Texas towns make it illegal to use roads to travel out of state for an abortion.

You don’t believe in women’s autonomy in any case, at least not in an absolute sense. You wouldn’t think twice about snatching a toddler from its mother if you felt it was being abused.

 

A child being abused is different than a fetus in utero. I can physically take care of any child who has already born. I have taken care of my two children as newborns, and my oldest is now an adult. I have taken care of other children at various stages as well.

In utero, I can't help. Nor can I make any medical determination regarding the health of the fetus and/or mother unless it is obvious. I have zero medical training, and I'm not the one who should be involved in any decision a woman should be making in cases of complicated pregnancy that is highly likely to end in no living baby, and put the mother in medical jeopardy, unless that woman is my wife, and she wants me as a part of her decision. Neither should you be involved in a decision like this for a woman who doesn't want you involved. The decision should be between her doctor(s), the woman, and anyone she wants to involve.

 

But a doctor can help, right ? Unless they don’t want to …

“The law also requires that the medical diagnosis be an objective finding, and Cox's doctor, Dr. Damla Karsan, is anything but. Dr. Karsan is A PLAINTIFF HERSELF in a lawsuit suing the state over the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws.”

Kate Cox and the Texas Abortion Law: We Need to Look Beyond the Talking Points

 

A Doctor can help. And in the case of Trisomy 18, there are often stages of diagnosis. Meaning, the original diagnosis may have some hope of limited complications. But later on, the diagnosis is little to no hope for the fetus to survive, and if the pregnancy continues, high likelihood of maternal complications.

I'm in incapable of making such a diagnosis. I have zero medical training. The persons most qualified to make a diagnosis are OBGYNs on a case by case basis, as every case is potentially different. Which is why, again, in each case, the decision to terminate or carry to term should fall on the pregnant woman, whose future ability to carry a child, and life may be in danger, her doctor(s), and anyone else she wants to include in the decision. Everyone else, including the government, should have no say in the matter.

 

I'd pick boy, but I think most people would pick their own gender just because that's all they know.

I like being a dude. lol. And I'd rather not have to worry about period pains, pregnancy, and taking 3 hours to get ready every time I leave the house.

 

And as I pointed out, the doctor’s acumen (if not motives) are in question. The article again …

Kate Cox and the Texas Abortion Law: We Need to Look Beyond the Talking Points

 

Not in any relevant way that justifies convenience-based abortion.

 

Completely disagree. I can nurture a newborn baby all the way to an adult. So can literally billions of people on the planet. I cannot do the same for a fetus who is in the first trimester. I am completely incapable, and in fact, only one, specific person can nurture said fetus. The mother.

If a woman wants to give up her newborn to the state and put up for adoption, we give her that right. We do not force her to nurture the child. But rewind 8 months, why should we force her to nurture the life until others can take care of it? Why can't she have her choice?

It would be different if we could do uterus transplants, and maybe, one day, we can. But that's not medically an option. I don't think we should ever force anyone to care for another against their will. Once the fetus is viable, different argument, and I say abortions in the 3rd trimester should be for health complications only. And the majority of abortions (93%) are 1st trimester, with the biggest reason a woman waits for a 2nd trimester abortion is unable to afford the procedure. I'd be comfortable with a compromise of ending the Hyde Amendment and an abortion ban after 15 - 20 weeks with medical exceptions afterwards.

 

And yet, I just gave you a direct quote where she did exactly that. She specifically said that it was her "good faith belief and medical recommendation . . . ." The fact that the Republican hacks on that NotCourt are dinging her for not using magic words ("reasonable medical judgment" is a legal term) when she said the same exact thing in substance only proves how empty these promises of "medical exceptions" are.

P.S. I haven't put you on ignore. I simply choose not to respond because it's not worth the time.

 

Again, there is no one, textbook case of Trisomy 18 that all pregnant women with the diagnosis follow. There are many different complications that can arise and no two cases may be similar. And the diagnosis often changes as the fetus grows and more information is attainable. What makes you a Trisomy 18 expert? I'm not one, and I'd never tell a woman with this diagnosis what to do unless directly asked for my opinion.

 

And yet here you are. I need to figure out new ways to rile you up.

I will retrench on the matter of what the doctor said and rest on: (A) here failure to make her case and (B) her conflict of interest.

 

There is creeping rot and actively creeping rot. And it’s pretty transparent that the latter is happening …

Lawmakers need to be prepared for the possibility that even with bans limiting abortion after a later gestational age, advocates will find a way to link maternal health outcomes to the presence of fetal abnormalities, despite evidence.

Texas Woman Seeking Abortion Exemption Exposes Needed Protections For Disabled Children

 

So in a hypothetical world where only one person can care for a child, if that person is incapable, murdering the child is justified?

Also, can't we transfer fertilized eggs to another woman capable of carrying the child?

Because there are viable and realistic alternatives to having what would otherwise likely be a shitty parent raising a child where the child doesn't have its life ended.

Because:
1. Transferring the embryo to another person is impossible, expensive, or both.
2. Just because there are no convenience-based alternatives left, that doesn't mean you get to kill a child.

Yes you do. If you didn't, you'd see no problem with a woman leaving her infant in the middle of a forest to be left for dead. You wouldn't see a problem with abandoning a child at a gas station or in the middle of a highway.

The fact of the matter is, you don't think people should be forced to care for another against their will when there are better alternatives for the child. The problem is, unless you believe a child is better off never having been born, abortion is not a better alternative for the child. And if you do believe it's a better option for the child, that sounds an awful lot like an ugly combination of playing God and digging your head in the sand to me.

These aren't kids dying for euthanasia, they're typically being discarded because they're unwanted by the person carrying them. That's the ugly truth behind all of the niceties and euphemisms. People just don't like talking about the issue that way because it paints humanity in a pretty ugly light.

I'm not saying this to judge the women getting abortions. I'm saying this so the issue can be portrayed honestly and with clarity. People can understand the evil that they're doing and still make mistakes, but society doesn't get brownie points for digging its head in the sand and avoiding the issue altogether.

Why?

 

Trust me ignore is worth the time. It’s not like they’re going to come up with something worth reading. Makes the threads more interesting.

 

As you know I’m not a lawyer, but I read the TX supreme Ct ruling, and as much as I dislike the result, I followed their rationale. It is the law I don’t like, which is way too narrow as to how exceptions are defined, and the party seeking relief did not clearly articulate how the situation qualifies for an exception, and that is probably because it doesn’t from a literal perspective.

The problem is the law which is horrible and I would think it could be challenged on some sort of grounds - as the government requiring a mother to carry through an abortion at significant health risk, as already been demonstrated, would seem like some sort of violation of constitutional rights, but I can’t say specifically say how.

 

That is not correct. I've already posted what the doctor said here. The party seeking relief gave the exact exception with the doctor's recommendation of the abortion and the doctor's sworn testimony that she believes the patient qualifies.

The statute says, "The prohibitions and requirements under Sections 171.043, 171.044, and 171.045(b) do not apply to an abortion performed if there exists a condition that, in the physician's reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of the woman that, to avert the woman's death or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."

The statute does not require any magic words. It merely requires a reasonable medical judgment. That creates two question: (1) Is it a medical judgment, and (2) is it reasonable? With regard to the first question, the physician's medical recommendation of an abortion under the circumstances was undoubtedly a medical judgment. As for the second question, courts defer heavily to the professional judgment of doctors when considering the reasonableness of medical judgments (employing the professional judgment standard). Ask yourself why the Texas Supreme NotCourt didn't employ the professional judgment standard here or even undertake a similar analysis.

Instead, they ignored what the doctor said because she did not speak in legalese. She did not use some "magic words" that nobody ever said were required. That's not the sort of shit that "judges" acting in good faith pull. It's a copout to avoid having to meaningfully reckon with the substance of the case.

 

I’m inclined to agree with you, however reading the decision it came across differently.

It is also a trap for the doctor. I imagine he/she used the good faith language as they are trying to protect themself from legal and criminal judgment or prosecution. It really is distasteful.

 

We live in an imperfect world. If there was a way for a woman to end her pregnancy and for the fetus would live, I'd advocate that position. That tech doesn't exist.

In all cases where the child is born already, there are capable people to take care of it. Your hypothetical place where only one person can care for another individual not only doesn't exist, it never will. Humans are communal animals. Your hypothetical is a silly, if not stupid thought exercise.

We shouldn't force people to care for others. And we don't have to worry when someone decides not to care for another. Especially a child. Someone will step in. But again, while you and I can likely care for a newborn, rewind 8 months, and we can't do squat for the fetus. Because we're not the pregnant one.

 

Of course. They're going to try and sound reasonable when they're engaging in partisan hackery. But you can compare these two things side by side. Trial court TRO finding:


Texas Supreme's rationale:


I'm not sure what more Dr. Karsan needed to say. Did she need to claim that her own medical judgment is "reasonable"?

 

I would. In addition to Edwards Syndrome (Trisomy 18), there is Patau Syndrome (Trisomy 13), with Patau Syndrome being the more rare case of 3 sets of chromosome 13 vs 18. Both end the fetus or the life of the child in largely the same way, however. One year of life in pain and suffering at the outside most, though usually the fetus perishes in the womb. More commonly (until the Supreme Idiots ruled) doctors advocated for abortion. I know that because we lost our only daughter to Patau Syndrome less than 30 minutes after delivery. My wife never even saw her because of hemorrhaging during birth. That delivery also cost us the chance to ever have a second child and nearly our marriage.

When we found out during the pregnancy doctors advised abortion. My wife is Jewish and I am Catholic and both opposed abortion at the time. We independently decided we wanted to allow the child to come into the world and then pass, not understanding the devastating consequences of that decision.

I am still not an advocate for wide spread abortion, though I speak up for its legal protection on behalf of women. Further, if I ever hear of any of our friends or relatives receive a diagnosis similar to what we did, I would be the first person to speak up whether invited to or not and share out story. I would advocate abortion for the sake of the child, the mother and the marriage in the strongest possible terms whether. I would certainly understand those who decide not to have the abortion, since they often lack the clarity of thought to really comprehend what happening and about to happen.

The fact that the state feels like it has ANY STANDING to tell a mother what to do in this case is reprehensible beyond words and why what the Republi-ban Religion in the United States is doing to women is a tragedy and needs to be stopped.