Anti abortion people-Should this woman have been allowed to have an abortion

[THE_DEVIL]

Taken from a facebook page of a friends friend-

Well as a lot of you know....Tanner and I found out I was pregnant a week or so ago. This week I was 5 weeks along.

I had labs done and they came back abnormal, so I had an ultrasound done yesterday to find out why. This scan showed that I had ANOTHER ectopic pregnancy....this time in my left Fallopian tube...

I went in for surgery today to try and remove the pregnancy with hopes to save the tube.

Unfortunately my Dr said this was the biggest dilated tube she had seen without it bursting...she had to remove the entire left tube. She said if we would have waited, it would have burst and there was so much blood pooling that It would have been fatal for me.

As most of you know, my right Fallopian tube was removed in November 2014 for an ectopic pregnancy. So where does this leave us you ask?

1) We are able to have our own biological child if we choose to go through Invitro ($10,000 per time with no help from insurance) -or-
2) adoption -or-
3) possible surrogacy---which we have had offers from family members who would do it.

As of now we are extremely disappointed, upset, confused, etc. we are not sure what we will do. I have always wanted to adopt...and we are beyond blessed to have Meiya who is our HEALHY, beautiful, biological daughter....but of course we wanted more of our own...

Now is the time to pray and pray hard on what route God has planned for us. I hope I can get a clear answer....this is definitely the most devastating day of my life....

 

[Tenacious E]

Not a medical expert but from that post it would appear that the life of the mother was in jeopardy and the baby would never survive because it was implanted I the wrong body part?

 

[93hawkeye]

What is the point of the OP's question? Death to baby due to abortion is horrible. Death to baby and mom due to untreated ectopic pregnancy is doubly horrible.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

did they remove the tube gently so they did not damage the expensive baby body parts so that the doctor could sell them to buy a lambo?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Yes, she should have been allowed. Is this your attempt at a gotcha? Does every abortion match this particular case? No? Well, then you've proven nothing then.

The problem with you pro-choice types, is that you hinge everything on disaster, and completely ignore the irresponsibility and that lack of respect for life once it has began.

You act like the pro-lifers are the problem, when they are simply arguing for what you yourself have become.

You're twisted up by the system and it's PC nature, that you fail to realize how inhumane you've become.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

What is the point of the OP's question? Death to baby due to abortion is horrible. Death to baby and mom due to untreated ectopic pregnancy is doubly horrible.

Exactly, this was a poor attempt at justification of the Margaret Sanger brigade of human cleansing disguised as a march for womens rights.

 

[thewop]

What is the point of the OP's question? Death to baby due to abortion is horrible. Death to baby and mom due to untreated ectopic pregnancy is doubly horrible.

Agree, horrible is better than doubly horrible, and when that's all that's available, take horrible.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Agree, horrible is better than doubly horrible, and when that's all that's available, take horrible.

Yes, but this is a common sense, has to happen type of deal. OP is trying to use this as a justification for abortion in general. That's not abortion IMO, that's a very unfortunate situation. Keep in mind, the woman is TRYING to have a baby.
She's not some ho, that forgot that her trap springs babies, when you stick the baby potion stick into it.

 

[Joes Place]

Not a medical expert but from that post it would appear that the life of the mother was in jeopardy and the baby would never survive because it was implanted I the wrong body part?

I agree.

But on the topic of abortion and 'life/health of the mother', where do you draw the line for risk? Does the government get to decide how much risk you and your wife must accept to get a 'legal' abortion?

Does it need to be 50/50? 60% chance of survival? 70? 90?

Different people will have different answers, and some religious folks will be ok with higher risks and 'putting it in God's hands'; others will say 'No, I don't even want a one-in-10 or one-in-20 chance my wife dies'. For others, it may be 1:100 or an even lower level of risk they are willing to accept.

So, if one of the 'outs' for getting a legal abortion is 'risk to the mother's health', what do we decide for other people as an acceptable risk level?

 

[BABiscuit]

She claims her life was in danger. According to Phantom, usually the woman and doctor are just making that up to ease the restrictions on abortions.

 

[thewop]

Yes, but this is a common sense, has to happen type of deal. OP is trying to use this as a justification for abortion in general. That's not abortion IMO, that's a very unfortunate situation. Keep in mind, the woman is TRYING to have a baby.
She's not some ho, that forgot that her trap springs babies, when you stick the baby potion stick into it.

Teen pregnancy would go down if the accepted term was "baby potion stick"

 

[Lone Clone]

I'm not anti-abortion in general, but this example puzzles me. It's an ectopic pregnancy, right? So a birth isn't possible, and the mother's life is threatened, right?

A better question for the OP might have been: Does anybody think the procedure described here should be illegal? I doubt if even Rick Santorum would answer "yes."

 

[HawktimusPrime]

I agree.

But on the topic of abortion and 'life/health of the mother', where do you draw the line for risk? Does the government get to decide how much risk you and your wife must accept to get a 'legal' abortion?

Does it need to be 50/50? 60% chance of survival? 70? 90?

Different people will have different answers, and some religious folks will be ok with higher risks and 'putting it in God's hands'; others will say 'No, I don't even want a one-in-10 or one-in-20 chance my wife dies'. For others, it may be 1:100 or an even lower level of risk they are willing to accept.

So, if one of the 'outs' for getting a legal abortion is 'risk to the mother's health', what do we decide for other people as an acceptable risk level?

You don't decide anything, there is no we in that decision. Personal freedom side of this argument goes both ways.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

She claims her life was in danger. According to Phantom, usually the woman and doctor are just making that up to ease the restrictions on abortions.

That's a typical lib response. Always trying to dramatize in order to continue killing babies. It's no different than when the cons use drama to kill foreigners.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I'm not anti-abortion in general, but this example puzzles me. It's an ectopic pregnancy, right? So a birth isn't possible, and the mother's life is threatened, right?

A better question for the OP might have been: Does anybody think the procedure described here should be illegal? I doubt if even Rick Santorum would answer "yes."

This it's open and shut. . . You are talking about something that not only endangers the mother's life but also would be impossible for the child to survive.

Typically they don't even call it an abortion in that circumstance.

Silly question

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

She claims her life was in danger. According to Phantom, usually the woman and doctor are just making that up to ease the restrictions on abortions.

I believe that it occurs where they act like the risks are much greater then they actually are in order to do that. However Eptopic is not one of those cases. It's pretty much fatal for both mother and child 100% of the time if there is no intervention.

 

[Joes Place]

You don't decide anything, there is no we in that decision. Personal freedom side of this argument goes both ways.

There absolutely is a 'we' in that decision as soon as you have legislators passing laws restricting abortions 'except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk'.

 

[Tenacious E]

I agree.

But on the topic of abortion and 'life/health of the mother', where do you draw the line for risk? Does the government get to decide how much risk you and your wife must accept to get a 'legal' abortion?

Does it need to be 50/50? 60% chance of survival? 70? 90?

Different people will have different answers, and some religious folks will be ok with higher risks and 'putting it in God's hands'; others will say 'No, I don't even want a one-in-10 or one-in-20 chance my wife dies'. For others, it may be 1:100 or an even lower level of risk they are willing to accept.

So, if one of the 'outs' for getting a legal abortion is 'risk to the mother's health', what do we decide for other people as an acceptable risk level?

That is the trick I suppose. On one end of the spectrum is the killing of a perfectly healthy baby when there is no risk to the mother other than those attendant to normal childbirth. On the other end of the spectrum is this case. I'm not sure there is a bright line, but one end of the spectrum does not justify the other, imo.

 

[Titanhawk2]

Taken from a facebook page of a friends friend-

Well as a lot of you know....Tanner and I found out I was pregnant a week or so ago. This week I was 5 weeks along.

I had labs done and they came back abnormal, so I had an ultrasound done yesterday to find out why. This scan showed that I had ANOTHER ectopic pregnancy....this time in my left Fallopian tube...

I went in for surgery today to try and remove the pregnancy with hopes to save the tube.

Unfortunately my Dr said this was the biggest dilated tube she had seen without it bursting...she had to remove the entire left tube. She said if we would have waited, it would have burst and there was so much blood pooling that It would have been fatal for me.

As most of you know, my right Fallopian tube was removed in November 2014 for an ectopic pregnancy. So where does this leave us you ask?

1) We are able to have our own biological child if we choose to go through Invitro ($10,000 per time with no help from insurance) -or-
2) adoption -or-
3) possible surrogacy---which we have had offers from family members who would do it.

As of now we are extremely disappointed, upset, confused, etc. we are not sure what we will do. I have always wanted to adopt...and we are beyond blessed to have Meiya who is our HEALHY, beautiful, biological daughter....but of course we wanted more of our own...

Now is the time to pray and pray hard on what route God has planned for us. I hope I can get a clear answer....this is definitely the most devastating day of my life....

Why is it necessary to compare true health issues to having medical procedures done for convenience?

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Why is it necessary to compare true health issues to having medical procedures done for convenience?

Because there are a whole lot of people from the right side of the spectrum that are trying to ban abortions all together. They have been trying and are having success at this very moment.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Because there are a whole lot of people from the right side of the spectrum that are trying to ban abortions all together. They have been trying and are having success at this very moment.

False that would not change how cases like these are handled. I don't even think they are medically considered abortions since there is no way this child or it's mother is going to make it to term. Abortion "doctors" don't handle taking care of these, regular surgeons who actually save lives instead of take them do.

It's a distraction technique by the left. Bring up some story where no reasonable person could oppose the operation like this because no one is going to live anyways otherwise and then claim that taking away a woman's right to choose will mean that this woman would just be left to die.

How about fully acknowledging that more then 90% of womb hits are done entirely because the child is inconvenient and talking about those. Not the rare but real cases where such unfortunate actions are necessary for anyone to conceivably survive.

 

[Huey Grey]

Did they remove the tube gently enough to still buy the lambo?

I cleaned up the joke for you. Because we are friends.

 

[Greenway4Prez]

That is the trick I suppose. On one end of the spectrum is the killing of a perfectly healthy baby when there is no risk to the mother other than those attendant to normal childbirth. On the other end of the spectrum is this case. I'm not sure there is a bright line, but one end of the spectrum does not justify the other, imo.

Trust the opinion of a doctor in this case?

I mean, if anyone should be able to determine the amount of risk, it would have to be them.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Clearly murder. The baby should have been removed to a safer vessel where it could have survived, developed and thrived.

Who are we to interfere with God's plan?

If God entrusts a precious human life to us, we must do everything in our power to protect and encourage it.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Clearly murder. The baby should have been removed to a safer vessel where it could have survived, developed and thrived.

Who are we to interfere with God's plan?

If God entrusts a precious human life to us, we must do everything in our power to protect and encourage it.

If we had the technology to do this I would be all for it. In fact I hope they develop the technology to accomplish this some day. But for now we work with what we have.

 

[joelbc1]

did they remove the tube gently so they did not damage the expensive baby body parts so that the doctor could sell them to buy a lambo?

well, we certainly hope so OiT......It's the American way.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

If we had the technology to do this I would be all for it. In fact I hope they develop the technology to accomplish this some day. But for now we work with what we have.

Until then, abortion is acceptable.

 

[Greenway4Prez]

Until then, abortion is acceptable.

Who's arguing otherwise?




NOBODY.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Who's arguing otherwise?




NOBODY.

Republican Party on Abortion

Party Platform


Support human life amendment; oppose abortion funding
Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide. Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012

Promote adoption & abstinence, not abortion clinic referrals
We support the President’s strong efforts to promote adoption through increased tax incentives and bonuses to states that place older children in permanent family homes, as well as his efforts to promote foster care by increasing the allocation of funds for preventive and family services.
Each year more than three million American teenagers contract sexually transmitted diseases, causing emotional harm and serious health consequences, even death. We support efforts to educate teens and parents about the health risks associated with early sexual activity and provide the tools needed to help teens make healthy choices. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS. Therefore, we support doubling abstinence education funding. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for contraception and abortion.

Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 82-83 , Sep 1, 2004

Human Life Amendment to the Constitution
We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption.

Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 86 , Sep 1, 2004

Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment
We say the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life. Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention , Aug 12, 2000

Alternatives like adoption, instead of punitive action
Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services. Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention , Aug 12, 2000

South Dakota lawmakers ask Supreme Court to reconsider Roe, Doe abortion rulings


10 States Where Abortion Is Virtually Illegal for Some Women

 

[Greenway4Prez]

In this thread, Devil.

And just because it isn't implicitly stated in the party platform that exceptions are approved in circumstances like yours, does not mean they are opposed to them.

 

[Tenacious E]

Trust the opinion of a doctor in this case?

I mean, if anyone should be able to determine the amount of risk, it would have to be them.

We would have to but of course you know there will be doctors available for second opinions more in line with the desires of the patient...

 

[HallofFame]

She should be aborted for crying on facebook about her personal problems.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

In this thread, Devil.

And just because it isn't implicitly stated in the party platform that exceptions are approved in circumstances like yours, does not mean they are opposed to them.

How about a situation where a stepfather rapes his 10 year old stepdaughter? Neither the health of the mother or child are in jeopardy. Do you force a 10/11 year old through a pregnancy and birth?

 

[The_Joker13]

OP, this is a bad thread and you should feel bad.

 

[naturalmwa]

when there is no risk to the mother other than those attendant to normal childbirth.

A bit off topic, but did you know those risks have more than doubled in the US since 1987? Having a baby is dangerous business, especially for poor black ladies in the south.

ALISON STEWART: The number of women in the U.S. who die in childbirth is nearing the highest rate in a quarter-century. An estimated 18.5 mothers died for every 100,000 births in 2013, compared with 7.2 in 1987.

The Post reports that this translates to, quote, “a woman giving birth here is twice as likely to die than in Saudi Arabia and three times as likely than in the United Kingdom.”

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/women-dying-childbirth-u-s-saudi-arabia/

 

[Tenacious E]

A bit off topic, but did you know those risks have more than doubled in the US since 1987? Having a baby is dangerous business, especially for poor black ladies in the south.

ALISON STEWART: The number of women in the U.S. who die in childbirth is nearing the highest rate in a quarter-century. An estimated 18.5 mothers died for every 100,000 births in 2013, compared with 7.2 in 1987.

The Post reports that this translates to, quote, “a woman giving birth here is twice as likely to die than in Saudi Arabia and three times as likely than in the United Kingdom.”

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/women-dying-childbirth-u-s-saudi-arabia/

That is surprising.

 

[Greenway4Prez]

How about a situation where a stepfather rapes his 10 year old stepdaughter? Neither the health of the mother or child are in jeopardy. Do you force a 10/11 year old through a pregnancy and birth?

No.

Is the point of this thread to bring up exceptions and instances where the resident "pro-lifers" have already said they can tolerate/accept/allow an abortion in any of the numerous other threads about the issue, in some attempt to play gotcha?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

No.

Is the point of this thread to bring up exceptions and instances where the resident "pro-lifers" have already said they can tolerate/accept/allow an abortion in any of the numerous other threads about the issue, in some attempt to play gotcha?

More likely an effort to set a baseline - an abortion nearly everyone would agree is OK. Good to have if you want to work toward a line where nearly everyone would agree that we should not condone an abortion.

Or maybe THE_DEVIL was just bored and wanted to see how many HROTters are so uptight about this that they'll even argue easy cases.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

No.

Is the point of this thread to bring up exceptions and instances where the resident "pro-lifers" have already said they can tolerate/accept/allow an abortion in any of the numerous other threads about the issue, in some attempt to play gotcha?

Not an attempt at a gotcha...an actual incident in a country that refuses abortions except when the mother's life is in danger. In that country, 684 girls between the ages of 10 and 14 are known to have given birth last year. So what's your rule here?

 

[THE_DEVIL]

No.

Is the point of this thread to bring up exceptions and instances where the resident "pro-lifers" have already said they can tolerate/accept/allow an abortion in any of the numerous other threads about the issue, in some attempt to play gotcha?

No. The point of the thread was to see how many posters were man enough to admit they would NOT make an exception in this case. Apparently, HROT is 100% pro choice on abortion as we have had no one say it for the record. I do commend you for at least discussing the issue and not hiding in the shadows.