I was wrong... the health of the mother is not valid for an abortion.

[Lysistrata]

The government should not have any role whatsoever in telling a person what to do with her body. One of my best and most loved friends is a Type 1 diabetic. Finding herself pregnant on an IUD, she, probably in consultation with her husband, chose to carry the pregnancy to term even though her doctors advised against it, with several months of her being confined to bed and a harrowing and dangerous birth experience. She could have died. No level of government, and no cult strangers, should have any role in these decisions.

I remember reading a piece written by a guy who had to escort his wife to have an abortion and the harassment that they endured together and the pain that they suffered together. They both had wanted a child, but the fetus that his wife was carrying inside her had no brain.

The Irish people voted for a change in the abortion laws in the Republic of Ireland after a woman died because her doctors refused to abort her pregnancy.

No government has the right to interfere with private decisions.

 

[pknopp]

Abortion isn't the only way lives are taken.

It is by far the largest cause of death.

Perhaps so but it's kinda hypocritical to only care about one cause. Especially if you are a supporter of other causes.

 

[Penelope]

Abortion isn't the only way lives are taken.

It is by far the largest cause of death.

A link is in order for that assumption. Please provide one.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Maybe we need to stop letting men tell women what to do with their bodies... that would be awesome.

Abortion on demand and paid for by the government.

If abortion were about the woman's body who has one, then she'd be the one who dies when an abortion is successfully performed.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Perhaps so but it's kinda hypocritical to only care about one cause. Especially if you are a supporter of other causes.

And it's kind of dishonest to suggest that because, in a discussion about one specific cause of death, that I am only talking about that cause of death, that I must be in favor of other causes of death.

But then that's what is to be expected of your kind.

 

[progressive hunter]

Everyone knows what happens in a late term abortion. The baby is rotated inside the mother's womb to cause a "breach birth" where the feet emerge first. It has to be painful and dangerous and there is no medical reason for it. When Clinton vetoed the late term abortion bill he paraded a lineup of women who claimed that their health was in jeopardy but that can't be true. You don't need to have a medical degree to determine that a "normal" birth would have saved the baby's life and would have been easier and less dangerous for the mother. How can anyone defend the late term abortion procedure from a medical standpoint?

No one has a late term abortion except for a women who really wants to birth a live infant. Also there are few of them.

13K a year doesnt sound like a few

Nearly 13,000 late-term abortions annually is a national disgrace

Don't tell Coyote, she insists that since liberal states all claim 24 weeks none of that happens, the truth is in liberal states the law allows an abortion doctor to determine WHEN it is ok meaning 13000 late term abortions.

If youre not going to help pay for the unwanted child then mind your own business.

some of us are willing,,

and glad to see you understand that it is a child youre killing

 

[pknopp]

Perhaps so but it's kinda hypocritical to only care about one cause. Especially if you are a supporter of other causes.

And it's kind of dishonest to suggest that because, in a discussion about one specific cause of death, that I am only talking about that cause of death, that I must be in favor of other causes of death.

But then that's what is to be expected of your kind.

Mine was a question not an accusation. My kind? I'm pro-life but that includes all lives.

 

[healthmyths]

The government should not have any role whatsoever in telling a person what to do with her body. One of my best and most loved friends is a Type 1 diabetic. Finding herself pregnant on an IUD, she, probably in consultation with her husband, chose to carry the pregnancy to term even though her doctors advised against it, with several months of her being confined to bed and a harrowing and dangerous birth experience. She could have died. No level of government, and no cult strangers, should have any role in these decisions.

I remember reading a piece written by a guy who had to escort his wife to have an abortion and the harassment that they endured together and the pain that they suffered together. They both had wanted a child, but the fetus that his wife was carrying inside her had no brain.

The Irish people voted for a change in the abortion laws in the Republic of Ireland after a woman died because her doctors refused to abort her pregnancy.

No government has the right to interfere with private decisions.

So no government has the right to protect a life after birth?

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Murdering an innocent child is certainly no answer.

Its illegal in all 50 states to murder a child.

That depends on your definition of 'child'...….. Most mothers & society refer to the 'thing' growing inside them during pregnancy as their baby and/or unborn child. Federal law allows the murder of unborn children up to birth, though all states have their own laws pertaining to which month or stage of pregnancy is legal to murder/abort that child.

So yeah, it is LEGAL to murder a child in all 50 states.

So your for funding Title X and free condoms and free BC pills for everyone. You must be all for Medicaid, and the health of the mother and child.

You want universal healthcare, I agree, everyone should have health ins. free. Since only healthy parents have healthy children.

How many republican's have abortion? Have you figured that out, how many rich woman go in and have a D & C and abort?? Have you figured that out yet.

I have no clue what TF you are babbling about there...…...I responded to your comment 'It's illegal in all 50 states to murder a child'.....by explaining that it IS legal.

Has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare, free condoms, Medicaid or just WHO is doing the murdering. If YOU want to know that, YOU figure it out yourself.

So your for funding Title X and free condoms and free BC pills for everyone. You must be all for Medicaid, and the health of the mother and child.

You want universal healthcare, I agree, everyone should have health ins. free. Since only healthy parents have healthy children. (maternal morbidity and infant survival is lowest in the US in the developed countries) and its lowest for blacks.

How many republican's have abortion? Have you figured that out, how many rich woman go in and have a D & C and abort?? Have you figured that out yet?

You think its ok to interfere between and the female and the doctor, and infants can live on vents, and when they take the infant home you will provide around the clock care so the mother can then watch her child on a vent. and feeding tubes.

I guess many on this thread are worried about the health of a infant , and they want to pay for them to have free universal care for life, because healthy adults have healthy kids, usually.
I agree, we should have free universal healthcare, and pass about condoms and BC pills freely.

And left to the creator spontaneous abortions happens for the child (as you called it) that are genetically faulty.

And yet tramp and his republicans want to cut Medicaid and ban abortions.

It has everything to do with healthcare in the US.

So you think it's an atrocity for the government to make the choice in regards to abortion...…...yet support Universal Healthcare allowing said government to make the choice of care???

You have no clue what I support, or don't so stop projecting otherwise.

Universal healthcare??? My personal opinion is a bit more complicated & not so cut & dried as you might think. Our healthcare system and all phases of it, suck. Money is the motivator to level of care, and costs associated with it. I've been on Medicaid, had private insurance, self pay and even went without any care and am currently on Medicare so I've had some experience with all levels and the differences. The farther down the ladder you are, the least amount of choices are available to you because it all depends on what you are covered for as to what level of treatment you'll get...…...with the one exception of cancer and that's because it's a big moneymaker for all involved. IMO.

1. Self pay or no coverage......is self explanatory. Either you pay all costs of care out of pocket that the providers charge, OR you have no care at all

2. Private insurance...with or without a contract to providers, pays up to 100% of costs charged and you pay anything they don't, plus the premiums to have that coverage and for that cost, you have more options for what level of care or treatments available. But not all providers accept your insurance, unless it's an emergency and your only option.

3. Both Medicaid & Medicare contract with providers to pay lower costs (about 2/3 of actual costs in most cases but that's just a guesstimate as it is much lower than actual). Again, not all providers accept one or both of these coverages or those that do will limit the number of patients. The providers will only provide 'bottom of the barrel' level of care based on that coverage, so your options of Dr/facility, treatment, etc are limited. With Medicaid, all costs are paid for based on government choices of the care you receive. With Medicare, you have the cost of premiums, copays, deductibles and other costs, but still at the mercy of government choices, just with a few more options than Medicaid.

IOW......the more you or your provider will pay, the more options you have for getting the care you need...…..with Medicare for all, the government will make ALL the choices for your care.....NOT you. So if you are PRO_CHOICE,, that may be something else to consider besides life or death of an unwanted pregnancy because the lack of available choices (not necessarily lack of actual treatments, just what they will provide) in your care can very well include life or death for you or loved one.



As for abortion????? Well that also depends...….Sure I support Pro-Life as I think to abort or kill an innocent baby is wrong......but I can also see the other side of that same coin too. I don't agree with mid or late term abortions, but those numbers are few and even fewer in the later stages. The majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. Rape or incest or health or life of the mother.....ok.. I'd even go so far to include 'a wild night gone too far'.....and I am glad for medical professionals to perform the procedures instead of coat hangers or dirty back street fake Dr's……….but I don't support having multiple abortions to replace birth control. If you're going to be sexually active and don't want a baby, then do something about it beforehand to prevent it.
And there again includes choices...…….why isn't abstinence, birth control methods, adoption, etc included in the choices available? If you're all about choices, make sure ALL choices are made known......not just LIFE OR DEATH.

I've also known a few that have been pregnant and considered abortion. For whatever reasons they ended up carrying to full term and giving birth......at which point they chose to keep the baby...….something to do with that 'motherly instinct' kicking in and are so glad they didn't abort and became great Moms.


Choices? When you talk about and demand choices......then make sure you include ALL choices, not just the ones you can build an argument from.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Watching Schumer threaten SCOTUS judges if they rule against Roe VS Wade made me wonder about my own knowledge regarding my position... abortion OK only in case of health of money, rape or incest.
I am wrong!
Even in 1981, former Surgeon General of the United States Dr. C. Everett Koop said, “The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.”

But as former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino has affirmed on the record:
During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.
What Percentage of Abortions Are Medically Necessary?

But the biased MSM has never shared that with us.
Consequently since 1973 over 61,781,054 lives were destroyed.
Think about that...what baby among those 62 million could have discovered cures for cancer? Or made other fantastic contributions...all because a woman wasn't responsible enough.
Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

Just consider that: 46% of all abortions were performed on women who had one or more abortions before!
Think about it... There is an excuse for first timers... but 2nd, or 3 or more previous abortions?

Planned Parenthood Turns 99 Today: Has Killed 7 Million Babies in Abortions

Are you a male or female, I bet a male.

I was originally ok with abortions in case of mother's health, rape or incest, based on the statistics, the murder of a person
that was NOT going to affect a woman's health is wrong.
Then I find out that really DUMB women who already had a 2nd or 3rd abortion?
That is shear murder because the women couldn't say NO!
It was evidently OK for a few moments of pleasure to terminate an especially innocent baby.
That makes my sex irrelevant.
But what is more relevant is you approve of dumb women who have already had abortions? That is shear stupidity on theirs and your part!

To me a fertilized egg is not yet a human being, any more than a blueprint is a house. A baby at birth is a person and has the right to live. Somewhere between those two extremes is a line where abortions (except in very rare cases) should be banned. I'm not sure where that line is but it is our brains that make us different from any other animal, a heart is just not the same. Once that brain truly begins to function, that is a person. IMHO of course.

As I've heard, a baby isn't viable until the 7th month when a chemical is release into the lungs so they can expand upon birth. That's the line in my opinion. Third trimester is off limits. The baby can survive on its own and is viable.

So now we're deciding scientific questions based on your opinion? May I ask why? Who the hell are you, that your opinion should matter on this?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Watching Schumer threaten SCOTUS judges if they rule against Roe VS Wade made me wonder about my own knowledge regarding my position... abortion OK only in case of health of money, rape or incest.
I am wrong!
Even in 1981, former Surgeon General of the United States Dr. C. Everett Koop said, “The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.”

But as former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino has affirmed on the record:
During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.
What Percentage of Abortions Are Medically Necessary?

But the biased MSM has never shared that with us.
Consequently since 1973 over 61,781,054 lives were destroyed.
Think about that...what baby among those 62 million could have discovered cures for cancer? Or made other fantastic contributions...all because a woman wasn't responsible enough.
Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

Just consider that: 46% of all abortions were performed on women who had one or more abortions before!
Think about it... There is an excuse for first timers... but 2nd, or 3 or more previous abortions?

Planned Parenthood Turns 99 Today: Has Killed 7 Million Babies in Abortions

Are you a male or female, I bet a male.

I was originally ok with abortions in case of mother's health, rape or incest, based on the statistics, the murder of a person
that was NOT going to affect a woman's health is wrong.
Then I find out that really DUMB women who already had a 2nd or 3rd abortion?
That is shear murder because the women couldn't say NO!
It was evidently OK for a few moments of pleasure to terminate an especially innocent baby.
That makes my sex irrelevant.
But what is more relevant is you approve of dumb women who have already had abortions? That is shear stupidity on theirs and your part!

To me a fertilized egg is not yet a human being, any more than a blueprint is a house. A baby at birth is a person and has the right to live. Somewhere between those two extremes is a line where abortions (except in very rare cases) should be banned. I'm not sure where that line is but it is our brains that make us different from any other animal, a heart is just not the same. Once that brain truly begins to function, that is a person. IMHO of course.

As I've heard, a baby isn't viable until the 7th month when a chemical is release into the lungs so they can expand upon birth. That's the line in my opinion. Third trimester is off limits. The baby can survive on its own and is viable.

7 months? So premature babies born at 6 months aren't "viable"? What is your definition of "viable"? Should premature babies be killed?

Let's not forget that pro-aborts - being the least-educated, least-scientific people on Earth - are utterly misunderstanding and misusing the word "viable".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you a male or female, I bet a male.

I was originally ok with abortions in case of mother's health, rape or incest, based on the statistics, the murder of a person
that was NOT going to affect a woman's health is wrong.
Then I find out that really DUMB women who already had a 2nd or 3rd abortion?
That is shear murder because the women couldn't say NO!
It was evidently OK for a few moments of pleasure to terminate an especially innocent baby.
That makes my sex irrelevant.
But what is more relevant is you approve of dumb women who have already had abortions? That is shear stupidity on theirs and your part!

To me a fertilized egg is not yet a human being, any more than a blueprint is a house. A baby at birth is a person and has the right to live. Somewhere between those two extremes is a line where abortions (except in very rare cases) should be banned. I'm not sure where that line is but it is our brains that make us different from any other animal, a heart is just not the same. Once that brain truly begins to function, that is a person. IMHO of course.

As I've heard, a baby isn't viable until the 7th month when a chemical is release into the lungs so they can expand upon birth. That's the line in my opinion. Third trimester is off limits. The baby can survive on its own and is viable.

a newborn isnt viable and cant survive on its own without help from others,,,

You're being purposefully ignorant. That's the fucking worst of humanity in a civil discussion. You know I'm referring to the fetus surviving outside the mother womb. Don't be such an asshole.

No, YOU are being unintentionally ignorant, and expecting everyone else to let your ignorance be the parameters of the argument.

You're just gonna have to live with the fact that the debate is going to center around educating you on what you don't know.

Don't be an idiot, and people won't have to be assholes about it.

 

[Coyote]

Giving birth has a higher mortality rate in this country, then abortion. By far

That's a flat-out lie, and you know it.

Every successful abortion results in the death of an innocent child. That's a 100% mortality rate.

The vast majority of live births do not.

No. It is the truth. We are talking about maternity mortality rates. They have been been going up in this country and are much higher than for abortions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you a male or female, I bet a male.

I was originally ok with abortions in case of mother's health, rape or incest, based on the statistics, the murder of a person
that was NOT going to affect a woman's health is wrong.
Then I find out that really DUMB women who already had a 2nd or 3rd abortion?
That is shear murder because the women couldn't say NO!
It was evidently OK for a few moments of pleasure to terminate an especially innocent baby.
That makes my sex irrelevant.
But what is more relevant is you approve of dumb women who have already had abortions? That is shear stupidity on theirs and your part!

To me a fertilized egg is not yet a human being, any more than a blueprint is a house. A baby at birth is a person and has the right to live. Somewhere between those two extremes is a line where abortions (except in very rare cases) should be banned. I'm not sure where that line is but it is our brains that make us different from any other animal, a heart is just not the same. Once that brain truly begins to function, that is a person. IMHO of course.

As I've heard, a baby isn't viable until the 7th month when a chemical is release into the lungs so they can expand upon birth. That's the line in my opinion. Third trimester is off limits. The baby can survive on its own and is viable.

7 months? So premature babies born at 6 months aren't "viable"? What is your definition of "viable"? Should premature babies be killed?

I'm not speaking of premature births. Don't be a fucking idiot on purpose. I"m speaking of purposefully removing the fetus from the womb in a procedure which is called abortion.

You fucking people are stupid. Seriously. You think that kind of response is going to even begin to fly? Wake the fuck up.

Hey, genius. YOU were the one who set "the line" at "the baby is viable at 7 months". Don't blame US if you forgot the add "the baby isn't viable until 7 months . . . unless he is, in which case fuck what I said."

And calling people stupid for pointing out where you're wrong instead of letting your errors stand isn't going to fly, so wake the fuck up AND plug your fucking brain in.

 

[progressive hunter]

Giving birth has a higher mortality rate in this country, then abortion. By far

That's a flat-out lie, and you know it.

Every successful abortion results in the death of an innocent child. That's a 100% mortality rate.

The vast majority of live births do not.

No. It is the truth. We are talking about maternity mortality rates. They have been been going up in this country and are much higher than for abortions.

sweetie abortions have a 100% mortality rate,,,

 

[Cecilie1200]

To me a fertilized egg is not yet a human being, any more than a blueprint is a house. A baby at birth is a person and has the right to live. Somewhere between those two extremes is a line where abortions (except in very rare cases) should be banned. I'm not sure where that line is but it is our brains that make us different from any other animal, a heart is just not the same. Once that brain truly begins to function, that is a person. IMHO of course.

As I've heard, a baby isn't viable until the 7th month when a chemical is release into the lungs so they can expand upon birth. That's the line in my opinion. Third trimester is off limits. The baby can survive on its own and is viable.

a newborn isnt viable and cant survive on its own without help from others,,,

You're being purposefully ignorant. That's the fucking worst of humanity in a civil discussion. You know I'm referring to the fetus surviving outside the mother womb. Don't be such an asshole.

whats ignorant???

a newborn cant survive outside the mother without help,,,

Is that within the scope of discussion? You seriously can't be that stupid, are you? We're talking about abortion which has nothing to do with what happens after the birth of the baby and it lives. Fuck you're dumb.

"We're talking about killing babies before they're born, which has nothing to do with babies that are born. You're so dumb to think they can be compared."

Fuck, you're brainwashed.

 

[Coyote]

Everyone knows what happens in a late term abortion. The baby is rotated inside the mother's womb to cause a "breach birth" where the feet emerge first. It has to be painful and dangerous and there is no medical reason for it. When Clinton vetoed the late term abortion bill he paraded a lineup of women who claimed that their health was in jeopardy but that can't be true. You don't need to have a medical degree to determine that a "normal" birth would have saved the baby's life and would have been easier and less dangerous for the mother. How can anyone defend the late term abortion procedure from a medical standpoint?

Late term abortions are rare, strictly regulated and almost always for the mother's life, serious health issues, or severe fetal deformities.



What is indefensible about that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

a newborn isnt viable and cant survive on its own without help from others,,,

You're being purposefully ignorant. That's the fucking worst of humanity in a civil discussion. You know I'm referring to the fetus surviving outside the mother womb. Don't be such an asshole.

whats ignorant???

a newborn cant survive outside the mother without help,,,

Is that within the scope of discussion? You seriously can't be that stupid, are you? We're talking about abortion which has nothing to do with what happens after the birth of the baby and it lives. Fuck you're dumb.

dont be such a bitchy asshole and accept facts when they are presented,,

Your facts are useless to moving the discussion forward. You are a troll and like to throw wrenches into a discussion. Probably because you are a narcissist and love getting the attention that your point has validity. But it is, none the less, completely useless.

"Don't give me facts. Facts make you a troll. How dare you think you get a say in what the topic is?!"

 

[progressive hunter]

Everyone knows what happens in a late term abortion. The baby is rotated inside the mother's womb to cause a "breach birth" where the feet emerge first. It has to be painful and dangerous and there is no medical reason for it. When Clinton vetoed the late term abortion bill he paraded a lineup of women who claimed that their health was in jeopardy but that can't be true. You don't need to have a medical degree to determine that a "normal" birth would have saved the baby's life and would have been easier and less dangerous for the mother. How can anyone defend the late term abortion procedure from a medical standpoint?

Late term abortions are rare, strictly regulated and almost always for the mother's life, serious health issues, or severe fetal deformities.



What is indefensible about that?

13K a yr isnt rare and seldom about the mothers life,,,

 

[Cecilie1200]

dont be such a bitchy asshole and accept facts when they are presented,,

Your facts are useless to moving the discussion forward. You are a troll and like to throw wrenches into a discussion. Probably because you are a narcissist and love getting the attention that your point has validity. But it is, none the less, completely useless.

my god youre a whiny little bitch,,,

my point is there is no time when its OK to murder an innocent child,,,

Which has nothing to do with the point I made.

it has everything to do with it,,,

Look, asshole, you're the one that decided to expand the goal posts to include newborn infants That isn't what this discussion is about. Why don't you go start a thread about killing newborns. That's a completely different topic.

Look, asshole. Just because you want to decide that abortions have nothing to do with babies doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to go along with that. Why don't you go join a nice knitting message board if you can't handle hearing opposing viewpoints? This board, and this topic, are clearly beyond your level.