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.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
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.
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.