Reply to Roe v Wade struck down

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Roe v Wade struck down"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][twitter]https://x.com/tessastuart/status/1849467400573387115?s=46&t=kf1qYlCXQnKgUhJWEIu2vg[/twitter]
[twitter]https://x.com/tessastuart/status/1849470122638909678?s=46&t=kf1qYlCXQnKgUhJWEIu2vg[/twitter][/quote]
And the couple was strapped with [b]$40,000 in medical bills.[/b][/quote]
And she never wants to get pregnant again for fear of this happening again, or something else terrible.

I read this whole article and had tears rolling down my face. My first was four when we took her to my second’s 20-week scan, and we discovered he only had one kidney. We were beside ourselves with worry and it ruined the next few weeks for us. He was fine, this is common, and he’s fine now. But for this couple to have done the same thing as we did and find no kidneys - Potter Syndrome - and have that only be the beginning of what will be a years-long nightmare - it’s unconscionable.[/quote]

Sorry, I just can’t get behind how a late term abortion would have made this situation better.  The baby, after 24 weeks, has to get an injection through the mother’s abdomen, directly into their heart to kill them. Then over the course of a couple days, the woman is dilated and induced and, if necessary, the baby is dismembered to fully remove.  Euthanatizing (and possibly) cutting apart a baby is just a no for me.  If the baby had a poor prognosis, its born and comfort care is given so the baby isn’t suffering.  If it isn’t legal to euthanize a live baby after birth, it shouldn’t be legal to do that to a viable fetus in utero. [/quote]

Explain to me how a baby that has NO kidneys is viable.

The medical diagnosis:
[url]https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/cy/renalagenesis.html#:~:text=It%20is%20often%20detected%20on,live%20only%20a%20few%20hours.[/url]
[quote]When both kidneys are absent this condition is not compatible with life. 40% of babies with bilateral renal agenesis will be stillborn, and if born alive, the baby will live only a few hours. [/quote]

Meanwhile, the baby and the continuation of the pregnancy poses several health risks to the mother.  And the parents accumulated $40K of medical expenses after the point where the diagnosis was made.  So, the mother had to endure over 3 months of health risks and additional cost for a baby that, at best, would have survived a few hours, post birth.  If the parents, and especially, the mother, did not want to go through with that, why should some lawyers and politicians with no medical training have any say in her terminating that pregnancy?  Because Florida banned her from having the pregnancy.  She said that she and her husband did not have the money to travel out-of-state for an abortion.  So instead, they were tagged with $40K of medical expenses.  The only reason that they didn't lose their home and everything is because of the charity of strangers.  Some reporters found her story, told it and were able to raise money through on-line giving to allow them to make payments on their medical expenses.  They will be paying for this for years.  Meanwhile, they will have to skimp and cut corners just to make ends meet for them and their already 4-year old son.  She works as a instacart driver and her husband has a low paying job at an insurance company.[/quote]

I forgot to add that the baby survived for 94 minutes after birth and the family underwent significant trauma over the additional 13 months she had to carry this non-viable baby including the trauma to their 4 year old son.[/quote]
Yeah it’s like the ghouls on this thread didn’t even read the article.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics