• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can pro life defend their position

stealthycat said:
Killing the unborn isn't health care, its killing
Click to expand...
Pregnancy by its nature involves and affects a woman's health. So abortion is indeed healthcare, especially in cases of significant complications.
 
1. Well that’s the rub. What’s “ alive”? The fetus was non viable. It wasn’t continuing to develop. It was not capable of surviving outside the womb even with medical intervention.. her body basically partially tried to expel it but it got stuck against the cervix creating an avenue for infection.
The normal medical procedure would be to induce the body to expel the fetus ( though this would stop the heartbeat once it separated from the mothers tissue” )
Or if it could not be induced to due a dilation and extraction which would again stop the heartbeat when the fetal tissue was removed.
That’s the normal medical procedure to ensure the safety of the mother (since the fetus is non viable).

However, because of Texas law.. the procedure could not be done until the heartbeat has stopped or the patient became unstable and a medical emergency.

So they had to wait until the heartbeat stopped then performed the procedure but infection had already occurred and a few days later it developed into sepsis which killed her.

Her death was a direct result of the Texas law .

2. But it’s also recognizing other responsibility.
For example a high risk pregnancy that might leave the woman dead or incapacitated and unable to care for other children. It may be mean sever hardship for her children with the loss of income. Because of pregnancy.
It’s very much different from a man because it’s not INSIDE HIM. While it’s inside her and has a lot more consequences for her.
So too when the baby is outside her. The consequences are much lessened.

3. Nope. Not at all. The diagnosis and treatment were known. Delay was due to Texas law.

4. Yes. That’s exactly right. A patient who comes into the ER complaining of difficulty breathing and to save his life needs to be intubated. He has every right to refuse to be intubated. In fact if he is unable to speak for himself , and doesn’t have advanced directives , his family can refuse intubation.

Only if there is no one to speak for him and there is no advance directive and he is unable to give permission can the doctor proceed with saving life.

5. See above. If he is able to speak or have family then permission needs to be given.

6. It was a miscarriage.
7. They did know if the fetus was viable or not. It wasn’t viable.

8. They didn’t botch anything. They were hamstrung by the Texas abortion law.

9. You see what you want to see because you want to ignore reality .
The medical diagnosis was correct. The procedure that was necessary was well known. Either a d and e. Or inducing the woman’s body into expelling the fetus.
Both procedures if done would violate Texas law if there was a heartbeat. The only medical choice was to do the medically correct procedure as soon as possible to reduce the chance of infection but violate the law.

Or to follow the law and wait for the heartbeat to stop or the woman’s vitals to go south and into an emergency situation. However this exposes the woman too greater chances of infection.

If you disagree then gives us all your learned medical expertise and describe what procedures should have been done in detail.
 
stealthycat said:
I've never said that really, no

I 100% support health care for women and unborn babies

Killing the unborn isn't health care, its killing
Click to expand...
Sure you did. You don’t leave any room for the doctor and woman to make a decision of what’s best.
Which is why woman are dying ,more infants are dying and more abortions are occuring.

Because you want to make medical decisions that have life or death consequences for women.

Why do you think you should have this right?
 
jaeger19 said:
Why do you think you should have this right?
Click to expand...
Or perhaps, why should the pregnant woman not have the right, as some seem to believe she should not have? I have yet to see any anti abortionist argument which doesn't at the very least potentially run foul of the Constitution.
 
See my thread on this topic. Below is the weblink.

Does the Abrahamic God Condone the Abortion of Human Children?

During the Roe v. Wade era, the arguments in support of abortion that resulted in the practice becoming legal were as follows: 1. Abortion is to protect the life of the pregnant person or at least preserve the health of the pregnant person. 2. Abortion is okay in cases of rape or incest. 3...
debatepolitics.com
 
which brings me back to what I've said all along - when a normal pregnancy begins there HAS to be a living human unborn in the womb. If there isn't, there is no pregnancy. Right? Viability has nothing to do with it.


I disagree

The doctors absolutely could have tried to help the unborn which still had a heartbeat and was still alive - do you not know about unborn surgeries etc? Maybe the woman opted not to. Maybe she had no insurance to cover anything like that? maybe the doctors were idiots?

again, a medical emergency absolutely can be for the unborn baby and for a mother in trouble



pregnancy is a big deal you're absolutely right. Its rare for women to have the troubles this woman did , don't use a rare exception to try and justify abortion. Most abortions are convenience - women who had sex, got preggo and created a living human life and they don't want it to get in the way of their life. Imagine if we looked at 2 day old babies like that?

the problem is the irresponsible sex and getting preggo - stop unwanted pregnancies, the women who don't want to get pregnant ? don't they have a responsibility? and the men too
 
that's what I thought - this woman was asking for help and the doctors didn't give it - I cannot imagine a massive lawsuit/settlement for malpractice

jaeger19 said:
5. See above. If he is able to speak or have family then permission needs to be given.

6. It was a miscarriage.
Click to expand...
it wasn't - a miscarriage is when the baby died and this woman was in labor very early. I've not read why


jaeger19 said:
7. They did know if the fetus was viable or not. It wasn’t viable.
Click to expand...
viability doesn't = alive

jaeger19 said:
8. They didn’t botch anything. They were hamstrung by the Texas abortion law.
Click to expand...
we disagree


I think you see this case as a way to justify abortions when it very much looks like the woman went into labor early (I don't know why) and the doctors refused aid to the unborn baby it had a heartbeat and was alive) and they refused help to a woman in medical need for her pregnancy (I don't know why)
She wasn't asking for an abortion
 

look, if you want everyone to decide if an unborn baby is valuable or not - then you're going to have to let EVERYONE decide. If a Doctor doesn't want to treat an unborn like in this case because he doesn't view the unborn as a living life? you gotta let him right? just like if one woman wants to view her unborn as a hinderance and wants it killed and another a gift from God and wants it badly - everyone gets to decide and you don't force your views on others right ?

but that's silly - we ALWAYS want doctors to try and save lives don't we? it appears this unborn baby was in trouble - I don't know why. It appears the woman was in labor early, I don't know why. The doctors should have tried every way possible to save that living unborn baby - that they didn't is tragic IMO

But pro-abortion says that unborn has no right to life anyway - so pro-abortion HAS to support the doctors views on not treating what they didn't see as a living unborn right ?

that's pro-abortion views, not mine


my views are that baby was alive, living, and the doctors failed huge
 
1. Well .. you have to explain why viability has nothing nothing to do with it . This is why your “ value of life” premise has trouble.
So you have an embryo that has zero chance of living . Zero chance of. But it has a heartbeat. Literal parts of that embryo are dead and starting rot.
Its presence is without a doubt putting the mother’s life at risk of death .
so this begs the question of why you value the non viable embryo/fetus heartbeat more than the mothers life and health?
Second.. if so why should soon you have the power to make that decision and not the woman whose life and health are at stake.

2. Explain in detail what the doctors could have done to help the unborn. First at 17 weeks the fetus doesn’t have its organs formed yet. Heartbeats start at around 6 weeks gestation even though the heart isn’t fully formed.
I don’t think you realize that the mother is supplying oxygen to that fetus. The heart may keep beating even though it’s not actually pumping blood anywhere or the other organs aren’t developed at all or have essentially died.
This is an essential problem when people with no understanding of medicine start making other peoples healthcare decisions.

3. There was no medical emergency. The unborn was non viable. There was nothing to be done for it and the mother was not in immediate life threatening jeopardy.
4. No it’s not actually roughly 20percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage and that likely undercounted
Only in states with abortion laws would this procedure be considered an “ abortion”.
In medical terms this is NOT an abortion and so would not be categorized as such. Only because non medical people have decided that it is an abortion is it an issue.

5. Irresponsible sex? No birth control is 100 percent effective. And given that a woman is fertile for over 30 years it’s highly likely that woman will have 1 or two unplanned pregnancies in their lifetime.
Woman have all sorts of responsibilities. One is to the “ unborn”. Yes. And women women who have abortions often report that they feel that are not in a position to rear/raise a child properly or even a pregnancy properly.
Or the fetus/embryo has severe abnormalities that will mean a short life of pain and suffering.
And woman have responsibilities to other children they have. Pregnancy puts their survival at risk as well.
Woman also are often care givers to older parents .

Tell me.. you stated that that your wife and you decided that you would continue a pregnancy no matter the risk of life to her.
Okay. But what if the government decides that the life of your wife is worth more than the life of a fetus that won’t survive or only survive a short time?
Should the government then force your wife to have an abortion to save her life?

Why not? If you think the government should have the power to make value judgements on the worth of life… why shouldn’t the government have the power to decide your wife’s life is worth more???

See the problem with your “ value of life” premise .

I am sure you do. Which is why you avoided discussing your premise.
 
because when there is a normal pregnancy there HAS to be a living unborn in the womb - it cannot be any other way, that's biology 101

it WAS living - alive - it had to be or there wouldn't be a pregnancy

I don't value the mother or the unborn more or less one over the other - it doesn't have to be one or the other in 99%+ of the time and again, you're trying to use exceptionally rare cases to justify the norm



no, I'm not going to "detail" - I wasn't there, you wasn't there, we can only get what news gives us but there is a lot of questions about the whole thing

17 weeks was a guess - might have been 16 weeks or 18 weeks but you're right, very likely too early for a delivery and a baby that would have lived. But again, we simply don't know.

you desperately want to use this isolated rare case to justify - and I don't agree with you


jaeger19 said:
3. There was no medical emergency. The unborn was non viable. There was nothing to be done for it and the mother was not in immediate life threatening jeopardy.
Click to expand...
clearly there WAS a medical emergency - nothing that I read showed how they tried to save that unborn life

medical care DOES exist for the unborn baby you know


health of mother is exceptionally rare need for an abortion

this wasn't an abortion - this was a very early labor, it wasn't a miscarriage either as the unborn was alive


makes sex, pregnancies and creating human life a very important thing doesn't it? Not something for someone not wanting a baby is it?
 
1. There was no help for fetus. Nothing could be done. The only help was for her to avoid a deadly infection. And that was prevented by the Texas abortion law.
2. Miscarriage when the baby becomes non viable . She had miscarried at 17 weeks. Her body was trying to eject the fetus just as a woman’s body will eject earlier miscarriages. Except something went wrong . It either needed to be induced to completely eject the fetus or have a d and e.

A heartbeat doesn’t mean that the baby is viable or truly “ alive” heartbeats start at 6 weeks as electrical activity is detected but the heart isn’t supplying oxygen to the body. In fact blood vessels and circulatory system may not be fully formed until 35 weeks.

3. Well there is the difficult again with definitions of alive.
Do you consider a person on life support.. brain dead.. whose organs aren’t functioning and is surviving only due to medical technology “alive” and “liviing” the same as a 16 year old health boy out playing soccer?

I don’t. Most people don’t. Do you?
Would you have doctors who remove lifesupport from these people and then harvest any viable organs such as heart kidney and liver. Eyes etc.( at request of the family or advanced directive) . given several people a chance at real life .
Should these doctors be charged with murder as if they had killed that 16?year old playing soccer??

Please explain

Because an embryo and even a fetus are very much like a person on life support. And more importantly are INSIDE another person affecting their life and health.

4. And under medical terms she didn’t have an abortion she had a d and e. Only because a bunch of politicians with zero medical knowledge decided to call this procedure an abortion is it considered one.
You clearly don’t understand what that non viable means. It mean that the organs weren’t developed like the brain the lungs the liver even the heart may not have been. A heart beat is just electrical activity being detected. It doesn’t mean the heart is actually working at all. Or the organs might of developed normally but something went wrong in pregnancy and blood flow from the placenta was disrupted a myriad of things and all you had was a heart that continued to beat even though nothing else was working and may have even started to rot.
 
is that the laws we have ?

no it isn't

the abortion laws are intended to keep women from having their unborn babies killed - never were they intended to stop hospitals from giving medical care to an unborn living baby and the mother - which is what that hospital did

its malpractice, it has little to do with abortion laws



no, I don't see the problem at all

unborn babies deserve a chance at life - we shouldn't be allowing them to be killed on a whim

This instance you use was a woman going into labor way early (I don't know why) the hospital not giving care to the unborn or the mother ( I don't know why) and abortion had nothing to do with it. She wasn't seeking an abortion, it was medical malpractice

the hospital should have done everything to save the unborn life - and what did the woman ask for? what did she say? we don't know - maybe they have it recorded where she refused care ? I don't know, you don't know
 
jaeger19 said:
1. There was no help for fetus. Nothing could be done. The only help was for her to avoid a deadly infection. And that was prevented by the Texas abortion law.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that - I don't see evidence of that and I don't know it for sure.


again, you use a different definition that the one I posted - if the unborn was alive/heartbeat there was still a pregnancy - it appears she was in labor

you are making a LOT of assumptions (as am I) - we don't know what happened

I never said "same" and the viability is your argument, never mine

what I can tell you is that if there is a normal pregnancy there is a living human life in the womb - when that unborn life dies or is born, the pregnancy ends

that's just simple biology 101


jaeger19 said:
I don’t. Most people don’t. Do you?
Click to expand...
I never said same


I really don't know what you're asking - if people on life support are dead ?? of course they're not - but they're not viable either which you're using to define alive/living .... your argument, not mine


jaeger19 said:
Because an embryo and even a fetus are very much like a person on life support. And more importantly are INSIDE another person affecting their life and health.
Click to expand...
is a person on life support alive/living in your opinion ? it seems you are arguing they are - and then saying unborns are on life support as well




again, you and I are both making a lot of assumptions and guesses where we simply do not know - you're using it all to say that abortion laws were the cause, I'm saying no, abortion laws had little to do with it, rather medical malpractice did

I know the pro-choice movement took this and run with it - I think they were wrong to do that
 
1. But this wasn’t a normal pregnancy. Was there a pregnancy at that point? That’s the problem with your position. The baby was gone except for a heartbeat. Which eventually stopped on its own accord,

2. Sure you do if you support these abortion laws . The unborn had ZERO chance at life.
The women’s life was put at risk. This law makes the judgement that a heartbeat from a non viable fetus is worth more than a full grown women’s life.
Stop saying you don’t value that unborn more. You most certainly do, repeatedly you say “ it’s life it’s alive” simply because it had a heartbeat.
And you express zero concern about the woman who eventually died. Who WOULD HAVE LIVED EXCEPT FOR TEXAS ABORTION LAW!
3. That’s right. But I am a doctor. I ve worked with babies in neonatal intensive care. I understand the medical issues here while you and the politicians don’t. You have no clue what you are talking about but you would inject yourself in what’s a difficult medical decision.

4. Actually these cases are quite common. Some 20 percent and likely more pregnancies end in miscarriage. And since the procedures to deal with them when medically necessary are not medically considered abortion… it’s not listed as an abortion for medical reasons.

The reason I focus on this case is to illustrate the real world ramifications of the laws you support. More maternal death, more infant death, and ironically more abortions.

And the very real problem of government making peoples medical decisions.
Not your hypothetical “ but what if they killed a baby the day before it’s born” schtick!!

Again after these laws MORE maternal death,MORE infant death , Higher abortion rates.

And your response “ meh”.

5. There was no medical emergency. There clearly was nothing to do to “ save the unborn”

6. Sure. Been there. But quite rarely at the best of times . The biggest factor is fetal development and uterine conditions.

7. It was a miscarriage. It wasn’t viable . The heart simply hadn’t stopped beating until it eventually did on its own.

8. Interesting. So your view is that women and men should only have sex for procreation…
Okay……lmao
 
1. It is the laws we have. What’s the phrase “ the road to Hell is paved with good intentions?

The law is clearly killing women. Again. More maternal death ,more infant death and more abortions.

It’s the problem you have when government interferes with medical decisions.

2. Nope. Not malpractice. However you are welcome to give your learned medical opinion on what should have been done and why it’s malpractice.

Oh wait.. you’ve already admitted you can’t make that decision….but then have no problem determining it’s “ malpractice”.

Do you see your intellectual disconnect!

It’s like when I talk to the medical insurance representative and they tell me a medical procedure isn’t medically necessary so it’s not authorized. And I ask them “ okay then how would YOU treat this patient “. And they say “ what do you mean”. And I say “ tell me how I am to treat this patient. What should I do.? “

And they say “ I cant tell you that “
I say “ why not?”
And they say “ because I am not a doctor”
And I say “ EXACTLY … so if you can’t treat them how can you say the procedure isn’t necessary!!!!”.

See the intellectual disconnect?

2. There’s that old judgement “ on a whim”.
You think this lady who died went to the hospital because she wanted her “ unborn killed on a whim”. No.
Stop it. Women and medical providers are not “ killing unborn on a whim”.
Cripes you yourself admitted pregnancy had tremendous consequences.
Stop being dismissive of the real issues with pregnancy FOR THE MOTHER AS WELL.
You know you keep forgetting about her life a LOT.

3. No. Her body was trying to expel a non viable fetus that had miscarried. Most miscarriages end this way with “ expectant management”. Bleeding and cramps that expel the fetal or embryonic tissue.
Some have to be induced or helped along further with medication. Others are removed surgical with a d and e.

This is why medical providers are leaving anti abortion states in droves and why my medical facilities in these states no longer provide ob/gyn care. We are literally arguing medical issues with people that have zero medical knowledge but think they know how to treat patients!!!

4. See above. She wasn’t seeking an abortion. She was diagnosed with a miscarriage resulting in a non viable fetus.
The normal medically indicated procedure would be to induce the women with medication to expel the fetal tissue or to do a d and c(e).
However.. the tissue still had electrical activity going on in its heart and under Texas law.. the normal medically indicated procedures that WOULD have been done prior to the anti abortion law.. would know he considered an abortion and the doctors prosecuted.

5. There was nothing for the hospital to do for the unborn. The best it could do was protect the LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

Tell me if you don’t value tgat fetal heartbeat MORE than the mother. Why do you keep ststing everything should be done for the unborn…. But not everything done for the mother?

Hmmmm…. You have no problem putting the mother’s life at risk .

See your hypocrisy??
 
1. Why don’t you believe it? I do because I have a medical degree. I know how medicine in this situation works. If both the woman and the fetus could be saved the physicians would have done their best to save both. If only one or the other could be saved they would leave this choice to the mother or the husband /family if she couldn’t speak for herself.
Clearly the fetus was non viable and certainly so at 17 weeks and given that the body had already started to expel the fetal tissue.

2. Because you have no understanding of medical practice. You’ve failed to answer my question AGAIN.
Is a person who is brain dead, only surviving due to medical technology such as intubation /dialysis etc. just as “alive” as a 16 year old boy playing soccer. ?
If the physicians remove the person from medical support , and then harvest the viable organs ( heart , liver , kidneys) to give other patients life… should the physicians be arrested for murder as if they murdered that 16year old boy playing soccer?

See you throw out these terms like “ alive” and “ value of life”. But have no real definition of such. You won’t discuss this fact and ignore it.

Yet you think you should be able to inject your “ feelings” into a medical decision where real judgements need to be made.

2. Viability isn’t my argument, you brought up value of life . But you won’t define it or discuss it. But how can viability not be an issue if value of life is to be considered???
You are making the judgment that the value of a fetus with no chance of surviving has more value than the life of the mother.

4. You know what i am asking. Do they have the same value? Remember that whole value of life you introduced? Remember your absolute REFUSAL TO define it?
So does the brain dead patient on medical support just as “ alive” have just as much “ value” as the 16 year old boy playing soccer?

if the physicians remove the medical support and harvest the organs ( heart liver kidneys) to save other patients lives. Should those doctors be charged with murder and incarcerated as if the murdered the 16 year old playing soccer?
Is that what you think? I bet not. But you have no probable getting involved in medical decisions you have no business making.
Now medical providers like myself don’t make those value judgements.






We leave it up to the person or family. If the family wants everything done? Then everything is done.

Sometimes the family /patients wishes are at odds with medical providers. I certainly have had patients/families refuse intubation or feeding tubes or other support when I think that having such support could have led to full recovery.
Why ? We saw a rash of this after the Terry Schiavo case after government intervened in medical care. Suddenly we had a surge of patients and family afraid to say put in a feeding tube because once in they felt it couldn’t be removed if the patient failed to recover.
Most certainly that case caused people to die that might have recovered.
The same thing is happening with increased abortion because of these abortion laws.
Now a provider can’t even discuss abortion . Where in a state without an abortion law.. if a woman asks about abortion a medical provider can even say “ it’s a big decision.. if you are unsure talk to your husband , to your boyfriend , to your family. You are only a couple of weeks pregnant and you can wait up to another 8 weeks to make a decision and still have time to have a medical abortion. “
But now woman can’t discuss it and are being forced into making a rash decision on abortion before say a heart beat is detected or they start to show etc. which is likely in part why abortions rates have increased.
 
I'm sympathetic to the pro-life movement coming from a religious and deep red state. However, I've moved many people on the pro-choice stance once I dive into the details about how women's lives are threatened by draconian abortion laws setup by Republican Politicians using this issue to gain votes. It's all political theater.
 
jaeger19 said:
1. But this wasn’t a normal pregnancy. Was there a pregnancy at that point? That’s the problem with your position. The baby was gone except for a heartbeat. Which eventually stopped on its own accord,
Click to expand...
I don't know if it was normal until the problem or if there were problems all along - do you?

Was there a pregnancy? Of course there was - the unborn was alive and hadn't been delivered yet. You THINK gone except for heartbeat - you don't know and I don't either. You're guessing so you can use it in an exceptional example of what if. heart stopped = death - it was living and alive until it wasn't



The unborn was alive and you're right, might very well have had an entire pregnancy of complications and was, tragically, dying at the end which is what triggered the early delivery? I'm guess, I don't know, but why didn't the hospital try and save the unborn living life? I nor you know the circumstances past what we read

I respect that - but you wasn't there

are you REALLY going to say that the doctors there did absolutely nothing wrong? you're ruling out that they could have done other things to help, that they made no mistakes ?

c'mon

no, this one is very rare and it wasn't a miscarriage


jaeger19 said:
5. There was no medical emergency. There clearly was nothing to do to “ save the unborn”
Click to expand...
I don't know that, I wasn't there nor were you. Maybe you are privy to hospital records and talked to those doctors, I have not.


look, you want to use these extreme rare case for pro-abortion and I get it, I simply don't think guessing at all that happened and then using it as such makes sense

and no, people can have all the sex they want - but when they get pregnant the woman better be expecting 10 months to carry the baby to birth and the father 18 years of financial responsibility

that's the results of their actions
 
so medical malpractice never happens in the USA? doctors never make mistakes? c'mon, you and I both know they do

we also can agree that unborns can and are treated all the time for health problems - this unborn was having a lot of problems. Maybe it couldn't have been saved - I wasn't there, I don't know, you wasn't there either. All we read are reports which are all pro-abortion ones


obviously not "just as alive"

however you full well know people come out of coma's, from intubation etc - and if they don't? they were alive and then died

unborn babies are very much alive/living, there couldn't be a pregnancy without that

and don't play the "value of life" game unless you're going to throw out how you value it so I can destroy your views - because while you are right, value of life is a personal view it's also a society and social view and protect by Constitution of the USA as well.

Serial Killers aren't right in their views on the value of human life, are they?

you brought up viability - that's not tied to value

again you want a blanket answer - "as much value" ?

"brain dead" - people don't come out of that, do they? they've died, haven't they ? I think that particular question is an easy answer

coma? intubation? that's different but still medically very little brain activity. Are you going to argue the value of their lives have dwindled down too ?
 
clearly no, again you're now discussing "brain dead" meaning a person has literally died, their body kept alive by machines

jaeger19 said:
We leave it up to the person or family. If the family wants everything done? Then everything is done.
Click to expand...
again you're now discussing "brain dead" meaning a person has literally died, their body kept alive by machines


jaeger19 said:
Sometimes the family /patients wishes are at odds with medical providers. I certainly have had patients/families refuse intubation or feeding tubes or other support when I think that having such support could have led to full recovery.
Click to expand...
ok, that's NOT brain dead - you're discussing different things now

do you believe they had that right ?


and I'm fine with the above - we shouldn't accept killing unborn innocent life in this nation

I will not waiver from that
 
1. The problem had probably been developing over time since there was no history of injury. Then it reached a point of being symptomatic.
2. Well then we get the “ is it alive” issue. It was clearly not viable. Cripes it was at 17 weeks and already her body was trying to expel it . Not to mention all records say non viable.
What do you expect the hospital to do? Finish developing a brain, the lungs, cardiovascular system and all the other organs? Reverse the cellular death that already occurred? Regrow the woman’s placenta and umbilical connections? What exactly do you expect the hospital to do????

3. Yes. I am REALLY going to say the doctors did nothing wrong. What would you have them do? They could do what was medically indicated but risk being sentenced to 99 years in jail. Or they could follow the law and hope the heartbeat stops as soon as possible and then do a d and c or induce.
Yes I am ruling out that they had any other choices. Other than. Risk violating the law and hope that they don’t get prosecuted and losing everything.

It’s EXACTLY why doctors are fleeing these states and we don’t have ob/gyn in states with these laws. It places medical teams in impossible situations.

No it’s not that rare. About half of women who miscarry need a d and c or d and e to remove tissue that is not expelled naturally or by medical inducement.

5. Why? Why should she expect to risk her life,her health , her other children’s futures , etc?

Because you say so?
 
1. Sure. But it there is nothing at all to indicate malpractice. You assume it because of what? Show us your medical knowledge!!! Oh wait. It HAS to be medical malpractice right?
2. All the time? No. It happens but it’s rare and it’s even more rare that the child survives at 17 weeks. And the woman’s body had already started the process to expel it.

3. Bingo. Sure. I’ve seen people come out of comas. I’ve also seen people suffer on life support with zero recovery. The point is though… do you think the government should make that decision for people regardless of they or their families wishes?

4WHOA THERE. You keep forgetting that it’s YOU that keep playing the life has value game. My position doesn’t require it. YOU are the one making value judgements about whose life is more valuable and I just showed you just how much bs your position is.
Brain dead have “ died”. Wait.. but what if they still have a heartbeat like the fetus in question??
Oh look you just changed your whole definition of alive!!!

Do you see your intellectual disconnect???

Viability doesn’t have anything to do with value of life?
But you JUST ARGUED

“brain dead" - people don't come out of that, do they”.

Gosh apparently when you choose to viability DOES matter!!!

Your position is unworkable when it comes to making medical decisions. You can’t even use your premise consistently.!!!

That’s why your position has caused more maternal death, more infant death and higher abortion rates.

Why doesn’t that concern you?
 
1. That’s what the fetus was like. Literally it had a heart beat from residual life support from the mother until it eventually wound down and stopped beating.

2. See above

3. Nope. It’s perfectly analogous EXCEPT for the fact that the fetus while on life support is INSIDE the woman and is affecting her health and her life.
Which you keep ignoring!!

4. Absolutely, they did. There are simply too many unknowns .. to many issues , for the government to jump into these tough medical decisions. Even with all our medical knowledge we respect the wishes of the family and or person because only they should determine what’s best.

5. I know you won’t waiver no how many needlessly due by increased abortion rates increased ,maternal death, or Increased infant death.

This issue for anti abortion folks has nothing to do with life, medicine, facts etc. it has to do with emotion and control of other people.

It’s why you can’t defend your position other than “ I feel”.
 
A molar pregnancy is a pregnancy. In a molar pregnancy, there is embryonic tissue and placental tissue, but there is no embryo. A molar pregnancy has to be removed or the woman could be seriously harmed.

So, no, a so-called live human embryo doesn't have to be inside a woman for her to be pregnant.

Some embryos/fetuses are never viable even if they appear to be live, because they develop from genetic abnormalities.

No implanted fetus that has come out of the woman before 21 weeks and 1 day has ever lived. There was also a fetus that lived 21 weeks and 6 days. Those are the earliest two times recorded. At 22+ weeks, it has less than a 50% chance of survival.

The point of the rarities is that they reveal information to us that can help us determine what the status of an implanted embryo or fetus is. You, on the other hand, have simply decided what your own opinion is, based on incredibly limited data and no proper reasoning whatever.

Those Korean women who believe in no dating, no sex, no marriage, no babies have it right. Want to blame women? Go play with yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…