Forced Abortions

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by wanderingmagus, Mar 8, 2010.

  1. wanderingmagus

    wanderingmagus Constantly Around :D

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Messages:
    7,561
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    Ratings:
    +248 / 1 / -0
    "A court ruled that a woman can be forced to submit to an abortion, if, in the opinion of the abortionist, the measure is necessary to "protect the health of the mother." The Jane Roe II vs. Aware Women Center for Choice, Inc. ruling was handed down in January.

    The case arose when a young woman who entered an abortion clinic for an abortion changed her mind. The abortionist, William P. Egherman, who has committed over 10,000 abortions, instead of stopping the procedure, called in assistants to hold her down while he continued to dilate her cervix.

    "My God, you're hurting me" the woman screamed. "You're killing me, I'll never be able to have babies... Stop!" Despite her pleas, Egherman went in with a forceps, an instrument in court he referred to as "the bear" and began prodding and pulling, and accidentally tore out a piece of her intestines. He advised the ambulance to go slow, without lights or siren, so as not to distress his other clients who were waiting for abortions. The hospital repaired the damage and removed the remains of a dead child.

    The woman and her lawyer, former judge, Chris Sapp filed suit in the federal courts, arguing that the abortionist had violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE). FACE was passed to guarantee the right of women to receive reproductive health care. But if a woman had a right to enter a clinic to get an abortion, Sapp argued, she also has a right to leave a clinic in order to protect herself and her baby. The suit was lost, but an appeal is planned -- to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

    According to Sapp, "This ruling does establish a precedent for forced abortion." An expectant mother receiving a routine gynecological exam, for example, could be held down and forcibly aborted. The abortionist would merely have to argue that the abortion was necessary to protect the mother's health or life, and this would not be a violation of the FACE Act."


    - lifesitenews.com













    We all know each other's opinions on abortion itself from the abortion thread. But, what is your opinion on FORCED abortions? Should it in your opinion be legal? Why and why not? When is it necessary? Where should we draw a line? Is there a line?
     
  2. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +342 / 1 / -0
    You know up till now I always assumed that abortion was carried out under anasthetic, but it seems that there is no unified approach (country by country) and that in some cases (depending how far along the pregnacy is) and on the country it can be carried out whilst the mother is still awake.

    Myself I can't for the life of me think why since it seems to be an increadibly traumatic experience to be awake through (the pain might be no worse than a period/real birth from my very limited reading but still its a whole different event!).

    That part aside we get into the debate and example at hand and I have to say its going to be a complex one. Clearly we have to start from the position that abortion is allowed and not to be contested in this debate however we now have to come to the concept of force. Myself I have a little doubt about the cited example since it sounds like the procedure had already begun before the woman started to protest, at this stage I suspect it was probably safer to continue the operation since chances were the child might not surive nor the mother and that even if the child did it might have long term problems brought on by the halted operation. Further panic and resistance on the part of the mother was the most likley cause of the additional suffering she went through and the damage to her intestines. Like I said above I can't understand one being allowed (or even wanting) to be awake during such an operation.


    So in the case above - without further evidence than that presented - I find myself in agreement with the doctors actions. However as for a cover all policy in forced abortions any wording of such a document would have to be very carefully written. We can all easily imagin the idea of a draconian enforcement of forced abortions to suit other purposes or agends slipping in - heck in China its a reality that many mothers are forced through abortions by family if they are shown to be carrying a girl (since they are only allowed on child and the male is key to continuing on the family name as well as taking are of the parents in their old age). Such is not (I belive) legal practice, but people still find a way.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2010
  3. ScreenXSurfer

    ScreenXSurfer Better Than You

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Where you want to live
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
    How ****ing vile. My god, he should be arrested for life.
     
  4. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    If the procedure could have been stopped, and the baby was still a viable fetus, and since the cervix hadn't been fully dilated yet we know the procedure hadn't gone through all the way, this doctor should be arrested and imprisoned for a not so very short period of time.

    My God, this isn't China. A woman who has the choice to ask for an abortion should be able to change her mind as long as the operation hadn't been fully realized, which this article suggests it hadn't been.
     
  5. clouded_perception

    clouded_perception clouded_perception

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,871
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Australia
    Ratings:
    +49 / 0 / -0
    It's disgusting. If the woman's life is at risk, the next step is counselling and an explanation of the situation, not forcibly holding her down.

    An abortion is a medical procedure and the same rules for informed consent should apply.
     
  6. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +342 / 1 / -0
    True Clouded - but that assumes that the women has time to make an informed choice about the matter. There are situations where hours or minutes are all that is between her and complications (including death) as well as situations where she might not be in a position to give any responce to choice (eg unconsious).
    Who does the doctor side with then - the family - the father - automatic priority to the mother or to the child(ren - twins etc...)? I'm sure there are going to be guildlines set out for these situations - how easy they are to follow in the heat of the moment is another matter entirely.

    As I said I don't feel we know enough from the brief outline in the cited example to cast judgement -we just don't know.
     
  7. Skyanide

    Skyanide The Big Meanie Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +77 / 0 / -0
    "lifesitenews.com" is an anti-abortion pro-life pro-christian site. Hardly unbiased in its view or reporting and this should be considered when discussing "facts" of the case.
     
  8. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    lol

    This is why it's good to have a national debate on Abortus. Things should have been though out on beforehand. I assume that there are directives on national or state level outlining whether this is acceptable or not.

    I will gladly leave this one to medical ethics and philosophy. I suppose you could tilt it either way. First, I thought it would be good to make it a court case - but a court can only measure against exsisting law, which is probably not tailored for these sorts of situations.

    Also: an article written with so much drama usually isn't the best starting point of a neutral discussion ^_^
     
  9. Nienor

    Nienor Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    9,608
    Likes Received:
    91
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Northern Joisey
    Ratings:
    +91 / 0 / -0
    Sadly, due to my own lousy fertility history, I have some insight on this.

    Most abortions are performed under general anesthetic, just as any woman undergoing a D&C or D&E procedure. Doctors do not like dealing with freaked out patients. When you are awake, they cannot guarantee you won't completely freak out and wind up hurting yourself. If you cannot tolerate general anesthesia, there is an option for sedation and a local anesthetic.

    Once you go in for a second trimester procedure, it cannot necessarily be stopped. Forgive me for graphicness here. If you are past 15 weeks gestation, you begin the procedure the day before by inserting something into your cervix to start the dialation. When you start doing that you will lose the baby no matter what is done. So once you agree to insert the laminaria, the procedure must be finished.

    I read the article, there's way too much BS. You would have to tear through the uterus to rip out a piece of the intestine. The woman probably would have bled to death on the way to the hospital. I seriously doubt the last paragraph too. An abortion is the same medical procedure as a D&C or D&E. You wake up in a recovery room. :rolleyes:
     
  10. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Um yeah, that bit smells like bullshit to me. The female reproductive organs are like an inverted bottle - open at the "spout" end :D and closed at the other end. You'd have to cut through it to get up into the intestines. And then how exactly you'd "tear out a piece" is unclear too.

     
  11. clouded_perception

    clouded_perception clouded_perception

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,871
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Australia
    Ratings:
    +49 / 0 / -0
    The doctor does what the doctor would do in any other medical procedure with such risks. I think this means consent from the patient if conscious, or automatic consent or that from next-of-kin (depending on where you live) if unconscious. Not sure though.
     
  12. DarrenNavi

    DarrenNavi Author of RTTH

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    crazy, but as with any "weighted" report, the facts have probably been slanted. The girl had consented to the abortion and stopping the procedure midway would likely have left the child dead/disabled and the mother in a very tempermental state.

    I highly doubt the doctor enjoys giving abortions and would not have continued if he didnt have too. He has probably seen girls do the same thing before and acted in a professional manner. I in no way condone abortion or its practicers but once placed in that situation the doctor acted as he should have. The mother should have thought about the reprocusions of the procedure before consenting to it