I’m no doctor and I don’t play one on tv, so can someone explain to me some situations where killing a “fetus” will save the mother? Or where allowing a “fetus” to survive to term will kill the mother? I’m asking this seriously, not rhetorically.
It's possible. Let's say the woman is diagnosed with cancer while pregnant. Treatment for cancer very likely cannot start until the woman is no longer pregnant. Waiting longer for cancer treatment, after the child is born, may be too long in order for the mother to have a good outcome because of waiting months in order to start cancer treatment.
Other illnesses come into similar play. Sometimes there may be a pre-existing condition whereby the woman is physically unable to grow a child. It's just too much strain on her body for her (and a baby) to survive.
I'm sure the Republicans are looking to close a potential loophole whereby a physician can simply declare the woman's life is in danger in order for her to get an abortion.
Honestly though, I think they should just take the "W" and not overplay their hand. The good news is that since the abortion issue has been returned to the states we can have 50 "experiments" going on to see what approach works best. Brace for horror stories (real or contrived) where a woman died because she was not allowed to get an abortion.
My sister died from cancer because she waited to do treatment. As horrible as it was to go through and now my niece doesn't have a mom,I know my sister would not have changed it. The ultimate gift as a parent is offering your life in exchange for theirs. I wish more saw the value in that selfless act
Obviously. I don't know of a reason why a mother would have to abort a non-viable baby if her own life were at risk. There may be some reasons people come up with.
I’m no doctor and I don’t play one on tv, so can someone explain to me some situations where killing a “fetus” will save the mother? Or where allowing a “fetus” to survive to term will kill the mother? I’m asking this seriously, not rhetorically.
It's possible. Let's say the woman is diagnosed with cancer while pregnant. Treatment for cancer very likely cannot start until the woman is no longer pregnant. Waiting longer for cancer treatment, after the child is born, may be too long in order for the mother to have a good outcome because of waiting months in order to start cancer treatment.
Other illnesses come into similar play. Sometimes there may be a pre-existing condition whereby the woman is physically unable to grow a child. It's just too much strain on her body for her (and a baby) to survive.
I'm sure the Republicans are looking to close a potential loophole whereby a physician can simply declare the woman's life is in danger in order for her to get an abortion.
Honestly though, I think they should just take the "W" and not overplay their hand. The good news is that since the abortion issue has been returned to the states we can have 50 "experiments" going on to see what approach works best. Brace for horror stories (real or contrived) where a woman died because she was not allowed to get an abortion.
My sister died from cancer because she waited to do treatment. As horrible as it was to go through and now my niece doesn't have a mom,I know my sister would not have changed it. The ultimate gift as a parent is offering your life in exchange for theirs. I wish more saw the value in that selfless act
Honestly though. How often does it even happen that giving birth to a baby is more dangerous than aborting it.
They can do an emergency C-section, eh?
That's assuming the baby is old enough to be delivered.
Obviously. I don't know of a reason why a mother would have to abort a non-viable baby if her own life were at risk. There may be some reasons people come up with.
So they think an abortion is no risk to the mother?