NYT story: Trump administration could strike abortion almost immediately using Comstock law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications).

It is not fully formed life and cannot exist independent of the parent.

If a child needs a heart transplant to live and the mother is a perfect match, should the mother kill themself to donate their heart? If she is resistant to this, should we legally force her to donate it even though it will kill her?

Same concept

Your argument is flawed; a mom can’t donate her adult sized heart to her sick child.

Children who need organ transplants need child sized organs.

Do no harm means no doctor is going to kill a mother to take her adult sized and thus useless to her sick child heart.

You sre deflecting. And yes, this situation could occur with a teenage child.

Answer the question

No; your situation is not something that could happen. There is a zero percent chance of your made up scenario occurring in the US health care and hospital system.

My spouse received a kidney transplant 6 years ago. You are just making up scenarios that have no basis in reality.

You are deflecting. Make it a kidney transplant and the mother only has one kidney. Her teen child needs one, should the mother be forced to donate her second to save the life of her child?

You are the only person who is trapped in your world of non-reality based organ transplant scenarios that would never occur in the United States healthcare system or hospital system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications).

It is not fully formed life and cannot exist independent of the parent.

If a child needs a heart transplant to live and the mother is a perfect match, should the mother kill themself to donate their heart? If she is resistant to this, should we legally force her to donate it even though it will kill her?

Same concept

Your argument is flawed; a mom can’t donate her adult sized heart to her sick child.

Children who need organ transplants need child sized organs.

Do no harm means no doctor is going to kill a mother to take her adult sized and thus useless to her sick child heart.

You sre deflecting. And yes, this situation could occur with a teenage child.

Answer the question

No; your situation is not something that could happen. There is a zero percent chance of your made up scenario occurring in the US health care and hospital system.

My spouse received a kidney transplant 6 years ago. You are just making up scenarios that have no basis in reality.

DP. You're happy to spout off as if you understood what you are talking about, "Zero Chance." You are so, so wrong but so, so confident. Typical.

Alternatively, some adult organs may work for children. For example, an adult kidney may work better for a larger or older child than it will for a toddler or infant. We also can transplant portions of an adult liver into a child —typically about 20% of the adult organ — since this organ can regrow on its own. However, other organs like the heart and lungs need to be a size match, so adult-to-child transplants aren’t as frequent with these organs.

https://www.orlandohealth.com/content-hub/how-organ-size-affects-the-organ-donation-process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications).

It is not fully formed life and cannot exist independent of the parent.

If a child needs a heart transplant to live and the mother is a perfect match, should the mother kill themself to donate their heart? If she is resistant to this, should we legally force her to donate it even though it will kill her?

Same concept

Your argument is flawed; a mom can’t donate her adult sized heart to her sick child.

Children who need organ transplants need child sized organs.

Do no harm means no doctor is going to kill a mother to take her adult sized and thus useless to her sick child heart.

You sre deflecting. And yes, this situation could occur with a teenage child.

Answer the question

No; your situation is not something that could happen. There is a zero percent chance of your made up scenario occurring in the US health care and hospital system.

My spouse received a kidney transplant 6 years ago. You are just making up scenarios that have no basis in reality.

You are deflecting. Make it a kidney transplant and the mother only has one kidney. Her teen child needs one, should the mother be forced to donate her second to save the life of her child?

You are the only person who is trapped in your world of non-reality based organ transplant scenarios that would never occur in the United States healthcare system or hospital system.

Because we don't force people to use their body to save others and you agree that legally forcing someone to save another while putting their life a risk is a violation of "do no harm?"

You're a hypocrite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know the medical reason to kill a healthy woman when her only condition that is killing her is pregnancy

Elective abortion means neither mother nor baby are not experiencing any medical issues or health problems. That’s what the majority of abortions performed in the US are- elective.

Any pregnancy can turn deadly at any moment. Every pregnancy has the potential to kill or maim or wound the person who carries it. Every pregnancy changes a woman’s or girl’s body forever and entails serious pain. That is why the person who has the uterus needed to gestate is the one who gets to decide if she is willing to do it.

Your argument applies to every human being on earth every second of the day. Just being alive brings risks, and everyone dies. Birth control is more reliable and effective now than at any previous time in history and elective abortion is risky as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going to go ahead and guess that the bodily rights of the unborn babies (i.e., the right to actually keep their body) are not going to be given much consideration in this thread.

What about my bodily right not to have an unwanted parasite growing inside me and distorting my body causing me extreme discomfort and, possibly, ends getting my life?

DP
I am 100% pro choice (and pro euthanasia as well). However I do think that people who use abortion as a method of birth control are pretty disgusting.

Unless you’re talking about rape, we all know that you can get pregnant when you have sex. If you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex. If you don’t want an unwanted parasite growing inside you, why are you precipitating in activities that could potentially put one there?

You’ll be glad to know this doesn’t happen, so your reservation has been cared for.

Really? Every woman who gets an abortion has been forcibly impregnated? No one has ever had unprotected sex, gotten pregnant, then aborted the baby they didn’t want?

Man you really do learn something new every day.

If you don’t believe in abortion don’t have one. How does someone else’s choice personally impact you? Be thankful if you have never been the victim of child sexual abuse. Be thankful if you have never found yourself in an abusive relationship. Be thankful if you grew up in a stable home with two loving, involved parents or even one. Until you walk in someone else’s shoes, you don’t know what choices you might make.

Elective abortion is the most common obstetric surgical procedure in the United States.

Proof? You and Donald only lie when you open your mouths!

Elective abortion is the most common obstetric surgical procedure in the United States, and although “safe,” it is associated with significant complications and liability.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/elective-abortion

Why try to prove a point, when you have to hide the evidence right in front of you to lie even to yourself?

The very next sentence in the source of your quote: "As would be predicted, the most serious complications occur in abortions performed in late-term pregnancies."

You many abortions are late term, out of the numbers you cite PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications).

It is not fully formed life and cannot exist independent of the parent.

If a child needs a heart transplant to live and the mother is a perfect match, should the mother kill themself to donate their heart? If she is resistant to this, should we legally force her to donate it even though it will kill her?

Same concept

Your argument is flawed; a mom can’t donate her adult sized heart to her sick child.

Children who need organ transplants need child sized organs.

Do no harm means no doctor is going to kill a mother to take her adult sized and thus useless to her sick child heart.

You sre deflecting. And yes, this situation could occur with a teenage child.

Answer the question

No; your situation is not something that could happen. There is a zero percent chance of your made up scenario occurring in the US health care and hospital system.

My spouse received a kidney transplant 6 years ago. You are just making up scenarios that have no basis in reality.

DP. You're happy to spout off as if you understood what you are talking about, "Zero Chance." You are so, so wrong but so, so confident. Typical.

Alternatively, some adult organs may work for children. For example, an adult kidney may work better for a larger or older child than it will for a toddler or infant. We also can transplant portions of an adult liver into a child —typically about 20% of the adult organ — since this organ can regrow on its own. However, other organs like the heart and lungs need to be a size match, so adult-to-child transplants aren’t as frequent with these organs.

https://www.orlandohealth.com/content-hub/how-organ-size-affects-the-organ-donation-process

Yes they are completely deflecting because they don't want to show their own hypocrisy

And even if it was a never event, one can still answer a hypothetical question about what they believe.

She won't, she is a hypocrite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications).

It is not fully formed life and cannot exist independent of the parent.

If a child needs a heart transplant to live and the mother is a perfect match, should the mother kill themself to donate their heart? If she is resistant to this, should we legally force her to donate it even though it will kill her?

Same concept

Your argument is flawed; a mom can’t donate her adult sized heart to her sick child.

Children who need organ transplants need child sized organs.

Do no harm means no doctor is going to kill a mother to take her adult sized and thus useless to her sick child heart.

You sre deflecting. And yes, this situation could occur with a teenage child.

Answer the question

No; your situation is not something that could happen. There is a zero percent chance of your made up scenario occurring in the US health care and hospital system.

My spouse received a kidney transplant 6 years ago. You are just making up scenarios that have no basis in reality.

You are deflecting. Make it a kidney transplant and the mother only has one kidney. Her teen child needs one, should the mother be forced to donate her second to save the life of her child?

You are the only person who is trapped in your world of non-reality based organ transplant scenarios that would never occur in the United States healthcare system or hospital system.

Because we don't force people to use their body to save others and you agree that legally forcing someone to save another while putting their life a risk is a violation of "do no harm?"

You're a hypocrite

+1
They’re so dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL, at the embarrassingly stupid ‘slave’ analogy.

These are the frighteningly dumb people who don't understand not every woman got pregnant during a one night stand and treats abortion like birth control and goes to a clinic and gets a card punched and the 12th abortion is free, or that every woman even WANTED the abortion.

98% of abortions in the US are elective. There was no rape or incest, no medical problems for either mother or baby.

Is that what newsmax tells you?

Elective termination of pregnancy remains common in the United States. Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures performed in the United States each year.


In spite of the introduction of newer, more effective, and more widely available contraceptive methods, more than half of the 6 million pregnancies occurring each year in the United States are considered unplanned by the women who are pregnant. Of these pregnancies, approximately half end in elective terminations.

Abortion is the only common surgical procedure that is elective in obstetric and gynecologic residencies. Thus, few board-certified gynecologists are actually qualified to perform the procedure.

Pregnancy always has the potential to endanger a woman’s life and to alter her body. That is not something superficial, the equivalent of having a skin tag that you could or could not elect to have removed. You are diminishing the work and pain and permanent consequences involved in bringing a pregnancy to term.

[Anonymous]

^^How many

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know the medical reason to kill a healthy woman when her only condition that is killing her is pregnancy

Elective abortion means neither mother nor baby are not experiencing any medical issues or health problems. That’s what the majority of abortions performed in the US are- elective.

Any pregnancy can turn deadly at any moment. Every pregnancy has the potential to kill or maim or wound the person who carries it. Every pregnancy changes a woman’s or girl’s body forever and entails serious pain. That is why the person who has the uterus needed to gestate is the one who gets to decide if she is willing to do it.

Your argument applies to every human being on earth every second of the day. Just being alive brings risks, and everyone dies. Birth control is more reliable and effective now than at any previous time in history and elective abortion is risky as well.

“Everyone dies.” Ladies, here’s the GOP argument for why the government should be able to force you to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications).

It is not fully formed life and cannot exist independent of the parent.

If a child needs a heart transplant to live and the mother is a perfect match, should the mother kill themself to donate their heart? If she is resistant to this, should we legally force her to donate it even though it will kill her?

Same concept

Your argument is flawed; a mom can’t donate her adult sized heart to her sick child.

Children who need organ transplants need child sized organs.

Do no harm means no doctor is going to kill a mother to take her adult sized and thus useless to her sick child heart.

You sre deflecting. And yes, this situation could occur with a teenage child.

Answer the question

No; your situation is not something that could happen. There is a zero percent chance of your made up scenario occurring in the US health care and hospital system.

My spouse received a kidney transplant 6 years ago. You are just making up scenarios that have no basis in reality.

DP. You're happy to spout off as if you understood what you are talking about, "Zero Chance." You are so, so wrong but so, so confident. Typical.

Alternatively, some adult organs may work for children. For example, an adult kidney may work better for a larger or older child than it will for a toddler or infant. We also can transplant portions of an adult liver into a child —typically about 20% of the adult organ — since this organ can regrow on its own. However, other organs like the heart and lungs need to be a size match, so adult-to-child transplants aren’t as frequent with these organs.

https://www.orlandohealth.com/content-hub/how-organ-size-affects-the-organ-donation-process

You are missing a crucial point: nobody is forced to donate an organ. That is not part of the US organ transplant surgery system. It’s not and you will not find a single citation to support your delusion.

[Anonymous]

All medical procedures have complication risks. Every single darn one down to getting an IV.

Fact; abortion carries a lower complication risk than pregnancy

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications).

It is not fully formed life and cannot exist independent of the parent.

If a child needs a heart transplant to live and the mother is a perfect match, should the mother kill themself to donate their heart? If she is resistant to this, should we legally force her to donate it even though it will kill her?

Same concept

Your argument is flawed; a mom can’t donate her adult sized heart to her sick child.

Children who need organ transplants need child sized organs.

Do no harm means no doctor is going to kill a mother to take her adult sized and thus useless to her sick child heart.

You sre deflecting. And yes, this situation could occur with a teenage child.

Answer the question

No; your situation is not something that could happen. There is a zero percent chance of your made up scenario occurring in the US health care and hospital system.

My spouse received a kidney transplant 6 years ago. You are just making up scenarios that have no basis in reality.

DP. You're happy to spout off as if you understood what you are talking about, "Zero Chance." You are so, so wrong but so, so confident. Typical.

Alternatively, some adult organs may work for children. For example, an adult kidney may work better for a larger or older child than it will for a toddler or infant. We also can transplant portions of an adult liver into a child —typically about 20% of the adult organ — since this organ can regrow on its own. However, other organs like the heart and lungs need to be a size match, so adult-to-child transplants aren’t as frequent with these organs.

https://www.orlandohealth.com/content-hub/how-organ-size-affects-the-organ-donation-process

You are missing a crucial point: nobody is forced to donate an organ. That is not part of the US organ transplant surgery system. It’s not and you will not find a single citation to support your delusion.

You are missing a crucial point: nobody is forced to donate an organ. That is not part of the US organ transplant surgery system. It’s not and you will not find a single citation to support your delusion.

[Anonymous]

You are missing a crucial point: nobody is forced to donate an organ. That is not part of the US organ transplant surgery system. It’s not and you will not find a single citation to support your delusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All medical procedures have complication risks. Every single darn one down to getting an IV.

Fact; abortion carries a lower complication risk than pregnancy

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/

*Childbirth