Texas woman with ectopic pregnancy denied abortion

[Jamdoc]

I'm not advocating nothing should be done. If the woman's tube ruptures, the embryo dies, the woman can also die. Its a no win situation. Most pro life organization don't consider removing an ectopic pregnancy to be abortion which is "to intentionally kill that child for no medical reason".

But what research is being done into possible treatment? Nothing.
People would have said freezing embryos was impossible at one stage. Unless something is studied then of course it will always be called impossible.

The other option that should be open to those who would rather take the risk is close monitoring. If the hormones are dropping sometimes the patient will miscarry. Risky yes, but some people would rather take that risk then be wracked for a lifetime of guilt.

But how would you transplant? The woman's body is already telling her she's pregnant, so trying to implant it in the womb wouldn't work, it'd be rejected.

 

[rjs330]

I'm no expert on this issue, not to I pretend to be one on TV or YouTube. It is my understanding that an ectopic pregnancy is not and cannot ever be a viable baby. It will not receive what is necessary to go to term or even to the place where it can survive outside the mother. They typically last only 6-16 weeks. Then it WILL be over. At this point it can also cause life threatening injury to the mother.

I see no reason to outlaw a procedure that removes a fetus that has NO chance of ever being viable and if left alone WILL cause serious damage and injury to the mother.

I am staunchly pro life, but it seems that this is one of those circumstances where it's impossible for the fetus to survive and a circumstance where the mother could die if the fetus is not removed. I am okay creating a specificity in the law to allow abortions for ectopic pregnancies.

And a simple xray or MRI or whatever should be enough proof if any is needed.

 

[chilehed]

So government of the people, by the people, for the people is a monumentally twisted idea?

This kind of response merely proves the intellectual vacuousness of your position.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You're calling everyone who disagrees with you a dishonest liar, simply because they proved you wrong. Hey wow, that was fun. Maybe I should go over to the dark side.

no I’m not, there’s a difference between disagreeing with someone and intentionally misrepresenting them by imposing the most obscure and outrageous interpretation possible for the purpose of discrediting them. That kind of practice is dishonest and we both see it everyday here on CF.

 

[NxNW]

It's an entirely different situation and procedure.

Not at all. It's the termination of a pregnancy.

 

[NxNW]

God had a very simple plan for humanity. A man and a woman become husband and wife and have children. But mankind rebells against this simple plan. People instead get drunk and stoned, hook up with a stranger at a bar or via a hook up website like tinder or grinder and they have drunken stoned one-night-stand sex. Which likely accounts for the majority of abortions performed.

By "likely", you have no supporting data?

 

[jayem]

Also this was part of the original hippocratic oath:

"I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art."
.

Some context is needed. The logic behind this—and behind all of the early laws prohibiting abortion—was to protect the mother. Not the fetus. Up through the 1840s or so, abortion was dangerous. Obstetric procedures were crude, antibiotics didn’t exist, nor did antiseptic surgical technique. Abortion carried a high risk of sepsis and death. Not to mention that in the early 19th century, a fetus wasn’t even thought to be alive until quickening. Which doesn’t usually occur until the 3rd-4th month of pregnancy.

 

[ozso]

Not at all. It's the termination of a pregnancy.

One is the correction of an ectopic pregnancy, which is quite different than an actual pregnancy.

Are you arguing that ectopic pregnancy correction should be banned? Or are you trying to force an all or nothing angle on pro-lifers?

 

[ozso]

By "likely", you have no supporting data?

By "likely" I'm obviously providing supposition. Do you have any data to disprove it?

 

[ozso]

Some context is needed. The logic behind this—and behind all of the early laws prohibiting abortion—was to protect the mother. Not the fetus. Up through the 1840s or so, abortion was dangerous. Obstetric procedures were crude, antibiotics didn’t exist, nor did antiseptic surgical technique. Abortion carried a high risk of sepsis and death. Not to mention that in the early 19th century, a fetus wasn’t even thought to be alive until quickening. Which doesn’t usually occur until the 3rd-4th month of pregnancy.

Currently:

Potential risks of medical abortion include:

• Heavy and prolonged bleeding.
• Infection.
• Fever.

Medical abortion - Mayo Clinic

 

[TLK Valentine]

Currently:

Potential risks of medical abortion include:

• Heavy and prolonged bleeding.
• Infection.
• Fever.

Medical abortion - Mayo Clinic

Potential risks of unwanted children include:

• ostracizing
• abuse
• being abandoned in a dumpster

 

[NxNW]

One is the correction of an ectopic pregnancy, which is quite different than an actual pregnancy.

By correction, you mean abortion.

Are you arguing that ectopic pregnancy correction should be banned?

No, that's the right saying that.

Or are you trying to force an all or nothing angle on pro-lifers?

No, the right are the ones saying "nothing".

 

[NxNW]

By "likely" I'm obviously providing supposition. Do you have any data to disprove it?

As long as you admit it's sheer speculation, I'm fine with letting it sit there in all its glory.

 

[jayem]

Currently:

Potential risks of medical abortion include:

• Heavy and prolonged bleeding.
• Infection.
• Fever.

Medical abortion - Mayo Clinic

A 2012 study from the OB-GYN Dept. at the Univ. of North Carolina med school. The full article is behind a pay wall. Here's the abstract:

Objective: To assess the safety of abortion compared with childbirth.

Methods: We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions in the United States in 1998-2005. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, birth certificates, and Guttmacher Institute surveys. In addition, we searched for population-based data comparing the morbidity of abortion and childbirth.

Results: The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.

Conclusion: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.


The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States - PubMed

 

[jayem]

And a simple xray or MRI or whatever should be enough proof if any is needed.

Just for the record, plain X-rays don't work well for abdominal or pelvic conditions. Soft tissues don't show details. MRI's can work, but the time a patient must be in the scanner is longer, and the natural contractions of the small and large bowel interfere with the image. The preferred way to diagnose ectopic pregnancy is with transvaginal ultrasound.

 

[ozso]

Potential risks of unwanted children include:

• ostracizing
• abuse
• being abandoned in a dumpster

So kill them? How about all the kids in regions with severe poverty? Or kids working in sweat shops? Same solution?

 

[ozso]

By correction, you mean abortion.

Nope. However you're entitled to call it whatever you want.

No, that's the right saying that.

Can you provide a quote from the right saying that?

No, the right are the ones saying "nothing".

See above.

 

[ozso]

As long as you admit it's sheer speculation, I'm fine with letting it sit there in all its glory.

So do you agree or disagree that it's likely?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So kill them? How about all the kids in regions with severe poverty? Or kids working in sweat shops? Same solution?

Different solution for a different problem. Those children are unquestionably full human beings.

The only people who consider a fetus to be human are your God and a few state legislatures... and I'm under no obligation to take either of them seriously.

 

[ozso]

Different solution for a different problem. Those children are unquestionably full human beings.

The only people who consider a fetus to be human are your God and a few state legislatures... and I'm under no obligation to take either of them seriously.

Based on what you said, it seems to me any kid who will be born into poverty or some other unpleasant environment or situation, should have their life taken away before they're born, to spare them. Is it only children who will born into ideal circumstances who should be born?

What about all the people who are happy adults even though they had bad childhoods? Do you think they would say they wish they had been aborted and had that future taken away from them?

Would all of the 17,020,000 million children who have been aborted so far this year, at this time, have had bad childhoods and no promising future?

Also as to ending up in a dumpster, isn't that pretty much happens to aborted babies?

TLK Valentine said: ↑
Potential risks of unwanted children include:

• ostracizing
• abuse
• being abandoned in a dumpster