asterroc | More persons

Eight months == entirely viable, probably even without medical assistance. I think that's pretty reasonable.

I personally believe any standard abortion procedure (that is, in the absence of medical complications, where the woman simply no longer wishes to be pregnant) should go as follows: Ultrasound and other tests are done to determine size and health of the fetus. If the attending physician believes there is a greater than X% chance of viability (with X to be determined state-by-state), and the mother still chooses not to carry to term after seeing the test results and hearing the doctor's assessment, labor is induced and all possible effort is made to keep the newborn alive. If that effort succeeds, the newborn is listed with a local adoption agency and remains with the mother until adopted. As with any other birth, costs are borne by the parents (or their insurance). If the fetus isn't viable, straight-up D&C; if the mother chooses to carry to term, fine; if the newborn dies upon or after delivery, lost patient, nobody's fault.

I'm firmly in favor of discouraging abortion, and particularly in favor of discouraging later-term abortion: "If t'were done, t'were best done quickly." The viewing of test results discourages haste and denial. The cost of supporting a premature newborn's medical treatment discourages leaving it for the last minute; at that point, it's probably actually safer for both mother and child to carry to term. It wouldn't satisfy the most hard-line anti-abortion advocates, but no compromise will and I believe compromise is really what's needed here, so I don't really pay attention to them.

Lastly, of course, the woman (and her partner, if any) should receive counseling services, which will include a thorough run-down of contraceptive options. Before undergoing the procedure, she should be offered the option of a free (that is, subsidized by the state or relevant non-profit organization) IUD to be inserted immediately after the abortion is performed, and strongly encouraged to take it. Several dozen free condoms should also be provided. Prevention is absolutely key.

No pun intended in the title, though oral sex is a decent form of birth control (though not STD prevention).

I like your idea of inducing labor if the fetus could be viable. I'd rather the mother pays the lesser of the costs of an abortion or the inducement and subsequent care, as sometimes resources can be the factor that makes a potential mother choose an abortion. After the induced labor the mother should have the choice of having the baby remain with her until adoption, or putting it into the custody of the state. This is for two reasons: if she feels hateful towards the baby she may not care well for it and it would cause her psychological harm, and because should she change her mind during the adoption process it would cause even more pain and suffering on her and the prospective parents.

I am strongly in favor of increasing sex ed and cheap and easy access to multiple methods of birth control. Hilary's motto of "safe, legal, and rare" is much more effective if we can make the need/want for abortions rarer at every stage. In my job I meet many young college students with children. Some of the children are old enough and mothers young enough that the mothers had them while in high school. I wouldn't want to take away the happiness that most of them have from their children, but I would like to give them more choice. Discussing it with one student, he told me that he had been an unintentional pregnancy himself, but he felt that the most important thing is that the baby is loved. I feel that it's also important that the baby be wanted.

Regarding the offer of free/subsidized IUD, Depo-Provera, or vasectomy, I worry that Depo-Provera at least tends to be disproportionately over-prescribed to people with low incomes. There appears to be a systematic bias towards forcing them to have fewer children. Many people would argue that's a good thing, but I don't agree. Condoms yes, IUD no, because it places the burden (emotional, monetary, time) on her to take action to become non-sterile again. Enforced or highly encouraged sterilization is eugenics in action.

Oh, free checkups for the IUD, free removal when the time is up (five or ten years depending on model) or at any earlier time at the patient's request, and of course not required of anyone; but it should be offered to anyone having an abortion, of any income level, for any reason. (I'd say they should be offered free to all women who want them, but a lot of doctors don't like giving them to women who haven't given birth, and in any case there's no STD protection as there is with condoms, which makes distribution of condoms vastly more important in most cases.) It's non-hormonal, non-carcinogenic, non-reactive to medication, minimally invasive, indetectable other than through medical examination, not dependent on memory, not dependent on the other person, protective against pregnancy from rape or in the case of condom failure, and extremely effective without decreasing later ability to become pregnant. Depo-Provera has lots of problems and vasectomies are a) surgical b) difficult to reverse and c) impossible to provide to women. *) I wouldn't advocate either of those or tubal ligation in this sort of situation.

I'm fine with the state subsidizing costs for the birth and care of the infant if the parents are poor. I think the state has a legitimate interest in the health of its citizens. Regardless, though, that sort of medical care is generally cheaper than raising a child. Perhaps subsidy during that tricky window when the X% chance of viability is high enough to call for attempt at live birth but low enough that the child will need extensive medical support, reducing as X gets higher?

I was going to write about how we learned in high school health class about how IUDs are unsafe for women (along with having to memorize exactly which STD caused green vaginal secretions vs yellow), but then I wikipedia-ed it instead and found that apparently there was one specific brand, Dalkon Shield and modern IUDs appear much safer. Wow, the things you learn... However, I still don't like the thought of one personally, including the side effects.

Man, I wish we could just mandate a comprehensive sex ed program for everyone. :-P Require everyone to put a condom on a dummy, or some other sexual-orientation-appropriate prophylactic, much like we had to whack the CPR dummies on the floor while yelling "are you all right are you ok help call EMS" and someone else watched to see if the computer registered the whacking, all in order to get a CPR license that expired a year later.

What side effects are you thinking of? I've had a Mirena IUS for two years now. Very light twinges every six months are the only period I have to deal with, which I consider a feature rather than a bug, and I haven't had any other side effects. (I still get PMS, but you can't have everything.)

Really, huh? I just remember all these horror stories about ripping apart your insides and endless bleeding and infections and becoming sterile. I think there was only the one sex ed teacher, but I don't remember her name. Of course, what I remember now from what I learned then may have no bearing on reality. :-P

I believe your recollections are roughly equivalent to thinking that computers occupy whole rooms, are individually intelligent, and are bent on destroying the world by provoking nuclear war with the U.S.S.R.

Hah! Nice analogy. I'm not sure if that's what I was actually told way back when and it's not horribly out of date, or if I'm misremembering. I wish I knew, I'm really dying to know now. Just so long as I don't have to relive the "Miracle of Life" video in the process of remembering.

And now I want to rent Memento.

I remember being told many similar things. Otherwise I would have gotten an IUD years ago. I'm very glad I decided to get one, though it hurt like a motherfucker going in; I'm de facto polyfi and all my partners' partners are sensible trustworthy people who maintain safer sex practices of which I completely approve, so it entirely removes any need for latex, and the lack of bleeding is a tremendous blessing.

From Planned Parenthood:

You should not use the IUD if you have had a pelvic infection following either childbirth or an abortion in the past three months.

Is that supposed to read "don't have an IUD if you had a pelvic infection after childbirth, or a pelvic infection after an abortion," or "if you had a pelvic infection after childbirth, or had an abortion (with or without a pelvic infection)"? If the latter, couldn't have an IUD inserted "immediately" after the abortion. On the other hand, a 3 month waiting period sounds like a reasonable amount of time for the woman to decide whether she wants the IUD.

I know of doctors who always offer to insert IUDs as part of an abortion procedure, so I imagine the first reading is more accurate.

More persons

no subject

Blow-by-blow reply

Re: Blow-by-blow reply

Re: Blow-by-blow reply

Re: Blow-by-blow reply

Re: Blow-by-blow reply

Re: Blow-by-blow reply

Re: Blow-by-blow reply

Re: Blow-by-blow reply

Additional info

Re: Additional info