I favor shorter time frames... but also exceptions. To me this reads as self-serving.

Let's start with this.....

Quote:A year ago, the hospital could have offered a chance for the couple to say goodbye and hold their daughter, even though they knew she wouldn't survive outside the womb.

That would still have been an option today. A pre-term delivery resulting from medical complications of the child is not an abortion... by definition... even if it results in the death of the child. This is made clear by the comment that the doctors recommended terminating the birth... which is not at all the same as pre-term delivery. Had they terminated the birth, the couple would not have had a chance to hold their daughter and say goodbye. The comment 'she wouldn't survive outside the womb' ignores that the recommendation was for her to not survive WITHIN the womb.

And then we go with this...

Quote:If her vitals plummeted or infection set in, or the fetus' cardiac activity stopped, the doctors could intervene, but not before then.

First, this is not the complete list of interventions. It is an obvious list, but it is not a complete one.


The REAL situation here is one where the odds of a delivery are close to zero. I say close to because the odds of my own survival as 2 months premature a decade before Roe were close to zero.... medical miracles happen every day.... but I will grant that the odds were close to zero... but there was no emergent threat to the life of the mother and the baby was not yet at risk either... So its like being in the 3rd quarter of a football game down 42-0 with 12 yards total offense... and deciding to quit.... which absolutely happens (at least mentally) and we all understand that,....

but the question becomes... can you quit at 42- 0 in the 1st quarter? How about 42-17 at halftime? How 'bad' does the score need to be to quit? These states have set the bar at 'risk of life or health of the mother' or (it doesn't say this but it is true) emergent risk of death of the child. OF COURSE you can 'abort' a dead child... (it's actually a different procedure, but one usually codified in anti-abortion laws) but you can also take steps including a failed early delivery if the baby is in severe distress (risk of life). The article implies that you literally have to sit there and wait for the baby to die... and that isn't REALLY the case. It's just the (emotionally) worst case being presented as the only case.

Now for the real kicker... What if the child has a 100% chance of survival... but a 50% chance that it won't live past a few years? What if it will live a long life, but with significant physical or mental issues requiring lots of care and attention? What if the mother is a complete moron who couldn't care for a goldfish and the doctor doesn't think- they should give birth.... What if's galore.

I understand that some people think the decision should be solely between a woman and her doctor... but the law (even Roe) gives the states the right to intervene on behalf of the life of the unborn child. There are three parties and only two are represented otherwise. That's a harsh fact, but its a fact.... and stories like this are intentionally written to give the impression that doctors don't have options and that simply isn't the case.

Every time I read one of these articles they are exactly the same...
The child has a close to zero chance of surviving to term, but neither the child nor the mother is in any immediate danger or distress... and remaining close with that child for as long as you both can (without medical intervention... not at all like being on life support) is described as a curse rather than a blessing... though they often throw in a 'chance to say goodbye' as a blessing, not a curse. They are all 'both and neither'.... and account for a pretty small fraction of such abortions.

I'd be open to more clarification of what constitutes 'life and health of the mother', but I am also confident that this is something that the medical community would be much better at addressing than the legislative one. If the AMA etc were all behind a different set of standards than already exists for any other time an 'emergency' situation is warranted, then this wouldn't be a problem unless and until a legislature removed 'medical decision making' from the process, and I would be against that.

It's really more the mom's decision here that I am against. I think a mom should be allowed to make a decision that places her at greater risk... I don't think the mom should be allowed to make a decision that places the child at greater risk except to decrease the risk for the mom.... To me, that should ALL be on the provider, supported by the AMA or other similar body. They should have standards (like they do for every other 'life threatening' decision) that govern the actions of the provider and protect them from 'second-guesses'... so long as the protocols are followed.

THAT is where IMO this conversation should he held.