Abortion

[Gipper]

21 weeks later if the womans life is in danger , to bad?

Spoken like one brainwashed by the abortion lobby and stuck in 1950.

The percentage of pregnancies that threaten the mother's life is so low that it is nonsensical to discuss...(like most things you bring to this forum).

And, Big Rob did not say he opposes abortion if the woman's life is in danger, but you being you, make silly assumptions.

 

[Openmind]

Spoken like one brainwashed by the abortion lobby and stuck in 1950.

The percentage of pregnancies that threaten the mother's life is so low that it is nonsensical to discuss...(like most things you bring to this forum).

And, Big Rob did not say he opposes abortion if the woman's life is in danger, but you being you, make silly assumptions.

You are partially correct: The percentage of pregnancies that threaten the mother's life is low. . .in fact, only 1.4 % of abortion occurs after week 21. . .

So. .what's the problem? It seems that about 1.4% of women's life may be in danger due to a pregnancy, and thta is resolved by those exceptionel late term (after 21 week) abortions.

Everything is resolved. But if you think that the pro-choice people are "brainwashed. . ." you should read the crap that "pro-life" people spew day in, day out, with very little variation from the MANY websites that brainwash THEM!

 

[Openmind]

That is going to be about 0.0001% of cases...so not really a game changer.

Not true! A woman's life may be in danger in more way than a "cancer" or a "brain tumor!"

Depression can be made MUCH deeper by pregnancy, especially unwanted pregnancy! So can schizophrenia!

Those are not "physical dangers," they are considered as "mental health" dangers, but they can lead to suicide, or to the mother hurting herself. . .or her newborn!

that 0.0001 % you are referring to is ridiculous!

 

[Pandora]

Spoken like one brainwashed by the abortion lobby and stuck in 1950.

The percentage of pregnancies that threaten the mother's life is so low that it is nonsensical to discuss...(like most things you bring to this forum).

And, Big Rob did not say he opposes abortion if the woman's life is in danger, but you being you, make silly assumptions.

The only abortion performed that I have ever heard of being done to save the life of the mother is when the baby is in the fallopian tubes and that is more than reasonable. NO baby can survive that and no woman can either.

I think its probably possible that a woman gets 4 or 5 months along and their kidney or liver gives out or something that keeps them from continuing in a pregnancy, and in that rare case I can see it could be possible to have a late term abortion but only because 4 months along you probably could not survive even in an incubator

But once you are past the 5th month even if your kidney or liver is going to give out, there is never a reason for an abortion. Doing an emergency C Section and put the baby in an incubator and hope it lives.

To say there is such a thing as having to kill a fully developed baby to save a woman's life is a lie 100%. Unless the baby is attached to her organs or something crazy like that (and that has never happened that I know of)

 

[Openmind]

The only abortion performed that I have ever heard of being done to save the life of the mother is when the baby is in the fallopian tubes and that is more than reasonable. NO baby can survive that and no woman can either.

I think its probably possible that a woman gets 4 or 5 months along and their kidney or liver gives out or something that keeps them from continuing in a pregnancy, and in that rare case I can see it could be possible to have a late term abortion but only because 4 months along you probably could not survive even in an incubator

But once you are past the 5th month even if your kidney or liver is going to give out, there is never a reason for an abortion. Doing an emergency C Section and put the baby in an incubator and hope it lives.

To say there is such a thing as having to kill a fully developed baby to save a woman's life is a lie 100%. Unless the baby is attached to her organs or something crazy like that (and that has never happened that I know of)

And, obviously, "hoping" that a 20 week old foetus will "survive" is totally in line with nature, right? That is obviously "God's will!"

And, whether that fetus "survives" a week, or a year, whether it needs $3,000 a day in intensive care. . .to end up living like a vegetable for another 25 years, costing another $10,000 a month. . .is immaterial, right?

Because, all of this is obviously the mother's responsibility, right? After all, she did have sex!

And, in this country, we believe in "personal responsibility," and we do not think it is fair for US the tax payers (especially the wealthiest ones!) to pay for the "responsibilities" of a woman who "carelessly" had sex at the wrong time of the month!

 

[Pandora]

And, obviously, "hoping" that a 20 week old foetus will "survive" is totally in line with nature, right? That is obviously "God's will!"

And, whether that fetus "survives" a week, or a year, whether it needs $3,000 a day in intensive care. . .to end up living like a vegetable for another 25 years, costing another $10,000 a month. . .is immaterial, right?

Because, all of this is obviously the mother's responsibility, right? After all, she did have sex!

And, in this country, we believe in "personal responsibility," and we do not think it is fair for US the tax payers (especially the wealthiest ones!) to pay for the "responsibilities" of a woman who "carelessly" had sex at the wrong time of the month!

Breaking this down to the point, You are saying its better to kill a child rather than save it if the cost is high? Do you have this same opinion on those who got the death penalty for murdering innocent people or for them its better to pay what ever the cost to keep them alive at tax payers expense?

How about a woman who does desperately want to keep their child but her kidney failed in their 5th month of pregnancy and must have an emergency C section. Do we tell her we cannot put her child in an incubator because the cost is too high?

Also, I do not think I know your God so I have no idea what his will is

 

[BigRob]

Not true! A woman's life may be in danger in more way than a "cancer" or a "brain tumor!"

Depression can be made MUCH deeper by pregnancy, especially unwanted pregnancy! So can schizophrenia!

Those are not "physical dangers," they are considered as "mental health" dangers, but they can lead to suicide, or to the mother hurting herself. . .or her newborn!

that 0.0001 % you are referring to is ridiculous!

0.0001% was simply to illustrate how small the percentage actually is...and the idea that we ought to make abortion available on demand because a woman might get depressed is outrageous.

 

[BigRob]

And, obviously, "hoping" that a 20 week old foetus will "survive" is totally in line with nature, right? That is obviously "God's will!"

And, whether that fetus "survives" a week, or a year, whether it needs $3,000 a day in intensive care. . .to end up living like a vegetable for another 25 years, costing another $10,000 a month. . .is immaterial, right?

Maybe you wouldn't spend whatever it took to save your child, but I bet most people would.

Because, all of this is obviously the mother's responsibility, right? After all, she did have sex!

It is BOTH the mother's and father's responsibility.

And, in this country, we believe in "personal responsibility," and we do not think it is fair for US the tax payers (especially the wealthiest ones!) to pay for the "responsibilities" of a woman who "carelessly" had sex at the wrong time of the month!

Yes...why should it be?

 

[Openmind]

0.0001% was simply to illustrate how small the percentage actually is...and the idea that we ought to make abortion available on demand because a woman might get depressed is outrageous.

No, dear. This is not what I said.

What I said was that, if a woman is already clinically depressed, maybe even suicidal, and the pregnancy creates an additional stress factor that her mental health professionals believe would push her over the edge, this is a very valid reason to allow for a late term (after 20 weeks) abortion. . .if an earlier abortion wasn't possible.

I am not talking about a woman who has occasional "down mood" and has a history of taking a few Prozac to assure she can continue her social life without a crisis.

Please read what I say, and if you don't understand it, I will be happy to explain it in more details.

 

[Openmind]

Maybe you wouldn't spend whatever it took to save your child, but I bet most people would

.

No. As a mother, I probably would try to save the dream of the perfect child I was expecting. But unfortunately, this is NOT what happens when a 20 week old foetus is "saved!" The "dream child" is dead, what is left to save, is another creature, one that probably will NEVER be able to thrive, to run, to breathe freely. And "saving" that little creature may not be an option anyway. . .does the mother have an insurance that will cover the $3000 to $5000 a day in intensive care? Because if she doesn't. . .who will pay for it?

We already know that "most people" will not want to pay for it. . . certainly not among the GOP. . .who made it clear that, once the fetus is born. . . they want nothing more to do with it, that the newborn child is entirely the mother's responsibility. . . The GOP has made it clear that it is not "fair" to even think of "universal healthcare!" That personal responsibility theory releases them to worry about a newborn's and its mother's health. . .that ONLY the unborn child should be protected . . .no matter what!

It is BOTH the mother's and father's responsibility.

Yes, I agree! Unfortunately, it is amazing how quickly the "father" disappears when he no longer can have sex with a woman alone, but a pregnant woman!!!
And, if you FORCE the responsibility on a woman, rather than allow her the choice to terminate the pregnancy. . .YOU should then be responsible for the outcome of the pregnancy!

Yes...why should it be?

Why? You're kidding right?
Can you reread your first comment? Here it is:

Maybe you wouldn't spend whatever it took to save your child, but I bet most people would

 

[pocketfullofshells]

That is going to be about 0.0001% of cases...so not really a game changer.

it will be more then that...but does that mean that yes even if very rare...you say let the mother die? and why not 21 weeks? or 22? whats special about 20...?

 

[BigRob]

.
No. As a mother, I probably would try to save the dream of the perfect child I was expecting. But unfortunately, this is NOT what happens when a 20 week old foetus is "saved!" The "dream child" is dead, what is left to save, is another creature, one that probably will NEVER be able to thrive, to run, to breathe freely. And "saving" that little creature may not be an option anyway. . .does the mother have an insurance that will cover the $3000 to $5000 a day in intensive care? Because if she doesn't. . .who will pay for it?

We already know that "most people" will not want to pay for it. . . certainly not among the GOP. . .who made it clear that, once the fetus is born. . . they want nothing more to do with it, that the newborn child is entirely the mother's responsibility. . . The GOP has made it clear that it is not "fair" to even think of "universal healthcare!" That personal responsibility theory releases them to worry about a newborn's and its mother's health. . .that ONLY the unborn child should be protected . . .no matter what!


Yes, I agree! Unfortunately, it is amazing how quickly the "father" disappears when he no longer can have sex with a woman alone, but a pregnant woman!!!
And, if you FORCE the responsibility on a woman, rather than allow her the choice to terminate the pregnancy. . .YOU should then be responsible for the outcome of the pregnancy!

Well, we are just back on the issue of when does life begin I guess...

Why? You're kidding right?
Can you reread your first comment? Here it is:

Yes..I would spend whatever it took to save MY kid, and most other people probably would too. How is that a contradiction?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Spoken like one brainwashed by the abortion lobby and stuck in 1950.

The percentage of pregnancies that threaten the mother's life is so low that it is nonsensical to discuss...(like most things you bring to this forum).

And, Big Rob did not say he opposes abortion if the woman's life is in danger, but you being you, make silly assumptions.

he did not say he did or did not...it was a question based on what he said...

but ignoring the fact that it happens does not make it go away...I know you think so but it does not.

 

[BigRob]

it will be more then that...but does that mean that yes even if very rare...you say let the mother die? and why not 21 weeks? or 22? whats special about 20...?

It seems that doctors mostly admit a baby can survive on its own outside the womb around 22-23 weeks, which is why I started there.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It seems that doctors mostly admit a baby can survive on its own outside the womb around 22-23 weeks, which is why I started there.

well if they can survive at 22-23...would it not make sense to say 23? And then are we going to ban abortion but say the kid must be taken out and put on tubes or what ever at the point?