so I have a medical question if anybody out here knows the awnser (please no guesses).
are there any known (physical) medical situations, that would require a late term PBA, to prevent the mother from developing a cronic debilitating condition?
is the pro-death lobby really conscerned about health issues or just trying to keep anything from hampering their death-mill and possably making them learn to practice real medicine
if the 'life threatening' clause would have said 'cause health issues', it would be bussiness as ussual, as the woman needed the procedure to prevent stretch-marks and saggy breasts.
no matter how distasteful I find abortion I don't really think it should be completely ilegle. mainly I think if a dr decides it's necissary then it's between the patient and the dr. (a real dr, one who practices medicen to heal people and would ocasionally find it neccisary to do an abortion for medical reasons, not a butcher in a death-mill)
the thing I have real trouble with is that while the death-lobby ponie out these examples of 'what-if' and 'this poor woman victimised by the law', they really put most of their real life work into abortions of convienence.
what percentage of abortions are for a real medical need? I serriously doubt it's a signifigant percentage, and if that was what the issue was about there would be a lot less arguing.
women are always painted as a victim by the pro-abortion group. they talk about women who's lifes, or health is endangered, they talk about the girl who dies in a pre-'roe v wade' back alley abortion. and they use these as examples to why we need abortion legal.
the fact is that virtually nobody(nobody commonly thought of as sane) wants a mother to be forced to carry a baby to term that would be killed or seriously disabled because of it.
abortion should be a last resort sort of thing not an alternative form of birth control.
but making abortion illegal isn't the whole answer either. if you want women to cary their children to term they have to at least think they have some hope of suporting the kid.
an interesting statistic I read last week (off msnbc, not sure of the date or the address though), was that from 90-99 the teenage abortion rate dropped 39%, the teanage pregnancy rate dropped also, as well as the overall abortion rate (but I cant remember the %'s for those).
it lleads me to believe that just saying "abortion is wrong and we wont have it here", then putting it out of your mind and moving on isn't the answer.
I don't recall any major changes in abortion law in that time frame. what I do see is that near the start of that time-frame just about every last holdout had finally come to grips with the fact that aids wasn't just killing junkies and studmuffins.
we admitted that teenagers have sex. and worse yet, probably even our teenager is going to have sex. we figured out that we shoulod warn them of the honest dangers. we allowed discussion that went beyond "don't" to "don't, but if you do..."
and the pregnancy rate went down, and with the economy improving at that time the percentage of those who chose abortion in responce to a pregnancy went down dramaticly.
