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][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]

You have it backwards.  Killing the baby in the 2nd trimester is far more compassionate to the baby.  The baby was diagnosed with a fatal defect that would allow it to live just a few hours AT MOST after birth.  In the womb, the baby can be given the injection that will kill it quickly and without suffering.  Instead, this stupid law has the baby continue to gestate for 13 more weeks, during which, it has no kidneys and no amniotic fluid.  There is no medical evidence that a baby that is gestating without amniotic fluid is not suffering.  And being born for 94 minutes with a body that cannot sustain life while the body fills with toxins that the non-existent kidneys cannot filter out of the body.  So, essentially it is born, and is slowly poisoned to death 94 minutes instead of having an injection that kills it within single minutes.

This stupid law forces the family into financial hardship, forces them to endure the trauma of knowing the mother is carrying a dying baby and that a child has to watch their sibling growing in their mother and that it dies when it was born rather than dying before it was born.  And the mother is at risk for many health conditions due to carrying the baby, ones that she might avoid had she had the D&C 13 weeks earlier.  And finally, the family sustained $40K worth of unnecessary medical expenses that they would not have incurred.  Had it not been for the generosity of strangers on the Internet, this family would have lost their home and been cast into poverty and possibly bankruptcy with no way to recover due to the bills.  They couldn't afford to travel out of state to get an abortion, they definitely could not afford $40K worth of medical expenses.

So, your logic caused the worst of both worlds.  The terrible situation for the family AND the suffering of the baby that you thought would be avoided.  You're either heartless, cruel, or both.[/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