than one that is recommended to the patient, their main aim is to avoid doing harm to their patient. Some people request medical procedures when their psychological or physical state contraindicates the procedure, in such cases an ethical physician will decline or defer the procedure. A physician who performs a medical procedure despite psychological or physical contraindications exposes her/himself to a malpractice lawsuit.

The major problem I have with the government prohibiting medical procedures is that the lawyers who frame the laws rarely have medical training. I do not think it is possible to draft laws that prohibit certain medical procedures that take into account every circumstance in which that procedure might be necessary. From a legal point of view, you either allow abortion or you don't, there really can't be a half measure. From a strictly legal point of view, I don't think we as a community should involve ourselves in the decisions physicians and their patients have to come to as a matter of medical necessity. I think that access to effective contraception and comprehensive sex education could potentially eliminate 97% of abortions world wide. The other 3% are performed due to rape, incest, fetal deformity or maternal morbidity. I would want to work towards eliminating those due to rape and incest, but I don't think we can eliminate abortion due to fetal deformity or maternal morbidity.

doctorj wrote: [quote=bohuma], or when a zygote/embryo/fetus/neo-nate/infant becomes a person - I've heard well reasoned arguments that range from the moment of conception to the age of reason. I cannot pinpoint the exact time a person (as distinct from anything else) comes into existence.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and argue that life begins at 40.

That made me laugh, Dr.J.

I found this article about the Partial Birth Ban Act pretty interesting.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/11/0080278

Re: iamdrtiller.com---Very nice, Pitu. Thanks for sharing.