Thank you for your insightful comment.  While not all mothers feel the same about reproductive health, I think we can all agree that we should be able to make our own decisions on our own health.

For instance, you state that HIV testing should be regulated by the government and that hospitals and providers should offer an HIV test.  But, wouldn't you also agree that a women should have the right to refuse HIV testing and HIV treatment? Otherwise, pregnant women who want to avoid an unwanted (and perhaps unneeded) HIV test would have to avoid all prenatal care, and I doubt any mother wants to throw another mother out of the health care system altogether. HIV testing is one mark of a very slippery slope on the government mandating medical treatment of pregnant patients, including forced c-sections and other restrictions on reproduction. In all other cases besides for pregnant patients, the patient has a clear right of informed consent and informed refusal; patient autonomy. Among pregnant women, these rights seem to disappear. 

To protect these rights for pregnant patients so that pregnant women are not unfairly discriminated against in the medical world, pregnant women must have the right to refuse any treatment (regardless of necessity), including HIV testing.  I'm suggesting that we draw the bright yellow line a bit farther out to protect these rights even better since they are being trampled on in the current conditions. It may make some mothers think about abortions in a new light, since restrictions on abortions after the second trimester are being used as a basis for forcing unwanted medical treatment on pregnant patients during these months. 

My viewpoint on this topic will probably be unpopular. When I see the phrase "reproductive rights", I automatically think that the next words will be some variation of "I can give birth to as many children as I want because (please fill in) I have the right to--or I can afford it--or it's no one else's business--or God told me to, etc."

The U.S. Census Bureau projects that, if current reproductive patterns continue, the U.S. population will surpass 439 million by 2050--a 40% increase. The Census Bureau also reports that 71.7% of U.S. women (responsibly) complete their  families with two or fewer biological children. The other 28.3%
have three, fourteen, seventeen. (The reason two children per woman is often stated as ideal cap is mathematical--the population would gently decline.)

Immigration is often blamed for population increases, but this is really due to the fact that legal immigrants either bring more than two children with them or have more than two after they arrive. Legal immigration can be regulated, and illegal immigration shouldn't be tolerated.

The best solution would be for each woman to reproduce responsibly, of course society must make sure the means to do this are affordable (even free) and accessible.  I would hate to see legislation since it might include eugenic and financial provisions, and every woman should have the right to reproduce responsibly. But if nearly 30% of U.S. women continue to push the envelope, the laws will come.

If a woman needs fertility treatments to have a total of one or two children, I hope she is successful. Reproductive scientists and physicians will continue to try to reduce the number of embryos needed for the optimal chance for a successful pregnancy (they have already made protocol reductions).  There will probably need to be legislation on protocols for practicing physicians because association guidelines don't affect god complexes. The concept of "selective abortion" should become obsolete.

Given I'm male, I don't expect or want my opinion to make much difference (even though I give it freely :^D ), but I don't understand why abortion is necessary beyond emergency health issues. Avoidance of cultural stigma (which I personally consider minor enough to be considered unnecessary) seems a poor excuse for ending a life, especially when there are so many people out there who would be ecstatic to adopt these children. It's startling how many parents resort to multiple tens of thousands of dollar adoptions from foreign countries because they can't wait for or have a hard time finding a child here in the US, while thousands of unwanted babies go unborn every year. I probably wouldn't know this if it weren't for my wife and I attempting to adopt right now.

I just wish there were some way to encourage women with unwanted pregnancies to consider adoption. Is adoption part of the curriculum at most family planning agencies?

Probably the best solution would be fetal transplantation. Is that possible? Has anyone ever researched such a transplant process?

Chris, thank you for your comment and your innovative ideas. However, in this discusion on reproductive rights, the necessity of an abortion is somewhat off-topic. The concern I addressed is government involvement in a women's body.  Abortion is one way that this intrusion takes place.  You clearly feel that abortions are unncessary, and therefore, I assume that you are unbothered by government regulation of a women's body in this circumstance.  However, there are other examples of government intrusion. 

Do you, for instance, feel that a government could intrude to do "fetal transplantation" in the case of multiple births?  Let us pretend that the government determines that any pregnancy with more than two fetuses (in order words, triplets), endangers the babies and necessitates "fetal transplantation" of the other babies (anything more than two) to reduce the pregnancy to twins or less.  Would you support government regulation of a women's body in this way? Would you support government regulation in this case even if research showed that many women would avoid prenatal care (to avoid the requred "fetal tranplantation") if they believed they were carrying more than two fetuses?

The issue with abortion is made into a major political dispute, but I tried to show in this article that the issue of reproductive rights is much broader. Courts are ordering c-sections on women who do not want them (and perhaps do not even need them) because the government has determined that it can dictate women's choice on her own body in a way that it would never dictate a man's choice.

In the case of forced adoptions (which is basically your suggestion that you call "fetal transplantation"), the closest example would be forced semen donations by sexually active men.  Do you believe that the government could force men to donate sperm if they decide to be sexually active?

I understand that you are having a difficult time with adoption in the United States, but it is not because of the lack of children waiting to be adopted in this country, but rather the regulation in the U.S. that was stricter than foreign adoption procedures, which were often slack on determining whether the birth parents were making the choice to give their children up for adoption.  In truth, there are more than 100,000 children in the U.S. in foster care waiting for permanent adoption.  I am sure that one would love to be a part of your home!  Please see http://photolisting.adoption.com/ for more information.

As to the adoption, we're doing fine. We had to actually take our names of the list a while back because they were calling us every month and we weren't ready, yet. We live in an area that... well... for lack of a more delicate term, is still pretty racist, especially when it comes to bringing a child into their family. Since we aren't, we're having no problems finding a child, and we find ourselves wishing we could adopt more of them for that very reason.

Reading through my comment here, I realize it may seem that I'm trying to turn this into an abortion debate or something. I've always considered politicians who stump on one side or the other of abortion to be insincere at best. Truly I'm not trying to turn this into an abortion debate. I've been confused about this issue for a while, probably since I'm not exactly in a position to decide on it for myself. I'm just genuinely expressing my thoughts on the matter, in an attempt to understand it better. Up to now, I've always abstained when votes relating to reproductive rights have been added to the ballot.

As to government regulation of social issues, I'm almost always against that, and I'm always bothered by it when I begrudgingly put my vote or opinion behind it. In this particular case, I'm not sure. Obviously the government should respect the rights of the woman. But does the child also have rights which need to be respected?

As to "fetal transplantation," I didn't mean a forced adoption. No one should ever have their children forcibly removed, unless they are a clear and willful danger to their children. I meant a surgical procedure removing a fetus from one person and implanting it in another. From the stand point of the donor, it would be no different than an abortion. Also in situations where either the child or mother is certain to die in the birthing process, it would give the possibility of a surrogate mother to carry and birth the baby, while it still is genetically from both parents.

I understand your analogy of a man being forced to donate sperm. It is a disturbing concept and I believe it may, in fact, help me to understand the situation better.

I don't think the courts should have a say in the outcome of a medical procedure. However, if the mother is determined to go through with a natural birth when the medical opinion is that both mother and child will die, and there are no dissenting medical opinions, what are the doctors to do? The doctors can't force a treatment legally, especially if it might lead to the death of one or the other. It doesn't feel right to force anything on anyone, but at what point are they enough of a danger to themselves or others to warrant the use of force?

In regard to multiple births, there is a philosopical difference between those that occur "naturally", and those that are produced by technological intervention.  The higher order multiple births (quads and up) are the most dangerous for the babies, and most of these result from technological intervention. But the number of embryos implanted, etc. can be controlled and this is the point at which laws need to be applied.  It is unrealistic to expect all women to willingly abort implanted embryos.

Most abortions--with two significant exceptions--should be performed during the first trimester. They should not be delayed due to cost or accessibility barriers, unfortunately they are and these barriers need to be mitigated. 

The two exceptions are abortion for reason of maternal health and abortion because the fetus suffers significant defects. (Screening for many of these fetal defects is not available until the the second or third trimester.) These decisions need to be made by the woman, her partner (if available), her spiritual advisor (if she has one), and the physician. Politicians should not be involved.

AIDS is a public health concern, therefore testing is justified.

Wow!  What a great discussion!  I really did not mean to choose a sensitive topic, so I hope no one has hurt feelings.  I understand that there is some disagreement as to when testing and other medical procedures should be forced onto patients, but I hope everyone agrees that discriminatory testing and procedures are wrong!

In the United States, every patient has the absolute right of informed consent and informed refusal.  Men and non-pregnant women can refuse treatment even if that treatment would solve a "public health concern" such as AIDS, and even if that treatment would save their life or the life of another human being.  It does not matter whether or not they are a "danger" to themselves by refusing a blood transfusion or a "danger" to their child's life by refusing a bone marrow surgery that would save their child dying of leukemia.

These laws apply to pregnant women, as well.  However, in the case of pregnant women, discriminatory policies are being applied. In pregnant women, states are mandating testing (states are not mandating general testing of all people that enter the hospital). Cecily, if you think "AIDS is a public health concern, therefore testing is justified", why aren't we testing everyone that ever goes into a hospital or a doctor's office?  Do you believe that discriminatory testing is justified? Chris, although you correctly state that "[t]he doctors can't force a treatment legally, especially if it might lead to the death of one or the other," doctors do force treatments illegally. I know that "fetal transplantation" seems like it would be "no different than an abortion" to you, but to the mother, it may be very different. Is it no different to a circumcised man if his foreskin is used to implant foreskin on another man?  Or if a man's hair is transplanted onto another man? A baby is more personal than foreskin or hair. Even if you don't want to be pregnant (or do want to be pregnant, but can't afford it), you don't necessarily want to give away your baby to be raised by someone else.

I am not "in favor" of abortion. I believe that sexually active men and women should know that pregnancy is a possibility of sex and expect to raise their children in those cases, or at least carry them for the 9 months of pregnancy (until "fetal transplation" becomes possible) to allow the possibility of adoption.  I think we need to create laws that protect single women (maternity leave, childcare, healthcare) so that these options are realistic choices for women who would want to raise their babies or be pregnant for 9 months.  I am, in other words, "pro-life" ... But, I am also "pro-choice." I am strongly against government intervention and regulation of a women's body. Regulation of abortion (even limiting it to the first and second trimester) is being used to force medical testing and procedures on pregnant women that would never be forced on men or non-pregnant women. It is discriminatory, inhumane, and illegal. I would very much like to work to change these violations of women's rights.  I call them "reproductive rights" because they arise due to a women's reproductive capabilities. Pregnancy carries significant risks to a women's physical and mental health, and it is an incredible burden that women carry.  Our government should not force a women to carry these risks simply because the human female biologically gets pregnant.

Yes, but don't certain health conditions--AIDS, genital herpes, drug and alcohol addiction, etc.--have effects on the fetus? Effects that physicians might be able to mitigate?  For example, when babies are delivered via c-section instead of vaginally, the baby can avoid direct exposure to the herpes virus.

Yes!  There are many health conditions that affect the fetus.  In the case of HIV, certain drugs are believed to prevent transmission to the infant, and that is the reason that pro-testing advocates want pregnant women tested. However, the HIV test tends to have more false positives with pregnant women than non-pregnant women, and women who do not have HIV are therefore given drugs that are passed on to their fetus that they don't need. Moreover, and more importantly, women are pressured into taking tests and taking drugs that they may not want nor need.  In addition, these drugs have serious side-effects on the fetus, including causing premature birth, birth defects, cancer, and death. Instead, we should mandate informing women of their options and mandate making options available to women.  Therefore, if women want to take the test, and want to take drugs, and understand the risks (on both sides), they can make that choice.  The government does not need to (and should not) force these tests or the treatment on pregnant women.

In regards to the herpes virus, one mistaken concept is that women with herpes need to have a c-section to avoid exposing their infant to the virus. This is not true. C-sections are serious abdominal surgery and although they can be life-saving, they should be avoided when vaginal deliveries are safe. In the case of herpes, as long as the mother does not have an active outbreak at the time of delivery, a vaginal delivery is safer for the infant. As her delivery date approaches, she may consider using antiviral drugs.

In other words, in every case (including HIV and Herpes), there is no unanimous medical opinion. Every decision has benefits and risks. The mother's decision about her body should be respected. If you are interested in reading more about this issue, I'd refer you to this very recent article written by the Editor and Publisher of Mothering Magazine: http://www.mothering.com/guest_editors/quiet_place/quiet_place.html.

I hadn't considered the double-standard aspect of these laws. I imagine if my medical situation changed from a non-government regulated state to a government regulated state, simply because of a natural process that I had limited control over, I'd feel at least threatened. It should be all or none, not some arbitrary line where, once you cross it, your medical testing is now controlled by the government.

As to the negative feelings toward giving an unwanted fetus to another person, while I can't relate to it, your analogies have helped me understand those feelings. I've been an organ donor since I got my driver's license. I've always had trouble relating to people's feelings that cause them to withhold organ donation, but I do understand those feelings. Still, it would be nice if there were more research leading to the option for a woman to choose to donate a fetus rather than abort it.

As to c-sections, there are a number of reasons why they should be avoided if at all possible. The obvious one is that the human body is not... for lack of a better word... designed for it. In some cases it could make future pregnancy too dangerous. At the very least, it can lead to some expensive reconstructive surgery which is sometimes (I want to say often) not covered by insurance. My wife was delivered by c-section because she was entangled in her umbilical. My mother-in-law struggled for years to keep a decent figure until she finally consulted for cosmetic surgery and found that her abdominal muscles were in need of repair from when my wife was born. She may have known that before, but it was the first my wife had heard of it.

Thank you to everyone for your comments. I was hesitant to write on a topic related to abortion because I understand that feelings run deep on that issue, but the comments were intelligent, relevant, fascinating, and considerate. I am proud to be a part of a wonderful organization with such caring and insightful members.  Also, in the end, this entry was the most rewarding because it resulted in the best discussion.  Thank you!