Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

How do you feel about Arkansas law banning abortions at 12 weeks?

Posted by   + Show Post

Abortions at 12 Weeks Should Never Be Illegal

by Maressa Brown

ultrasoundWhen it comes to abortion laws, there's absolutely no consensus on what we all as Americans feel is appropriate. But in Arkansas this week, state lawmakers have decided they know what's best -- passing a law that prohibits abortion at 12 weeks of pregnancy, which is when a fetal heartbeat can typically be detected by an abdominal ultrasound. Even after Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, called it "blatantly unconstitutional" and vetoed it. Now the state has what will be by far the country's most restrictive ban on abortion.

To be fair, it's a very hazy issue on which even people who consider themselves pro-choice find themselves grappling with. When should it simply be just too late to terminate a pregnancy? I'd argue that 12 weeks is far too early. Fetal heartbeat or not, there is a need for abortions to be legal that "late in the game."

While 88 percent of all abortions are obtained within the time period Arkansas is specifying, a post-12 week abortion should not be out of the question for various reasons ...

  1. Some women may not even recognize that they are pregnant until the pregnancy is advanced beyond that time frame -- due to irregular menstruation, thinking they're in menopause, believing they cannot become pregnant for various reasons (breastfeeding, undergoing medical treatment), or having their pregnancies initially misdiagnosed by physicians (it happens!).
  2. There are also instances where there are serious medical complications -- pregnant women are susceptible to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, severe depression, addictions, and other serious health problems. Surgery, X-rays, chemotherapy, or other treatment vital to a woman's health or life may come to a halt once the pregnancy is discovered. A woman might choose abortion if a continued pregnancy would worsen her condition and/or threaten her life, or if she requires further treatments that may damage a developing fetus. 
  3. A fetus could have severe abnormalities, like an undeveloped brain, a severe metabolic disorder, or no working kidney. She may wish to end the pregnancy rather than give birth to a child who will suffer and die in infancy or who will have severe disabilities. Unfortunately, the results of amniocentesis, one of the most important prenatal diagnostic tests, are generally not available until the 15th or 16th week of pregnancy, thus delaying the abortion decision.

These are just a few of a whole slew of scenarios that could influence a woman to seek an abortion after this inane deadline that Arkansas lawmakers are setting. And these scenarios are exactly why the limit established by Supreme Court gives women a right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb -- which is usually around 24 weeks into pregnancy. 

That said, it's hopeful that the Arkansas law is going to be found unconstitutional and overturned ASAP. (The ACLU is already gearing up to sue.) Because of course no one would wish any of the above on anyone, but live can take some unexpected turns, and Arkanas women deserve their constitutional right to do what's right for them and their fetus.

How do you feel about this law?

by on Mar. 8, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Replies (81-87):
NewMom11222011
by Bronze Member on Mar. 9, 2013 at 8:23 PM
1 mom liked this

And you were right. Thanks!

Quoting LindaClement:

:D

I only thought of saying it, 'cause it was two in a row ...

Quoting NewMom11222011:

Point taken, I will try to be more precise in the future.

Quoting LindaClement:

It would help if you either illuminate what you're referring to, when it's not the reply you're quoting ... or stick to the subject matter within the quote.

Quoting NewMom11222011:

I did not mean that you specifically were using euphemisms.  Some in the pro-choice camp do use "blob of tissue" or "products of conception" just as some in the pro-life camp use "baby" in ways that drive each other's "camps" crazy.  It is a separate entity, but as you stated- at 12 weeks it certainly is not viable outside the womb.  I think this distinction is one that those who call themselves pro-life get so upset about when they hear a pro-choice person say "it's the mother's body".  The baby is not the mother's body, but certainly is dependent upon the mother's body for sustenance. 

Quoting Momniscient:

I'm not using euphemisms. I didn't say a fetus wasn't alive. It is NOT a separate entity though and shouldn't be viewed as such.



Newborns can be cared for by anyone. At all.



A fetus needs a womb.



I agree with being intellectually honest and IMO that means recognizing that fetuses are not viable separate entities. Which means the woman who owns the womb is the one who enjoys the rights associated with personhood. As morally and ethically sticky as that is.


Quoting NewMom11222011:

If the mom's body can reject it because of RH incompatibility, then I would argue that it IS a separate entity.  I'm not saying that abortion should be illegal, although I have qualms about it personally, I just think we need to be intellectually honest about what a fetus is and isn't.  It's much to easy to discard a "blob  of cells" or any other euphemism used.  A fetus is not by scientific definition a baby, but even a newborn needs care by someone to survive.  It cannot hunt down food and feed itself or clothe itself or shelter itself. 

I am very squeamish about the government legislating things that infringe on people's right to privacy, but I am also squeamish about abortion and I don't personally have to worry about one because I'm infertile.  I know how traumatic it was having three miscarriages over which I had no control, but knowing what I know about fetal development I would personally be even more traumatized by ending pregnancies intentionally.

Quoting Momniscient:

Then don't have an abortion. Simple.

Fetuses are NOT separate entities. Babies are.

Quoting StarburstKisses:


I dont know how someone could see that it has brain waves and a heart beat and think that it wasn't alive - or a seperate entity. I dont understand how someone could then, knowing this, kill it.



Quoting LindaClement:

It is a 'separate entity' when it's capable of living separate from the body.

We do not agree that a human is alive or dead based on brainwaves and heartbeats.

Quoting NewMom11222011:

I am not a huge fan of government intruding into private lives.  That being said, the two things typically used to define whether or not a human is alive or dead are heartbeat and brainwaves.  Both of those can be detected well before 12 weeks, so we are clearly talking about a separate living entity.  Many of the sensory cells are active by 12 weeks, so pain is felt.  This is why we will always debate the propriety of abortion and its timing.













Mama2Spencerninja

Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Mar. 9, 2013 at 11:19 PM
A 12 week fetus is not a baby not a person and not a separate entity.

You are the one using euphemisms now.

Because it is not viable it cannot be considered a separate entity. Which is why abortion is legal and why there are restrictions that come into play when a fetus reaches a point of viability.


Quoting NewMom11222011:

I did not mean that you specifically were using euphemisms.  Some in the pro-choice camp do use "blob of tissue" or "products of conception" just as some in the pro-life camp use "baby" in ways that drive each other's "camps" crazy.  It is a separate entity, but as you stated- at 12 weeks it certainly is not viable outside the womb.  I think this distinction is one that those who call themselves pro-life get so upset about when they hear a pro-choice person say "it's the mother's body".  The baby is not the mother's body, but certainly is dependent upon the mother's body for sustenance. 

Quoting Momniscient:

I'm not using euphemisms. I didn't say a fetus wasn't alive. It is NOT a separate entity though and shouldn't be viewed as such.





Newborns can be cared for by anyone. At all.





A fetus needs a womb.





I agree with being intellectually honest and IMO that means recognizing that fetuses are not viable separate entities. Which means the woman who owns the womb is the one who enjoys the rights associated with personhood. As morally and ethically sticky as that is.




Quoting NewMom11222011:

If the mom's body can reject it because of RH incompatibility, then I would argue that it IS a separate entity.  I'm not saying that abortion should be illegal, although I have qualms about it personally, I just think we need to be intellectually honest about what a fetus is and isn't.  It's much to easy to discard a "blob  of cells" or any other euphemism used.  A fetus is not by scientific definition a baby, but even a newborn needs care by someone to survive.  It cannot hunt down food and feed itself or clothe itself or shelter itself. 

I am very squeamish about the government legislating things that infringe on people's right to privacy, but I am also squeamish about abortion and I don't personally have to worry about one because I'm infertile.  I know how traumatic it was having three miscarriages over which I had no control, but knowing what I know about fetal development I would personally be even more traumatized by ending pregnancies intentionally.

Quoting Momniscient:

Then don't have an abortion. Simple.

Fetuses are NOT separate entities. Babies are.

Quoting StarburstKisses:


I dont know how someone could see that it has brain waves and a heart beat and think that it wasn't alive - or a seperate entity. I dont understand how someone could then, knowing this, kill it.




Quoting LindaClement:

It is a 'separate entity' when it's capable of living separate from the body.

We do not agree that a human is alive or dead based on brainwaves and heartbeats.

Quoting NewMom11222011:

I am not a huge fan of government intruding into private lives.  That being said, the two things typically used to define whether or not a human is alive or dead are heartbeat and brainwaves.  Both of those can be detected well before 12 weeks, so we are clearly talking about a separate living entity.  Many of the sensory cells are active by 12 weeks, so pain is felt.  This is why we will always debate the propriety of abortion and its timing.










Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
NewMom11222011
by Bronze Member on Mar. 10, 2013 at 5:52 PM

I don't think we'll ever agree on this and that is fine.  We live in a country that gives us that freedom.  For me, though, it does beg the question that if it is not a separate entity why is it being removed?  I've heard people (not you and not on this forum) call a fetus a parasite, but even a parasite is a separate entity.  Just my opinion, not expecting you to agree.

Quoting Momniscient:

A 12 week fetus is not a baby not a person and not a separate entity.

You are the one using euphemisms now.

Because it is not viable it cannot be considered a separate entity. Which is why abortion is legal and why there are restrictions that come into play when a fetus reaches a point of viability.


Quoting NewMom11222011:

I did not mean that you specifically were using euphemisms.  Some in the pro-choice camp do use "blob of tissue" or "products of conception" just as some in the pro-life camp use "baby" in ways that drive each other's "camps" crazy.  It is a separate entity, but as you stated- at 12 weeks it certainly is not viable outside the womb.  I think this distinction is one that those who call themselves pro-life get so upset about when they hear a pro-choice person say "it's the mother's body".  The baby is not the mother's body, but certainly is dependent upon the mother's body for sustenance. 

Quoting Momniscient:

I'm not using euphemisms. I didn't say a fetus wasn't alive. It is NOT a separate entity though and shouldn't be viewed as such.





Newborns can be cared for by anyone. At all.





A fetus needs a womb.





I agree with being intellectually honest and IMO that means recognizing that fetuses are not viable separate entities. Which means the woman who owns the womb is the one who enjoys the rights associated with personhood. As morally and ethically sticky as that is.




Quoting NewMom11222011:

If the mom's body can reject it because of RH incompatibility, then I would argue that it IS a separate entity.  I'm not saying that abortion should be illegal, although I have qualms about it personally, I just think we need to be intellectually honest about what a fetus is and isn't.  It's much to easy to discard a "blob  of cells" or any other euphemism used.  A fetus is not by scientific definition a baby, but even a newborn needs care by someone to survive.  It cannot hunt down food and feed itself or clothe itself or shelter itself. 

I am very squeamish about the government legislating things that infringe on people's right to privacy, but I am also squeamish about abortion and I don't personally have to worry about one because I'm infertile.  I know how traumatic it was having three miscarriages over which I had no control, but knowing what I know about fetal development I would personally be even more traumatized by ending pregnancies intentionally.

Quoting Momniscient:

Then don't have an abortion. Simple.

Fetuses are NOT separate entities. Babies are.

Quoting StarburstKisses:


I dont know how someone could see that it has brain waves and a heart beat and think that it wasn't alive - or a seperate entity. I dont understand how someone could then, knowing this, kill it.




Quoting LindaClement:

It is a 'separate entity' when it's capable of living separate from the body.

We do not agree that a human is alive or dead based on brainwaves and heartbeats.

Quoting NewMom11222011:

I am not a huge fan of government intruding into private lives.  That being said, the two things typically used to define whether or not a human is alive or dead are heartbeat and brainwaves.  Both of those can be detected well before 12 weeks, so we are clearly talking about a separate living entity.  Many of the sensory cells are active by 12 weeks, so pain is felt.  This is why we will always debate the propriety of abortion and its timing.











Mama2Spencerninja

Momniscient
by Ruby Member on Mar. 10, 2013 at 11:23 PM
Depends on semantics I suppose. That's all this really is.

I called my child a parasite in utero. I also called it scrimpy, peanut, alien and then Petunia.


Quoting NewMom11222011:

I don't think we'll ever agree on this and that is fine.  We live in a country that gives us that freedom.  For me, though, it does beg the question that if it is not a separate entity why is it being removed?  I've heard people (not you and not on this forum) call a fetus a parasite, but even a parasite is a separate entity.  Just my opinion, not expecting you to agree.

Quoting Momniscient:

A 12 week fetus is not a baby not a person and not a separate entity.



You are the one using euphemisms now.



Because it is not viable it cannot be considered a separate entity. Which is why abortion is legal and why there are restrictions that come into play when a fetus reaches a point of viability.




Quoting NewMom11222011:

I did not mean that you specifically were using euphemisms.  Some in the pro-choice camp do use "blob of tissue" or "products of conception" just as some in the pro-life camp use "baby" in ways that drive each other's "camps" crazy.  It is a separate entity, but as you stated- at 12 weeks it certainly is not viable outside the womb.  I think this distinction is one that those who call themselves pro-life get so upset about when they hear a pro-choice person say "it's the mother's body".  The baby is not the mother's body, but certainly is dependent upon the mother's body for sustenance. 

Quoting Momniscient:

I'm not using euphemisms. I didn't say a fetus wasn't alive. It is NOT a separate entity though and shouldn't be viewed as such.







Newborns can be cared for by anyone. At all.







A fetus needs a womb.







I agree with being intellectually honest and IMO that means recognizing that fetuses are not viable separate entities. Which means the woman who owns the womb is the one who enjoys the rights associated with personhood. As morally and ethically sticky as that is.






Quoting NewMom11222011:

If the mom's body can reject it because of RH incompatibility, then I would argue that it IS a separate entity.  I'm not saying that abortion should be illegal, although I have qualms about it personally, I just think we need to be intellectually honest about what a fetus is and isn't.  It's much to easy to discard a "blob  of cells" or any other euphemism used.  A fetus is not by scientific definition a baby, but even a newborn needs care by someone to survive.  It cannot hunt down food and feed itself or clothe itself or shelter itself. 

I am very squeamish about the government legislating things that infringe on people's right to privacy, but I am also squeamish about abortion and I don't personally have to worry about one because I'm infertile.  I know how traumatic it was having three miscarriages over which I had no control, but knowing what I know about fetal development I would personally be even more traumatized by ending pregnancies intentionally.

Quoting Momniscient:

Then don't have an abortion. Simple.

Fetuses are NOT separate entities. Babies are.

Quoting StarburstKisses:


I dont know how someone could see that it has brain waves and a heart beat and think that it wasn't alive - or a seperate entity. I dont understand how someone could then, knowing this, kill it.





Quoting LindaClement:

It is a 'separate entity' when it's capable of living separate from the body.

We do not agree that a human is alive or dead based on brainwaves and heartbeats.

Quoting NewMom11222011:

I am not a huge fan of government intruding into private lives.  That being said, the two things typically used to define whether or not a human is alive or dead are heartbeat and brainwaves.  Both of those can be detected well before 12 weeks, so we are clearly talking about a separate living entity.  Many of the sensory cells are active by 12 weeks, so pain is felt.  This is why we will always debate the propriety of abortion and its timing.












Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
foxfroggy
by Bronze Member on Mar. 11, 2013 at 6:36 AM

It's unconstitutional. IMO, government has no business interfering with a woman's personal choices about terminating or continuing a pregnancy outside of the same standards as any other healthcare provider. These idiots know the law can't stand but want to intimidate women and cost those who believe in civil rights the expense of challenging it.

foxfroggy
by Bronze Member on Mar. 11, 2013 at 6:40 AM

Just because parts of the nervous system have formed does NOT mean that it is possible to feel pain. That comes inh the third trimester. Please learn some biology before you spout off with falsehoods. In addition, having a heartbeat does not mean you are defined as being alive or a person. A person declared brain dead is often kept on life support as an organ donor but is legally dead. 

NewMom11222011
by Bronze Member on Mar. 11, 2013 at 8:18 AM

We agree on the semantics.

angel

Quoting Momniscient:

Depends on semantics I suppose. That's all this really is.

I called my child a parasite in utero. I also called it scrimpy, peanut, alien and then Petunia.


Quoting NewMom11222011:

I don't think we'll ever agree on this and that is fine.  We live in a country that gives us that freedom.  For me, though, it does beg the question that if it is not a separate entity why is it being removed?  I've heard people (not you and not on this forum) call a fetus a parasite, but even a parasite is a separate entity.  Just my opinion, not expecting you to agree.

Quoting Momniscient:

A 12 week fetus is not a baby not a person and not a separate entity.



You are the one using euphemisms now.



Because it is not viable it cannot be considered a separate entity. Which is why abortion is legal and why there are restrictions that come into play when a fetus reaches a point of viability.




Quoting NewMom11222011:

I did not mean that you specifically were using euphemisms.  Some in the pro-choice camp do use "blob of tissue" or "products of conception" just as some in the pro-life camp use "baby" in ways that drive each other's "camps" crazy.  It is a separate entity, but as you stated- at 12 weeks it certainly is not viable outside the womb.  I think this distinction is one that those who call themselves pro-life get so upset about when they hear a pro-choice person say "it's the mother's body".  The baby is not the mother's body, but certainly is dependent upon the mother's body for sustenance. 

Quoting Momniscient:

I'm not using euphemisms. I didn't say a fetus wasn't alive. It is NOT a separate entity though and shouldn't be viewed as such.







Newborns can be cared for by anyone. At all.







A fetus needs a womb.







I agree with being intellectually honest and IMO that means recognizing that fetuses are not viable separate entities. Which means the woman who owns the womb is the one who enjoys the rights associated with personhood. As morally and ethically sticky as that is.






Quoting NewMom11222011:

If the mom's body can reject it because of RH incompatibility, then I would argue that it IS a separate entity.  I'm not saying that abortion should be illegal, although I have qualms about it personally, I just think we need to be intellectually honest about what a fetus is and isn't.  It's much to easy to discard a "blob  of cells" or any other euphemism used.  A fetus is not by scientific definition a baby, but even a newborn needs care by someone to survive.  It cannot hunt down food and feed itself or clothe itself or shelter itself. 

I am very squeamish about the government legislating things that infringe on people's right to privacy, but I am also squeamish about abortion and I don't personally have to worry about one because I'm infertile.  I know how traumatic it was having three miscarriages over which I had no control, but knowing what I know about fetal development I would personally be even more traumatized by ending pregnancies intentionally.

Quoting Momniscient:

Then don't have an abortion. Simple.

Fetuses are NOT separate entities. Babies are.

Quoting StarburstKisses:


I dont know how someone could see that it has brain waves and a heart beat and think that it wasn't alive - or a seperate entity. I dont understand how someone could then, knowing this, kill it.





Quoting LindaClement:

It is a 'separate entity' when it's capable of living separate from the body.

We do not agree that a human is alive or dead based on brainwaves and heartbeats.

Quoting NewMom11222011:

I am not a huge fan of government intruding into private lives.  That being said, the two things typically used to define whether or not a human is alive or dead are heartbeat and brainwaves.  Both of those can be detected well before 12 weeks, so we are clearly talking about a separate living entity.  Many of the sensory cells are active by 12 weeks, so pain is felt.  This is why we will always debate the propriety of abortion and its timing.













Mama2Spencerninja

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN