Dear Dave
In the UK, amniocentesis is only offered to older women because of the possible risk. I am referring to our National Health Service. I do not know what is available via private medical care.
Regards
Mo
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
Dear Dave
In the UK, amniocentesis is only offered to older women because of the possible risk. I am referring to our National Health Service. I do not know what is available via private medical care.
Regards
Mo
It's common practice to recommend it to women 35 and older. Younger women can ask for it but I don't know whether most insurance would cover the cost since it would be an "elective" procedure.
Dear Josh
Thanks for that. It's comforting to know that our medical criteria is not disparate.
This does not help younger women though.
The heartbreaking scenario exists when a parent is told that they have a spina bifida child (amongst other such like), and what do they want to do about this? This happened to my friend (not me thank goodness), who was told that this was a 1 in 100 possibility, to which she replied, well I suppose someone has to be that "one". We do have that personal choice as to what to do when we are told this. It ain't easy to think that one is going to become old and decrepit and not be able to look after one's child who needs 24 hr care. I sure as heck don't know what decision I would make - or could make in all good conscience - in these circumstances.
Regards
Mo
Hi, Mo.
Routine amnio is only recommended for those above 35. But those at high risk for genetic diseases, either due to previous genetic screening (Blacks for sickle cell, Jews for Tay-Sachs, etc.), family history, or having previously had a child affected by a severe disorder (Muscular Dystrophy, Cystic Fibrosis, etc.) are also routinely given amnio if their moral code would support selective abortion. A majority of Americans agree with abortion in the case of severely malformed fetuses or those with genetic diseases inconsistent with a good quality of life, but this law essentially removes the ability of many Texans to exercise that choice.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Dear Dave
Thank you. I must read up more on this, because that sounds simply wrong. We have tons of issues in the UK at the moment (as I'm sure you know) as regarding children, but the overriding one is that the child has to come first. Hopefully Texans can shout loudly.
Regards
Mo
It's not as bad in New York but, it is my understanding that, the nearest place to Syracuse to get an abortion is downstate in Binghamton on the PA border.
I guess the best solution would be to turn the child over to the state and let them take care of the child. I don't know of any other way of getting the child the care he/she requires without it.
How does one "abort" that problem? Euthenasia?
Hi, James.
The key point here is that we're not talking infanticide here -- except to the extremists, who once again want to impose their extreme moral compass on all those who don't share it.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
I work at a state-run facility that cares for severely disabled people, who live here on a permanent basis. Parents who can't afford such care, and that's basically all of them, don't have to give up parental rights. Medicaid pays for the care, currently about $260 per day. Parents retain their rights in this case.
Mark
The real issue is how many DO have access to such services and of that number how many are illegals? It is the barely controlled immigration into Texas from Mexico that is taxing the social services funds.
...that fetus had no brain, or some other severe birth defect that would only mean a brief life in a vegetative or otherwise awful state, and would cost the parents untold thousands of dollars and immeasurable heartache?
Hi, Josh.
Or worse yet, had Tay Sachs disease, where the child survives to the age of 2-3 before the toxic buildup of waste products that can't be digested causes its brain to self-destruct? Or one of the three autosomal trisomies (of 22) that doesn't cause spontaneous abortion, but instead leaves a severely ******** child with a greatly shortened lifespan and major physicial disabilities, costing large amounts to care for? Folks who believe in "family values" ought also to consider the astronomical divorce rate in families afflicted with such problems.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Hi, Cindi.
Contary to what the anti-abortion folks tell you, that's not a typical abortion candidate after sixteen weeks. Sixteen weeks is four months -- the vast majority of truly voluntary abortions take place in the first two months. The vast majority of those taking place after 16 weeks are either severely malformed, have a genetic disease incompatibile with a reasonable quality of life (and with medical advances, the number of such is constantly decreasing), or are threatening the life or health of the mother. The majority of Americans (by quite a margin -- I don't have the exact figures at hand) approve of abortion in such circumstances. The real issue for most is "abortion on demand" for reasons of convenience. A majority of Americans disapprove of such abortions (I do too), but a narrow majority also believe it's not their place to make that decision for someone else. Not the right wing, of course, which as usual wants to impose its own mindset on everyone via force of law. The word for that is "tyranny."
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
I offered the picture with no comment one way or another, I just thought it a visual aid to show what a baby looks like at 16 weeks. Now we can see what we're talking about.
That's all.
Cindi
Understood, but your image is of an apparently healthy and normal 16-week-old fetus, which isn't what we're talking about at all.
I didn't realize only those with deformed babies were having difficulties getting abortions in Texas.
.
I'm sure Dave would like to limit it to that, heck even I would be willing for the interim to see the law limit it to that, but we both know that Dave isn't advocating the limitation of post 16 week abortion to deformed children, nor is he advocating the law be changed to support his subject line.
I don't know the specifics about Texas, but in general a woman can't just ask for and get an abortion after the first trimester. There has to be some extenuating circumstance, e.g. a severe birth defect. The new law Dave posted about will make it more difficult for women to get such abortions.
Hi, James.
First, the law doesn't deal with babies of any sort. More importantly, it doesn't differentiate between abortions that are medically necessary or involve badly deformed fetuses or those with severe genetic deects incompatible with a good quality of life if the pregnancy goes full term, vs. those that are elective. This is ostensibly because the restrictions are for the benefit of the pregnant woman, but in fact they're nothing of the kind -- if ever there were a law that should be struck dowwn as imposing an "undue burden," this law is it, but the Fifth Circuit is loaded with right-to-life Republican appointees who won't consider that precedent, and it's frankly not clear that this SCOTUS will either. But the point I'm making is entirely about abortions that most Americans would agree are justified by circumstance, which are now much harder and more expensive to obtain, and for many poor women, impossible.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
According to the "Christian right" (an oxymoron, IMCO), once she becomes pregnat a woman is merely a human incubator with no rights of her own. This legislation is totally consistent with that viewpoint.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
The facts don't back up his unsubstantiated statement.
For a broad overview you can use this Google link.
For a more detailed examination and links to how many women die yearly due to abortion clinics, see this link.
http://www.lifedynamics.com/Pro-life_Group/Pro-choice_Women/
If you want to see how Planned Parenthood deliberately break child sexual reporting laws see this link.
http://www.ChildPredators.Com/ReadReport.cfm
In short; Abortion clinics just can't be trusted and they aren't being made acountable enough, so this Texas law looks like a good step in the right direction. Kudos to the Texas legislature!
http://www.prolife.com/EVERETT.html
a former abortionist in Texas tells why she quit.
.