Author Topic: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality  (Read 7734 times)

Offline shaulyaakov

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2013
  • Posts: 1332
  • Total likes: 90
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #105 on: May 21, 2019, 05:06:29 PM »
What does 'aborting the fetus' mean when we're talking about a 3rd trimester baby?

ETA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy#Methods

None of these is less risky than delivery of a live baby.
Based on what are you saying this?

Online Boruch999

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 1824
  • Total likes: 110
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #106 on: May 21, 2019, 05:10:48 PM »
Based on what are you saying this?
Which one do you think is safer for the mother in what situation?

Offline shaulyaakov

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2013
  • Posts: 1332
  • Total likes: 90
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #107 on: May 21, 2019, 05:13:13 PM »
Which one do you think is safer for the mother in what situation?
I don't have a position on late term abortion vs delivery other than that if Dr's think there is risk to the mother by delivering vs aborting, they should abort. Halacha recognizes this as well... I don't know why people who haven't identified themselves as Dr's in this field are trying to claim that there is no greater risk by aborting than by delivering.

Offline avromie7

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 4362
  • Total likes: 136
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
  • Location: Lakewood
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #108 on: May 21, 2019, 05:44:27 PM »
I don't have a position on late term abortion vs delivery other than that if Dr's think there is risk to the mother by delivering vs aborting, they should abort. Halacha recognizes this as well... I don't know why people who haven't identified themselves as Dr's in this field are trying to claim that there is no greater risk by aborting than by delivering.
My argument is that there is never a need to abort instead of deliver during the 3rd trimester, to that you say if the Dr says abortion is safer for the mother we should allow abortion. That doesn't change the fact that abortion is never necessary to save the mothers life in the 3rd trimester (if it was it would be a different discussion).
I wonder what people who type "u" instead of "you" do with all their free time.

Offline zh cohen

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite + Lifetime Silver Elite
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2013
  • Posts: 509
  • Total likes: 96
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Brooklyn
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #109 on: May 21, 2019, 06:30:12 PM »
You need to make an appointment with a dr to get them, and then fill a prescription, which means you need medical insurance with low out of pocket fees for the visit in the first place, and then insurance for the pills themselves.

There are also right wingers who are trying to make it no longer required for health plans to offer birth control as an option.

Maybe you can explain why Democrats have been fighting tooth and nail against repeated Republican efforts to make birth control available over the counter?

Offline shaulyaakov

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2013
  • Posts: 1332
  • Total likes: 90
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #110 on: May 21, 2019, 06:37:18 PM »
Maybe you can explain why Democrats have been fighting tooth and nail against repeated Republican efforts to make birth control available over the counter?
1. I'm not a Democrat and am not bound to agree with their positions.

2. They seem to think that it will increase out of pocket costs as the ACA mandates it to cost $0 out of pocket, but with a prescription. If it became over the counter, there would be no insurance subsidy which would hurt lower middle class and poorer people.

I am not sure what the best way to go is. Maybe make it available otc but keep it free with a prescription. Not sure how workable that is in practice.

I

Offline zh cohen

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite + Lifetime Silver Elite
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2013
  • Posts: 509
  • Total likes: 96
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Brooklyn
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #111 on: May 21, 2019, 06:42:30 PM »
For those who are interested in the facts about late term abortion, the (pro- choice, Planned Parenthood founded) Gutmacher institute says that “[D]ata suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Instead, there were “five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample.” These women were “raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous [had never given birth].”

I can't access any direct links on my phone, but here is an article quoting the study. The article is from a Conservative source, but the quotes are from the study - https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/

Offline Shkop

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Posts: 371
  • Total likes: 8
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #112 on: May 21, 2019, 07:09:56 PM »
For those who are interested in the facts about late term abortion, the (pro- choice, Planned Parenthood founded) Gutmacher institute says that “[D]ata suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Instead, there were “five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample.” These women were “raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous [had never given birth].”

I can't access any direct links on my phone, but here is an article quoting the study. The article is from a Conservative source, but the quotes are from the study - https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/truth-about-late-term-abortions/
All despicable reasons for murder.
A democracy is a form of government, not an intrinsic truth

Offline Shkop

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jul 2011
  • Posts: 371
  • Total likes: 8
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #113 on: May 21, 2019, 07:13:30 PM »
100%.  Making abortion on demand illegal will also reduce abortions.  It would probably also hasten the arrival of low cost OTC birth control.
exactly.
A democracy is a form of government, not an intrinsic truth

Online ckmk47

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Aug 2012
  • Posts: 5916
  • Total likes: 118
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
  • Location: brooklyn
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #114 on: May 21, 2019, 08:41:10 PM »
The best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies by making birth control pills low cost and over the counter.
Condoms and foams/gels are over the counter. 
And condoms have been pushed for  years as a way to minimize catching HIV.
So the argument about OTC birth control is a red herring.

Online Boruch999

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 1824
  • Total likes: 110
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #115 on: May 22, 2019, 01:51:04 AM »
I don't have a position on late term abortion vs delivery other than that if Dr's think there is risk to the mother by delivering vs aborting, they should abort. Halacha recognizes this as well... I don't know why people who haven't identified themselves as Dr's in this field are trying to claim that there is no greater risk by aborting than by delivering.

So you are conjecturing a situation that I claim to know does not exist.  Of course it is true that Halacha requires you to kill the baby to save the life of the mother. I am just saying that today, in developed countries, that is never necessary in the third trimester.  I am not a doctor but I am a thinking person capable of reason.  As I understand it, there is rarely, or more probably, never a situation where it is required to deliver a specifically dead baby rather than a live baby to save the life of the mother. 

Here's how I understand it, feel free to point out what you think is wrong.
If the mothers life is in acute danger due to her continued pregnancy, an emergency c-section is required.  It is not necessary to intentionally kill the baby to preform an emergency c-section.

If the mothers life is not in acute danger and an emergency c-section is not called for, but continuing her pregnancy will have seriously adverse effects on her health, the pregnancy is ended by a) inducing labor or b) dilating the cervix and inserting instruments to dismember the fetus and pull it out piece by piece.  It dies in the process. Sometimes it is killed by crushing it's skull or with an injection prior to dismemberment. There are serious risks associated with option b) and it is not the way Hashem intended.  Option a) requires less intervention and is safer and does not require killing the baby. 

Here are some doctors who agree with me:

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/02/49619/


Online Boruch999

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 1824
  • Total likes: 110
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #116 on: May 22, 2019, 01:57:01 AM »
That doesn't address the point at all. The baby can be non-viable, and cause a danger to the mother. The question then becomes which is safer, removing the baby via abortion or via delivery.

I'm not sure what you think 'via abortion' means.  See above post.

Offline shaulyaakov

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2013
  • Posts: 1332
  • Total likes: 90
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #117 on: May 22, 2019, 07:12:51 AM »


I am not a doctor but I am a thinking person capable of reason.  As I understand it,



The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) refuted that idea in a statement released this week, stating that pregnant women may experience conditions such as “premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives.

“Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion,” the ACOG said.

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/

Online Boruch999

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 1824
  • Total likes: 110
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #118 on: May 22, 2019, 08:40:32 AM »



The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) refuted that idea in a statement released this week, stating that pregnant women may experience conditions such as “premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives.

“Women in these circumstances may risk extensive blood loss, stroke, and septic shock that could lead to maternal death. Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, including an abortion,” the ACOG said.

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/

That is not a refutation.  It is leftist WaPo spin. 

In case of ""premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives."

The doctor they are allegedly refuting says that an emergency delivery may be necessary, it is just never necessary to kill the baby in the process.

"Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients,"

No one is telling a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, some just have an objection to killing the baby unnecessarily.


Just to be clear,  I am aware that there are OB/GYN who will swear that third trimester abortions are sometimes medically necessary.  There are many who say they are not.  Who has more ne'emonus?  The ones who place no value on the fetus' life at least through the 2nd trimester?  Pro-choice doctors can be credibly accused of having a callous regard for the life of the fetus.  Can the pro-life doctors who claim that third trimester abortions are never medically necessary be credibly accused of having a callous regard for the life of the mother?


One last thing.  in the WaPo article they quote Dr Jennifer Gunter explaining a situation where abortion is safer than delivery.

"“A good example is a woman at 26 weeks who needs to be delivered for her blood pressure — that is the cure, delivery. However, because of her high-blood pressure fetal development has been affected and her fetus is estimated to weigh 300 g, which means it can not live after delivery. She will be offered an abortion if there is a skilled provider. This is safer for her and her uterus than a delivery.”"

I suspect this is a crafty lie.  Watch closely.  Here is a quote from her own blog.

Quote
What is an abortion?

Apparently some doctors don’t really grasp this, so here we are.

An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. In the late 2nd and 3rd trimester it can be accomplished by:

A D & E: dilation and evacuation. Meaning the cervix is dilated and instruments are used to remove the fetus. There are sharp, boney fragments to deal with and so the risk of injury is high if the operator is unskilled. With a skilled operator it is far safer than a c-section.

Induction of labor: essentially the same drugs that we use to induce any labor. If the fetus has lethal anomalies after delivery it will pass away — comfort care is hopefully offered if indicated.  Sometimes when anomalies are severe, but perhaps not lethal we inject a substance (usually potassium chloride) by amniocentesis (so through the pregnant belly into the fetal heart to stop the cardiac activity. It is done when the birth defects are very bad, but perhaps not immediately lethal.

A D & X: dilation and extraction. Dilating the cervix over several days and the fetus is delivered. Sometimes there are also boney fragments to deal with. An amniocentesis may also be done before to stop cardiac activity. This takes great skill. I have done them up to 34 weeks.

There is a false belief that induction of labor early for a lethal anomaly is not an abortion. It is.

The end.

She lists 3 options, D & E, D & X, and induction of labor.

In a D & E and a D & X she tells us there are risks of bony fragments. She neglects to tell of the risks posed by sharp instruments.  She notes that when a D & E is done by a skilled operator, it is safer than a c-section.  This is what she meant when she said an abortion is safer for her and uterus than a delivery.  There is no way a D & E is safer for a uterus than a labor delivery. It is worth noting that  in the case of preeclampsia, (the blood pressure issue she referenced) according to Mayo Clinic, c-section is the most effective treatment.  So the Mayo Clinic apparently disagrees that an abortion is safer.

What is clear from her own words is that the safest method is induction of labor which has little risk of injury to the uterus.  This is the method a pro-life doctor would recommend.  She takes pains to point out that this is also an abortion.  That is true if you do it the way she does it, which is to kill the baby in-utero to avoid a failed abortion and having to choose between providing medical care and infanticide.  The pro-life doctor would induce labor with out first killing the baby and provide medical care to the baby if it emerges alive.  If that can be called abortion it is a very different meaning of abortion. 

Bottom line.  In a best case scenario, Dr. Jennifer Gunter's complete disregard for the life of the fetus clouds her judgment and leads her to conclude that the safest option for the mother is one which guarantees that there will be no live baby to have to take care of.

For someone who believes that the fetus' life has value and we should try and keep it alive to the best of our ability, there is never a case where killing a late term fetus clearly benefits the health of the mother.   

Offline shaulyaakov

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2013
  • Posts: 1332
  • Total likes: 90
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
Re: Thoughts on abortion, religion, and morality
« Reply #119 on: May 22, 2019, 08:51:21 AM »
That is not a refutation.  It is leftist WaPo spin. 

In case of ""premature rupture of membranes and infection, preeclampsia, placental abruption, and placenta accreta” late in pregnancy that may endanger their lives."

The doctor they are allegedly refuting says that an emergency delivery may be necessary, it is just never necessary to kill the baby in the process.

"Politicians must never require a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients,"

No one is telling a doctor to wait for a medical condition to worsen and become life-threatening before being able to provide evidence-based care to their patients, some just have an objection to killing the baby unnecessarily.


Just to be clear,  I am aware that there are OB/GYN who will swear that third trimester abortions are sometimes medically necessary.  There are many who say they are not.  Who has more ne'emonus?  The ones who place no value on the fetus' life at least through the 2nd trimester?  Pro-choice doctors can be credibly accused of having a callous regard for the life of the fetus.  Can the pro-life doctors who claim that third trimester abortions are never medically necessary be credibly accused of having a callous regard for the life of the mother?


One last thing.  in the WaPo article they quote Dr Jennifer Gunter explaining a situation where abortion is safer than delivery.

"“A good example is a woman at 26 weeks who needs to be delivered for her blood pressure — that is the cure, delivery. However, because of her high-blood pressure fetal development has been affected and her fetus is estimated to weigh 300 g, which means it can not live after delivery. She will be offered an abortion if there is a skilled provider. This is safer for her and her uterus than a delivery.”"

I suspect this is a crafty lie.  Watch closely.  Here is a quote from her own blog.

She lists 3 options, D & E, D & X, and induction of labor.

In a D & E and a D & X she tells us there are risks of bony fragments. She neglects to tell of the risks posed by sharp instruments.  She notes that when a D & E is done by a skilled operator, it is safer than a c-section.  This is what she meant when she said an abortion is safer for her and uterus than a delivery.  There is no way a D & E is safer for a uterus than a labor delivery. It is worth noting that  in the case of preeclampsia, (the blood pressure issue she referenced) according to Mayo Clinic, c-section is the most effective treatment.  So the Mayo Clinic apparently disagrees that an abortion is safer.

What is clear from her own words is that the safest method is induction of labor which has little risk of injury to the uterus.  This is the method a pro-life doctor would recommend.  She takes pains to point out that this is also an abortion.  That is true if you do it the way she does it, which is to kill the baby in-utero to avoid a failed abortion and having to choose between providing medical care and infanticide.  The pro-life doctor would induce labor with out first killing the baby and provide medical care to the baby if it emerges alive.  If that can be called abortion it is a very different meaning of abortion. 

Bottom line.  In a best case scenario, Dr. Jennifer Gunter's complete disregard for the life of the fetus clouds her judgment and leads her to conclude that the safest option for the mother is one which guarantees that there will be no live baby to have to take care of.

For someone who believes that the fetus' life has value and we should try and keep it alive to the best of our ability, there is never a case where killing a late term fetus clearly benefits the health of the mother.   
Regardless of your personal beliefs, you don't have the medical knowledge to make the claims you are.

Additionally, to pivot back to Halacha, before the baby is  born, we do everything up to and including abortion if the life of the mother is at risk. Not to mention the potential psychological harm to a mother having to watch her baby die in front because even at 24 weeks Tue Dr's know that it's not viable.

You also understate the risks of a c section. I will refer you back to the Jewish Reivew interview with Rav Tendler, an expert in this area and the son in law of Rav Moshe -
Jewish Review: Would there be any circumstances under which the halakha would require a woman to have a C-section, or is a caesarean enough of a threat to her life to prevent such a requirement from ever being imposed?
Rabbi Tendler: It would never be required. There are circumstances where we might suggest, even urge the woman to have a caesarean, explaining to her that the danger to her is minimal and that there is a very good likelihood that the baby would survive but, because there is a danger to her life, her right of privacy in such matters is absolute even more than itis under the United States Constitution,

http://thejewishreview.org/articles/?id=175