Quantcast
Opinion

Richard Davis: Abortion laws should keep up with advances

Comments

Return To Article
  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 24, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    I used to believe that Republicans cared about life, including the unborn.. I no longer do. When Republicans oppose measures that reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, oppose programs which benefit and protect children, oppose programs which benefit families with children their priorities become clear.

    We have the tools to greatly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. I believe, as with same-sex marriage, civil rights, and cigarette smoking, society can evolve to a better place. Through education and increasing the availability of contraceptives we can become a society where parenthood is undertaken as a deliberate choice, not by accident, and thereby greatly reduce the number of abortions.

    While I agree that abortions should only be used in circumstances of rape, incest, health issues involving the mother and/or fetus and that late-term abortions should be exceedingly rare ultimately these deliberations need to be undertaken between women and their physicians, family, etc. Legislation can be a blunt instrument which might unnecessarily do harm if not carefully constructed to give wide latitude for individual circumstances.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 23, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    To "The Real Maverick" you are really selective in your reading. You realize that it was "LDS Liberal" or "Open Minded Mormon" that brought up the NAZI argument.

    Why are you not going after the true culprit?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    May 23, 2013 12:37 a.m.

    @jsf
    Centerville, UT

    Progressives work really hard to relabel their work and positions in Germany’s history. I love how abortionists and liberals are now included as victims in the holocaust. The list keeps expanding.

    ========

    relabel history?
    Hardly - It was in ever college history class.

    1939 - Heinrich Himmler establishes the Reich Central Office for Combating Abortion and Homosexuality (Bekämpfung der Homosexualität und der Abtreibung) as part of the Security Police (Gestapo). Josef Albert Meisinger, an SS colonel in the Gestapo, is put in charge.

    And spin it all you like RedShirt --
    Fascists are Hard-core uber-Far-Right-wing.

    Also college level education.

  • Lanny Bountiful, UT
    May 22, 2013 9:07 p.m.

    Some in favor of abortion have said that pro-life people hate women. On the contrary, pro-life people love women - the little women in the womb. Why do the pro-abortion people want to kill the little women in the womb, and then claim that they love women? Why do pro-abortion people claim to be for women's rights and yet are against the right of little women in the womb to even live? Pro-life people are for women's rights - the right of women in the womb to live.

    Some have said that abortion is a personal decision. Then the logic of that is: so is the raising of children. If a mother can kill a little woman in the womb, then she can kill a little woman at any age. After all, raising a child is a far greater responsibility than carrying one in the womb.

    Regarding back alley abortions, why is it too much to expect a pregnant woman to give birth to a baby, and give it up for adoption. Isn't adoption better than abortion: the murder of little babies?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 22, 2013 8:47 p.m.

    Haha, redshirt and the repubs completely fulfill Godwin's law. You can always tell with hyperbolic discussion has reached an end when you must bring up hitler or the nazis to make a point.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 22, 2013 5:43 p.m.

    Halappanavar's husband, Praveen, said doctors at University Hospital Galway in western Ireland determined she was miscarrying within hours of her hospitalization for severe pain on Sunday, Oct. 21. He said over the next three days, doctors refused their requests for an abortion to combat her surging pain and fading health.

    The hospital declined to say whether doctors believed Halappanavar's blood poisoning could have been reversed had she received an abortion rather than waiting for the fetus to die on its own. In a statement, it described its own investigation into the death, and a parallel probe by the government's Health Service Executive, as "standard practice" whenever a pregnant woman dies in a hospital.

    Ireland's constitution officially bans abortion, but a 1992 Supreme Court ruling found the procedure should be legalized for situations when the woman's life is at risk from continuing the pregnancy. Five governments since have refused to pass a law resolving the confusion, leaving Irish hospitals reluctant to terminate pregnancies except in the most obviously life-threatening circumstances.
    (2012)

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 22, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    Last fall, Danielle and Robb Deaver of Grand Island, Neb., found that law intruded in a wrenching personal decision. Ms. Deaver, 35, was pregnant with a daughter in a wanted pregnancy. She and her husband were devastated when her water broke at 22 weeks and her amniotic fluid did not rebuild.

    Drs. said that the lung and limb development of the fetus had stopped, that it had a remote chance of being born alive or able to breathe, and that she faced a chance of serious infection.

    Mr. and Ms. Deaver decided to seek induced labor rather than wait for the fetus to die or emerge. But inducing labor, if it is not to save the life of the fetus, is legally defined as abortion, and doctors and hospital lawyers concluded that the procedure would be illegal under Nebraska's law.

    After 10 days of anguish, Ms. Deaver went into labor naturally; the baby died within 15 minutes. Ms. Deaver had to be treated with IV antibiotics for an infection that developed.

    Ms. Deaver said she got angry only after the grief had settled. This should have been a private decision, made between me, my husband and my doctor; she said.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 22, 2013 4:12 p.m.

    Progressives work really hard to relabel their work and positions in Germany’s history. I love how abortionists and liberals are now included as victims in the holocaust. The list keeps expanding.

    H.G. Wells was of the greatest influences on the progressive mind in the twentieth century. “Progressives must become liberal fascists; and enlightened Nazis, he told the Young Liberals at Oxford in a speech in July 1932.

    ”The progressives, who today masquerade as liberals; may rant against fascism; yet it is their policy that paves the way for Hitlerism, said classical liberal Ludwig von Mises 1940.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 22, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" once again you fail at understanding the NAZI party and fascism.

    The NAZIs were socialists with a capitalist veneer. The state controlled the corporations, yet did not have direct ownership of them.

    It was a liberal utopia. All power was centrally consolidated, welfare for the German citizens was spoken of as a right. Anybody who disagreed were labeled "undesirable" and were taken into "protective custody" where they killed them.

    The "Abortionists, Homosexuals, Drug addicts, Liberals [libertarians not today's modern liberalism], Communists, the Homeless, Immigrants, and Non-Christian" were targeted because they did not conform to the NAZI ideals.

    If you were honest, you would read about the promises Hitler made, and how the people viewed him as he rose to power.

    Again, NAZIs were hardcore Socialists that put up a capitalist veneer. They were everything that you and the progressive stand for. In fact US Progressives supported Hitler and Mussolini until the death camps started

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 22, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    @jsf
    Centerville, UT

    You know the final solution in Germany was for money. They started the camps as labor camps.

    ===========

    They started the "Final Solution" to reduce Government spending,
    specifically Healthcare costs - euthanasia for those judged "draining the system" and not willing or able to contribute.

    The wording "undesireables" was later twisted and expanded to also include:
    Abortionists, Homosexuals, Drug addicts, Liberals, Communists, the Homeless, Immigrants, and Non-Christians.

    A regular Pro-Military, Ultra-Nationalist, Patriotic, uber-Right-Wing Conservative Utopia.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 22, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    Some of the 'conservatives' here seem to have liberal values on the importance of life and the care for the weak. Some of the 'liberals' are thinking of the cost of taking care of the weak and deciding it is too much. I think we need new terms for liberal and conservative.

    Mountainman -- bleeding heart liberal.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 22, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    To "RanchHand" how much more dangerous is a back alley abortion vs what has gone on in the Gosnell clinic and other similar clinics that have dirty procedure rooms and have KILLED women seeking abortions?

    To "The Real Maverick" better yet. Keep your pants on until marriage = nearly 0 abortions.

    To "Don Bugg" lets take it even a step further. How do you determine "viability"? Is it just the ability to take care of yourself. Viability could also apply to people that don't think the same way that the government does. How "viable" are you if you complain against the government and want it to leave you alone. Obviously you are not "viable" and have a mental disorder if you can't trust a benevolent government.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" that is simple. Since the parents obviously don't want the child, and the demand for infant adoptions is very high, you stop the abortions and allow the child to develop normally then adopt the babies before they are born and that way they are covered under their adoptive parent's insurance.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 22, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    "BTW - that's the #1 reason for abortions, the LACK of money." You mean its not for rape, incest or the health of the mother.

    You know the final solution in Germany was for money. They started the camps as labor camps. The Gulags in Russia, were for money.

    Progressives don't have respect for any human life especially the unborn. "It's non of your business, if they have abortions" Next it will not be any of your business if they allow the elderly to die by not treating them, terminate the lives of those they feel are not living productive or full lives." What open minded (closed minded) is proposing is we should look away and not condemn the child sacrifices to the god Baal or Molech, or the almighty dollar.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 22, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    Maverick touched on a solution. The real advances being made are in our very slowly developing healthier attitudes toward sex. Instead of thinking in terms of sex being forbidden or dirty or for reproduction only, we need to embrace the fact that people are engaging in it. Talk about it, bring it into the light, educate people. Prevent abortions.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    @Star Bright
    "If you're pro abortion don't you realize at 6 weeks you don't want to carry this baby? "

    Some people don't even realize they're pregnant until 6 weeks.

    "Imagine we're talking about snipping the spinal cord - does it feel pain, one Dr in Texas was pulling their head off? It's so horrible I feel sick to my stomach!"

    If you ban abortion there will just be more of this. The nation with the lowest abortion rate in the world is not a nation where abortion is banned, it's Belgium which is very liberal when it comes to these matters (as well as giving birth control coverage to everyone via their universal healthcare system). Banning abortion doesn't mean it'll go away, it just means more extreme measures will be taken. Kinda like how that Utah girl paid a man to beat her up to try and induce a miscarriage just because she didn't want to go through the parental notification requirement. Desperate people will do desperate things.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 22, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    720 ILCS 510/6: was passed long before Obama, 1975, to say he supported it is disingenuous at best. When he was in the state legislature he voted consistently against legislation consistent with federal law about the need to provide care of children born alive in spite of the attempt to kill them. In 2004, Michele penned a letter supporting partial birth abortions and that Obama was in full support. A method later deemed invalid by the courts.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    May 22, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    jsb,

    I never said a baby should be aborted in such circumstances, I merely pointed out that the decision is often made based on what the parents feel is in the child's best interest. While it worked for your daughter, and I'm glad it did, many people when faced with those decisions for themselves, opt to not go through the ordeal and accept their mortality. For every person who comes out of such circumstances alive, there are another 49 that suffered long and needlessly, only to die anyway. Many people in these situations where the baby is coming at the late stages of "viability", and I have met one such couple, have tried long and hard to have children but due to a medical condition were forced to ask whether putting their baby through such an ordeal would be selfish. I'm sorry you find my outlook on life, where I consider that people in such circumstances face very difficult decisions, "sick."

    I neither condemn parents who choose to try to save the child nor those that decide it is more humane to let it go. All I know, is it must be tremendously difficult.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 22, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    And what about healthcare?

    Who's gonna pay for all that premmie medical care?

    The GOP and Republicans have been yelling from the roof-tops that THEY certainly aren't willing to.
    Insurance companies won't touch them.
    And most new parents are young, in college, and have little to no money at all.

    BTW - that's the #1 reason for abortions, the LACK of money.

    If Republicans truely believed everything they said, they be FOR Universal Healthcare coverage, controceptives, and assisting with life's necessities -- food, clothing and shelter.

    That would be key to reducing elective abortion.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 22, 2013 11:11 a.m.

    "It's like putting someone through chemo with only a 2% chance of surviving." Yeah, why would you do that, my daughter at age 16 went through a Total Body Irradiation and Bone Marrow Transplant with those odds. Now, next month it is 14 years later, she is married and has a beautiful family. OHBU what a sick outlook on life. As for late term abortions, 80 percent are performed on healthy, viable children, and healthy mothers. Progressives are so flippant regarding the worth of life. "emergency partial birth (abortions) during delivery [common for still births." A partial birth abortion is not needed for a still birth, the baby would already be deceased. That would be a delivery of a still birth. Partial birth abortion implies the baby is still alive. A partial birth abortion is so the baby will be delivered as a still birth. "GOP's death sentance and punishment of women," as opposed to the liberal progressive death sentence of children. Why are liberal progressives so concerned about the 20 year away birth of a spotted owl and no care for the unborn children, because they don't have friends that have killed spotted owls.

  • Don Bugg Prince Frederick, MD
    May 22, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    Why don't we apply RanchHand's standard to everyone? Those who can't survive without medical assistance are subject to be killed. That should knock out most of the elderly and disabled people in the US. Come to think of it, it would apply to a lot of people who just get sick. If you have pneumonia, for example, you may not be "viable" without outside medical intervention. With this handy new policy, execution is a practical and cost-effective alternative to treatment!

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    May 22, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    It's interesting that states would try to use the "baby can feel pain" argument to ban abortions after 12 weeks, but when a baby is coming around weeks 20-24 (the grayest area), the specific decision as to whether to abort the baby or not is about the child's pain. In other words, they are likely to die, even with all the advances in modern neo-natal care. In the meantime, they will experience a tremendous amount of pain that could be spared. It's like putting someone through chemo with only a 2% chance of surviving.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 22, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    Rape, Incest, Life and Health of the woman, and viablity of the fitus - to be decided by the Woman, her Dotctor, her family and her clergy.
    To everyone else -- It's NONE of your businesses.

    The zero tolerence extremeist position of "no abortion ever, not under any circumstances" by the radical right would force a vicitms of rape and incest to make lemonade from lemons, or believe "legitimate" rapes will end by spontaneous abortion.

    They would also criminalize a Doctor for performing a D&C [Dilation and Curettage - a commmon procedure for miscarriages], or emergency partial birth during delivery [common for still births, and saving the Life of the Woman when necessary].

    I stand with the LDS Church's allowance for choice in these sensitive matters, and stand opposed to the radical right and the GOP's death sentance and punishment of women.

    As for Dr. Gosnell?
    He's a murderer, he broke the law, and is going to jail.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    May 22, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    A few days ago this paper ran a letter stating that there should never be government welfare. This paper has also run several articles slamming on Obamacare and the requirement that individuals have health insurance.

    Ranchhand - whether you agree with his post or not - raises some very valid questions. When we are not willing to provide food for children living in poverty, why should anyone think we will be willing to provide medical care for a child? Heck, we don't want to have to help pay for birth control to prevent a pregnancy and you really think people are going to pay even more once a baby is born?

    @ Star Bright: Illinois has had a "born alive" law for a very long time - the one Obama voted against would have added uncertainties and vagueness to an issue that was already well defined - making it harder to enforce the law and protect those who survive an abortion attempt.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 22, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    Re:StarBright

    There were already laws in Illinois, which Obama supported that protected infants even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 22, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    When I read comments on here from people defending the killing of unborn babies, I think there is no hope for the human race.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 22, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    While I don't disagree with the articles premise, I do agree with RanchHands alterations to the ideas. The one thing I would add to RanchHand is the idea that any policy that considers the ability of a fetus to live outside the womb on it's own without medical support needs to consider that many full term infants with natural births can't live once born without extreme medical intervention. So it's the usual state of development that needs to be considered along with special considerations for the life and health of the mother. Guess what that lands us pretty much where Roe v. Wade left us. It's simply these new religiously led discussions that have changed the conversation. Not medical advances. The medical advances are simply modern ways to deal with the special circumstances. Nothing has changed in the development of a fetus. A heart can beat long after death has occurred and a heart can beat all by its self in a petrie dish, and pain certainly is a subjective concept without full brain development. Heart beats, and pain discussions are simply masks for religious values.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 22, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    It's pretty simple.

    Conprehensive Sex edu + birth control = fewer abortions

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    May 22, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    Wow ranch hand, you've been on the ranch too long. Is any baby capable of being on it's own? Maybe some animals, but not babies.

    If you're pro abortion don't you realize at 6 weeks you don't want to carry this baby? BTW, 0bama held up a "born alive bill" in Illinois. The same thing was going on there except they put the crying baby in a closet so they wouldn't be bothered with it and it stayed there alone in the dark, no human touch, until it died.

    What have we become as a people? What have mothers? who are supposed to be the protection for their children, become?

    Imagine we're talking about snipping the spinal cord - does it feel pain, one Dr in Texas was pulling their head off? It's so horrible I feel sick to my stomach!

    Those who believe in a God, do you really think he looks down on this with any feeling of love & understanding?
    I hope he forgives us!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 22, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    How much money does it cost to keep a baby on life support if it is born early? Is it truly "viable outside the womb" if it has to have tons of medical equipment to survive? No, it isn't.

    If 'capable of living outside the womb' is your criteria, then it should necessarily include the words "on it's own - without medical support".

    Making abortion more difficult only puts more women in danger of back-alley abortions which endangers their lives. But then, conservatives never really cared about women in the first place - or anyone for that matter, once they exit the womb. At that point, you're on your own baby.