Quote:
Originally Posted by cacophony
let me clarify my point.
at week 20 of a high risk pregnancy, my husband was diagnosed with gestational hypertension. at week 25 his kidneys began to shut down and he was put on medication to control the raised blood pressure in the hopes of saving both his kidneys and his babies. at week 30 his pressure began to rise again and his risk of stroke increased significantly. his medication, which is not fully tested on the effects on fetuses, was increased. at week 33 while doing an audible non-stress test he heard the sound of one of the babies' heartbeats slow, then stop, then start again. that's when he received the news that the hypertension, which could quite possibly kill him, might be destroying the babies' shared placenta. he was rushed to the hospital where he tested positive for preeclampsia, a potentially fatal condition brought on by pregnancy. he was then pumped so full of magnesium sulfate that he was barely coherent, and he had two shots of steroids in his hips to help develop the premature babies' lungs. see, this happened because there was a very clear set of options: carry the babies to term and have a nearly guaranteed date with seizures and liver failure, or deliver two premature babies at 33 1/2 weeks in the hopes that they could survive without encountering one of a dozen life threatening conditions that are part and parcel of arriving almost 2 months early. and when they were delivered, he didn't get to hold them. they were taken away to the neonatal intensive care unit and he was kept bedridden for the next 24 hours, unable to see his babies while the preeclampsia was closely monitored. during this time his liver very nearly shut down.
no wait. that didn't happen to my husband. that happened to me. because i'm a woman and between the two of us i'm the only one with the physical ability to carry a baby and nearly die in the process.
so no, you don't carry a whisper of a dream of a fantasy of the responsibility of pregnancy that a woman carries.
and when you preach your noble stance on men sharing the burden of pregnancy i have to roll my eyes. because good for you, buddy. you be noble and stand there while the woman in your life submits her body either willingly or unwillingly to something that will change her forever. you preach your philosophy about life and the dependency of an embryo on its mother's environment and you make it a political or moral thing. because it's easy, for you. you're never ever EVER going to face the decision or the responsibility or the risk or the consequences a woman will face. bearing the emotional and financial burden are great, both parents do that. but only she bears the physical burden.
|
i didn't mean to upset you by what i said. i'm sorry, and what you say is true; i could never have that much responsibility (and i'm not just saying that because you probably know where i live
). on the same note, i think abortion is permissible if your health is in danger; which it was. if it comes down to preserving a person that's already fully developed or preserving a child that may well die with the mother, realistically, it would be unreasonable to restrict a woman to have an abortion.
my idea of limiting abortion isn't a federally mandated law that says almost all abortions are illegal and having some huge legal counsel decide which abortion is OK.
my idea is more along the lines of a federal law that protects some abortion rights, and only restricting partial-birth abortion, and the states would go on a state-by-state basis. for example, all states would have to respect the right of a mother to have an abortion if her life was in danger, if she was raped, or if a family member raped her, yet from that point on it would be the individual state's decision to make abortion illegal or legal. so a state with people who largely support abortion rights, such as nevada, would have abortion legal. on the other hand, utah would probably make most abortions illegal. at that point i think it would be up to the doctor to decide whether to carry out an abortion or not rather than bring it before a judge and have to go through a legal proceeding. the penalty for performing abortions illegally would be up to the states, but i wouldn't favor any laws punishing women for having an abortion.
once again, i didn't mean for the discussion to get that personal and heartwrenching— you proved your point very well.
the ideal system, to me, would be to make abortion less common, more difficult to have done, and to make other options much more available, but not to entirely ban abortion from the country if it's truly needed in a case. the libertarian in me wouldn't let that happen. i'm upset enough about obama banning flavored cigarettes in the name of stopping teens from smoking.