Republican utopia - Texas!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do know that a miscarriage is technically an abortion, right?

And that the procedure to clear a missed miscarriage is also an abortion?

I think people need to be careful using terms like “majority” re: abortion

When a woman terminates her pregnancy, it’s an abortion. When a woman has a miscarriage, she does not choose to terminate her pregnancy.

A D&C procedure may be done for different reasons, including to look for the cause of a problem, such as abnormal uterine bleeding; for treatment of a miscarriage or postpregnancy bleeding; or for first trimester abortion (pregnancy termination).

A D and C is not always done to end the life of an unborn baby.

Can you read? The term used to help a woman after a miscarriage is abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do know that a miscarriage is technically an abortion, right?

And that the procedure to clear a missed miscarriage is also an abortion?

I think people need to be careful using terms like “majority” re: abortion

I think you know what pp was referring to.
Elective abortions... the ones that end a healthy life growing inside a mother.

The problem is that you are attempting to parse words and make the term mean what YOU want it to mean

This is the problem with all debates on this topic. Non-medical professionals inserting themselves into complicated medical situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pregnancy is also a medical condition and, in some cases, a life threatening one. If it is life threatening, ending the medical condition of pregnancy to save the living human is the best course of action. Until we develop a way to keep zygotes/fetuses growing outside a uterus, these are the decisions that must be made and the already living being should always have precedence until viability.

In which states can a woman not end a pregnancy to save her life?
And, it is important to note that many pregnancies are considered at risk.
Ending a pregnancy when there are challenges should not be the first course of action, especially if the mother does not want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pregnancy is also a medical condition and, in some cases, a life threatening one. If it is life threatening, ending the medical condition of pregnancy to save the living human is the best course of action. Until we develop a way to keep zygotes/fetuses growing outside a uterus, these are the decisions that must be made and the already living being should always have precedence until viability.

In which states can a woman not end a pregnancy to save her life?
And, it is important to note that many pregnancies are considered at risk.
Ending a pregnancy when there are challenges should not be the first course of action, especially if the mother does not want it.

In which states can a women carry a pregnancy and make decisions about her care with her doctor, not involving lawyers and legislators and courts and vigilantes, etc. Carry your pregnancies in those states ladies if you can. Look to receive modern medical care instead of some backwards, compromised care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pregnancy is also a medical condition and, in some cases, a life threatening one. If it is life threatening, ending the medical condition of pregnancy to save the living human is the best course of action. Until we develop a way to keep zygotes/fetuses growing outside a uterus, these are the decisions that must be made and the already living being should always have precedence until viability.

In which states can a woman not end a pregnancy to save her life?
And, it is important to note that many pregnancies are considered at risk.
Ending a pregnancy when there are challenges should not be the first course of action, especially if the mother does not want it.

TX, for one. Multiple women have left the state because the hospitals there, per TX law, refused to touch them for fear of running afoul of their bs law that CLAIMS to have that exception. Yet the interpretation has actually come to mean death must be imminent. That’s not good enough. Women should be allowed to terminate before they reach critical stage, as medical professionals know how these conditions go downhill fast and want to save their patients from that horror show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posit that a sound majority of women would never have an abortion. The rabid abortion advocates need to make it a “simple medical procedure” to downplay the fact that it is an affirmative choice to take action to end the life of the being in one’s womb. Abortions are not equivalent to getting stitches.

Of course most women have never had an abortion and no woman wants to have an abortion. A significant minority (25 percent) had and will have for their own private reasons that are none of your or anyone's business. Look around because you know and likely depend on many women in your life and community that have had an abortion. They would never discuss it with you nor should they.

I look around and see all the alive people who were not aborted, men and women, who have a right to live their lives. No one has a right to take their lives.

You are the one who has no right to impose your judgements on women making decisions about their own bodies. Judge away but you will rightly be ignored. This is not your business. Find something better to so with your time and energy.

The woman we are discussing had a right to be pregnant and choose to stay pregnant and choose the life of her baby. You don’t like her choice, and that’s not okay. Why is the only reproductive choice you support is the right of woman to have an abortion?

The state of Texas didn’t force this woman to become morbidly obese. Texas (and all states) has a program in place to provide all women and their unborn babies free healthcare insurance. Texas would have paid for her medical care for her pregnancy, her medical care for her medical conditions, and her life saving medications. For some unknown and unexplained reason she did not participate in that free program that could have possible prevented her and her baby’s untimely death. The state of Texas had help for her and her baby.

She chose to work while seriously ill and forgo taking necessary medication while seriously ill. The state of Texas would have paid for her to have her medication. Texas didn’t fail her, she chose to try to pay for expensive medication out of pocket and couldn’t afford to pay. She chose to continue her pregnancy, a wanted, named, and loved baby. She told her mother she wanted to save the life of her baby above her own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do know that a miscarriage is technically an abortion, right?

And that the procedure to clear a missed miscarriage is also an abortion?

I think people need to be careful using terms like “majority” re: abortion

I think you know what pp was referring to.
Elective abortions... the ones that end a healthy life growing inside a mother.

The problem is that you are attempting to parse words and make the term mean what YOU want it to mean

This is the problem with all debates on this topic. Non-medical professionals inserting themselves into complicated medical situations.

People attempting to define medical terms to fit their definition (and force everyone to accept their definition, against the actual definition) and fit their narrative are intellectually dishonest. They don’t care about the actual definition.

Don’t expect honesty from them on any level. They are incapable of honesty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posit that a sound majority of women would never have an abortion. The rabid abortion advocates need to make it a “simple medical procedure” to downplay the fact that it is an affirmative choice to take action to end the life of the being in one’s womb. Abortions are not equivalent to getting stitches.

Of course most women have never had an abortion and no woman wants to have an abortion. A significant minority (25 percent) had and will have for their own private reasons that are none of your or anyone's business. Look around because you know and likely depend on many women in your life and community that have had an abortion. They would never discuss it with you nor should they.

I look around and see all the alive people who were not aborted, men and women, who have a right to live their lives. No one has a right to take their lives.

You are the one who has no right to impose your judgements on women making decisions about their own bodies. Judge away but you will rightly be ignored. This is not your business. Find something better to so with your time and energy.

The woman we are discussing had a right to be pregnant and choose to stay pregnant and choose the life of her baby. You don’t like her choice, and that’s not okay. Why is the only reproductive choice you support is the right of woman to have an abortion?

The state of Texas didn’t force this woman to become morbidly obese. Texas (and all states) has a program in place to provide all women and their unborn babies free healthcare insurance. Texas would have paid for her medical care for her pregnancy, her medical care for her medical conditions, and her life saving medications. For some unknown and unexplained reason she did not participate in that free program that could have possible prevented her and her baby’s untimely death. The state of Texas had help for her and her baby.

She chose to work while seriously ill and forgo taking necessary medication while seriously ill. The state of Texas would have paid for her to have her medication. Texas didn’t fail her, she chose to try to pay for expensive medication out of pocket and couldn’t afford to pay. She chose to continue her pregnancy, a wanted, named, and loved baby. She told her mother she wanted to save the life of her baby above her own.

Maybe if she had been in the same circumstances in a different state with modern medical standards, she would still be alive today. We can never know but she should have had the best medical advice available. Not advice constrained by lawyers and courts and vigilantes.

How many babies have you birthed? It is a long, difficult, dangerous process. You seem cluless about preganancy and birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pregnancy is also a medical condition and, in some cases, a life threatening one. If it is life threatening, ending the medical condition of pregnancy to save the living human is the best course of action. Until we develop a way to keep zygotes/fetuses growing outside a uterus, these are the decisions that must be made and the already living being should always have precedence until viability.

In which states can a woman not end a pregnancy to save her life?
And, it is important to note that many pregnancies are considered at risk.
Ending a pregnancy when there are challenges should not be the first course of action, especially if the mother does not want it.

And this woman did not want it. Not one of her family members said she wanted to end her baby’s life. Her baby was healthy, named, loved, and wanted. She should have had the medication she needed (which Texas would have paid for, she could have filled her prescriptions for free) and her husband and family should have helped her while she was seriously ill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You do know that a miscarriage is technically an abortion, right?

And that the procedure to clear a missed miscarriage is also an abortion?

I think people need to be careful using terms like “majority” re: abortion

PP - apologies for not adhering to medical terms solely intended to avoid the realities of what an elective abortion is. A choice to take an affirmative action to end the growing life in the uterus that without such action a baby would be born alive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posit that a sound majority of women would never have an abortion. The rabid abortion advocates need to make it a “simple medical procedure” to downplay the fact that it is an affirmative choice to take action to end the life of the being in one’s womb. Abortions are not equivalent to getting stitches.

Of course most women have never had an abortion and no woman wants to have an abortion. A significant minority (25 percent) had and will have for their own private reasons that are none of your or anyone's business. Look around because you know and likely depend on many women in your life and community that have had an abortion. They would never discuss it with you nor should they.

I look around and see all the alive people who were not aborted, men and women, who have a right to live their lives. No one has a right to take their lives.

You are the one who has no right to impose your judgements on women making decisions about their own bodies. Judge away but you will rightly be ignored. This is not your business. Find something better to so with your time and energy.

The woman we are discussing had a right to be pregnant and choose to stay pregnant and choose the life of her baby. You don’t like her choice, and that’s not okay. Why is the only reproductive choice you support is the right of woman to have an abortion?

The state of Texas didn’t force this woman to become morbidly obese. Texas (and all states) has a program in place to provide all women and their unborn babies free healthcare insurance. Texas would have paid for her medical care for her pregnancy, her medical care for her medical conditions, and her life saving medications. For some unknown and unexplained reason she did not participate in that free program that could have possible prevented her and her baby’s untimely death. The state of Texas had help for her and her baby.

She chose to work while seriously ill and forgo taking necessary medication while seriously ill. The state of Texas would have paid for her to have her medication. Texas didn’t fail her, she chose to try to pay for expensive medication out of pocket and couldn’t afford to pay. She chose to continue her pregnancy, a wanted, named, and loved baby. She told her mother she wanted to save the life of her baby above her own.

Maybe if she had been in the same circumstances in a different state with modern medical standards, she would still be alive today. We can never know but she should have had the best medical advice available. Not advice constrained by lawyers and courts and vigilantes.

How many babies have you birthed? It is a long, difficult, dangerous process. You seem cluless about preganancy and birth.

4. Texas has modern medical facilities. This woman chose to live where she lived. Do you want Texas to send Texas Rangers to her home and take her by force to a city so she was close to a bigger hospital?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pregnancy is also a medical condition and, in some cases, a life threatening one. If it is life threatening, ending the medical condition of pregnancy to save the living human is the best course of action. Until we develop a way to keep zygotes/fetuses growing outside a uterus, these are the decisions that must be made and the already living being should always have precedence until viability.

In which states can a woman not end a pregnancy to save her life?
And, it is important to note that many pregnancies are considered at risk.
Ending a pregnancy when there are challenges should not be the first course of action, especially if the mother does not want it.

In which states can a women carry a pregnancy and make decisions about her care with her doctor, not involving lawyers and legislators and courts and vigilantes, etc. Carry your pregnancies in those states ladies if you can. Look to receive modern medical care instead of some backwards, compromised care.

Which is exactly what this woman did.

She lived where she wanted. She was pregnant and wanted to be pregnant.

Yet it’s a problem how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pregnancy is also a medical condition and, in some cases, a life threatening one. If it is life threatening, ending the medical condition of pregnancy to save the living human is the best course of action. Until we develop a way to keep zygotes/fetuses growing outside a uterus, these are the decisions that must be made and the already living being should always have precedence until viability.

In which states can a woman not end a pregnancy to save her life?
And, it is important to note that many pregnancies are considered at risk.
Ending a pregnancy when there are challenges should not be the first course of action, especially if the mother does not want it.

In which states can a women carry a pregnancy and make decisions about her care with her doctor, not involving lawyers and legislators and courts and vigilantes, etc. Carry your pregnancies in those states ladies if you can. Look to receive modern medical care instead of some backwards, compromised care.

Which is exactly what this woman did.

She lived where she wanted. She was pregnant and wanted to be pregnant.

Yet it’s a problem how?

She is dead.

Would she be alive if he care was governed by different laws that allowed for different medical advice and care?

[Anonymous]

Well, “elective” is also a fraught term

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, “elective” is also a fraught term

Birthing children is fraught. You do not need to involve yourself in other women's reproductive decisions. You have your own fraught reproductive journey so concern yourself with that. Your birthing issues are none of my business.