An emergency C Section has suddenly become non existent and abortion is the only option when a woman’s life is in danger. If this woman was really sent home to die then this should be a huge malpractice lawsuit against the doctor that did that. Instead, it’s all Ted Cruz’s fault.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
What's the stat again? Iirc it's something like 96% of abortions are out of "convenience", and the remaining 4% is rape, incest, threat to mothers life.
They only focus on the 4% as an emotional plea but they know it's to keep the 96%.
And even in those 4% of cases, why would you execute the child for the sins of the father?
I don't know about you or anyone else here, but if my daughter ended up pregnant due to a rape, I'd be doing everything in my power to abort the pregnancy if that would be her choice. No woman should be forced to carry a fetus to term in the event of a rape or incest. The mental and emotional strain and life long damages to her mental stability are too great.
That being said, I DO NOT support abortions out of convenience or a warped sense of "birth control."
Then you would have both a rape and a murder.
Punish the rapist, not the innocent child. Adoption is a great option so you don't have to raise the child. But they deserve life.
It's 99%. The common exceptions: 1) rape/incest and 2) ethical preservation of the mother's life account for a combined less than 1% of the total figure. That's true whether it's the CDC's 62 million since 1972 or Guttmacher's 90 million figure.
These are ultra-rare exceptions. Rape isn't terribly common. It's even less common to result in a pregnancy, and the situations in which a young, pregnant mother has her life imperiled are even rarer.
As you said, the Democrats here are trying to argue the rare exception justifies the rule.
And most what they call "abortion bans" still allow those that fall under that 4%.
I was watching Charlie Kirk the other day when he was talking to college kids. I forget which campus this one was but he was talking to a student about abortion and it was brought up that abortion isn't even needed. A c-section could be done at any stage of the pregnancy and it's a lot safer for the mother AND the baby assuming it's old enough to be viable outside the womb.
The incisions for c-sections are really small now compared to how they used to do it.
It seems the world record for youngest in the womb to survive is 21 weeks. I could have sworn that I've seen an article from Japan that said they saved a 5 month old womb baby but I cannot find it now.
C-sections instead of abortions needs to get into the mass collective.
This. There is never a need for an abortion to save a mother's life. Early delivery is the solution, but the left has brainwashed everyone into thinking that abortion is the only option.
There is a need for abortions in certain cases (like an ectopic pregnancy where the embryo decides the fallopian tube is the best place to take root). But it's not to the extent its mandated in current day medicine.
The same drug used in the day after pill is used in this scenario and doesnt cause infertility like cutting out the affected portion of tube will.
Make medicine medicinal again.
Terminating an ectopic pregnancy is not abortion because the embryo is not removed from the uterus. Although some ectopic pregnancies are terminated surgically or medically, it is not considered an abortion. It is usually a medical emergency.
The drugs used in this scenario, at least as I understand this situation, are mifepristone and misoprostol. Mifepristone blocks progesterone to stop the progression of the pregnancy, then misoprostol is used to induce uterine contractions to expel the fetal remains. This procedure is advertised as safe and effective, but may come with complications that adversely affect fertility just like surgical abortions.
That's a twist of words. Removing the tubes removes fertility. There is a small chance of the drugs also causing ferility issues as side effect and complications. They are not the same.
This particular procedure is commonly lumped in as an "abortion" for law and regulation because people are more interested in the divisive wedge tactic played by politicians than what is actually happening to people with real medical needs.
No one should consider terminating an ectopic pregnancy to be an abortion. The mother's life is literally at risk (which is one of the exceptions allowed). Babies cannot grow outside of the uterus and will 100% die.
You're also twisting words. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, one tube is removed, and that's usually the case when it's already burst, hence why an emergency surgery is needed. Most women have two tubes so they do have a chance of getting pregnant in the future with the remaining tube left.
I don't know of any state that denies a mother life saving intervention. If there are any, please point them out.
When I hear of doctors refusing these cases, I look at them as political virtue signalers and/or cowards. They & their state representatives need to be called out publicly.
SOP is to remove the portion of the tube affected. Burst is the "emergency condition", but pain, swelling and tenderness can be seen for 12+ hours before you get there, you just need a doctor who will pull a quick ultrasound instead of giving tylenol and hoping for the best.
Despite thinking that fertility only drops 50%, it drops more. Results are open to opinion, but the fertility rate drops to 35-70%, depending which literature you want to put faith of accuracy in.
The abortion bans that exist all have exemptions for mother's life clauses. Pretty much no one cares and the hospitals shut down all care and service related to any aspect of pregnancy that might result in a loss.
Liberal women (probably): "You can't make me have a C-Section. My body My choice! I'll have an icky physical scar!"
Don't mind the emotional scar.
This is the same "rare exception justifies the rule" argument as the left uses. Just because one baby has survived at 21 weeks doesn't make it the norm. At 23 weeks, there's less than 5% chance, increasing by week. In order for such premies to survive, you're talking high 5 figures, even 6 figures of care, weeks to months in the NICU, and often the child's quality of life is poor owing to insufficient time to normally develop the brain, lungs, or other internal organs in utero. No one ever assesses these risks or costs when making the conservative argument, let alone suggests a plan to pay for such things. It's one thing to take the moral stance. It's another thing entirely to be the person who has to come up with the cash to pay the bill and these women getting abortions often do it because they don't have resources to raise the kid adequately in the first place.
Charlie Kirk is a bright guy, but he's not particularly wise on this topic. He doesn't listen to women's reasons, because he takes a moral absolutist's approach. As a result, he's supporting policies that would bankrupt whatever poor soul ends up getting stuck with the bill for his charitable position. It's a major fault in the conservative position on this issue. We say we support life and then when it comes to pay for the diapers and the daycare, our interest dissipates.
I know we have the technology for artificial wombs which really scared the crap out of me because I could only see them using those to push their evil with growing babies for sex trafficking and organ parts.
But on the flip side, they can be used to bake preemie babies until they are viable outside the womb.
I have hope that we will come to that future and that it won't be so cost prohibitive.
It only took one idiot and two lawyers to make all diving boards in America disappear.
Huh? I see lots of diving boards.
Not in public places. Platforms only.
...I'm not sure this rule applies to my state then. Or our local pool isn't following the rule.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipPzoTNtIt97JjvKblMtniuDRUF55blb_Ik83hF2=s680-w680-h510
(https://www.oldest.org/people/youngest-premature-baby-to-survive/)
Imagine that. They all look like babies, not a clump of cells like the left is brainwashed to believe.
Yes, but law is about precedent. What happens WHEN a case comes that cannot be solved by c section? Who pulls the trigger? Who goes to jail?
But also, why does this woman who is already struggling and possibly traumatized on top of it all have to have a permanent c section scar to let an 18 week fetus die in an OR just to say we technically did not abort?
EVEN with the most cutting edge NICU tech and an unlimited budget, you can't take 18 week fetus to full development. Record has been 21 weeks 1 day, and it was a medical miracle. If you do not live near top 10 nicu in the US, you have at best a 37% survival rate in average case
A month til go time. You guys need to keep eyes on the signal and drop this topic, because all this abortion talk does is convince some maga/q people to completely opt out of voting for Trump.
Q team, Trump, the cardinals, MAGA republicans, and so many everyday people fighting for freedom but all of you theocrats and natalists are putting us at risk of fumbling it all and letting the whole world burn over goddamn social piety.
I was a C-section birth.
Because logical fallacies that appeal to emotions is all the left has.
same lol
Instead I see stories about how a woman heavily pregnant with twins callously got rid of them without any emotion at all. Sick.
Even in discussions with killing a baby they get defensive and cannot refute or defend the outright slaughtering of unborn human beings. They dig this nugget up and try to change the argument. Oh yah, well blah, blah, blah. Stupid libtard excuses ensues. They just cannot accept that they have helped the murder of 7,000,000 unborn children. So they trot out the .01% of pregnancies whare the mother is at risk. RISK!!! Not you will die. As if every unwanted pregnancy is going to kill the mother. Yes mother not birthing person. FFS.
Any woman over the age of 35 is considered to have an "at risk" pregnancy in the "medical" community.