The mother was a ticking timebomb for sepsis. See @lacuna's post about the dangers of sepsis. Any women experiencing this from childbirth is at a high risk of death or permanent damage, including putting any future ability to get pregnant at risk. What part of this do you not understand? Forcing Kate to carry meant, day-by-day, putting her at an increased risk of sepsis. Under Texas law, until she was septic, it was unlikely her life would be in enough imminent danger to end the pregnancy. And the fetus? It was never going to live longer than a week, and most likely would die in utero. You are forcing women like Kate to live day by day knowing they will never be able to take home a healthy child, and the longer you force them to remain pregnant, the greater the risk said fetus could cause a woman to go into sepsis. Which is something to be avoided because it is life threatening. Kate was at risk. Just not imminent risk which is required by Texas law. An abortion before she was in imminent risk would prevent sepsis, and avoid any imminent risk. Waiting until sepsis set in meant not only was Kate's life in danger, but there would be additional risks outlined by Lacuna. The fetus dies either way. Why force Kate to wait until she's septic if that can be avoided?
I would tell them exactly what I posted and hope they would reconsider. I understand it might be unpleasant to hear it, but it’s a selfish decision.
You acknowledged she was not at risk. Now you are trying to backtrack and make up a way she could be. Every day you are at risk. Look at Mike Williams. Gets hit in the head and went septic from dental issues. This is about taking a very rare circumstance and using to to promote the killing of kids via abortion for any reason. We disagree. You think we should legally be allowed to kill kids via abortion. I do not.
I wouldn't tell anyone in this unfortunate position what to do. But I also wouldn't want anyone telling my wife and me what we must do. Every pregnancy is different, every woman is different, and every couple is different. While some may want to attempt to carry to term and find that best, others would certainly consider forcing a baby to live days a life of pain to be cruel. Especially when carrying to term a child that will never live longer than week also causes the risk to the mother to rise considerably. Fortunately, my wife and I have never faced a decision like this, but I can say, for certain, once the fate of the fetus is 100% certain it's going to die, we would elect to abort as soon as possible. There is nothing to be done to be able to save the fetus, but the risk to my wife is completely avoidable. And make no mistake, @QGator2414, the longer Kate Cox was pregnant, the greater the risk she faced. But under Texas law, until her life was in imminent danger, the legal system said she couldn't get an abortion. If you had your way, her only two choices would be deliver a baby to term knowing it would die a painful death, if it survived until childbirth at all. Or wait until she was diagnosed as septic, at which point, her life would be enough danger to abort. A fate that wasn't guaranteed to happen, but given Kate already had several ER visits, and the Trisomy 18 diagnoses confirmed, was more likely to happen than not.
You want to allow people to kill children for convenience. I do not. That is what this argument is about. No state has a law stopping a mother from aborting a child when her life is in jeopardy. And I agree that should be the case. Stop hiding behind rare circumstances (some of which were surly hospitals and doctors not doing the right thing) to support killing children for convenience. We all know abortion is about convenience. That is why the procedure is used 99% of the time. So spare us the crap to make it legal for that 99% of times the procedure is implemented. I agree there will be cases where mothers are not afforded proper care and the hospital and doctors should be held accountable. Reality is abortion is about killing for convenience. Should we hold doctors and hospitals accountable if they violate their Hippocratic Oath? Yes. But they have that same Oath for the young child developing inside the mother!
It's none of my business what women decide to do. Unless they actively seek my opinion, which all but two women, my wife and my daughter, are likely ever going to seek. I also find it difficult to call anyone with no brain activity and full dependency upon something or someone a human life. And I would support European laws of 15 or 20 week bans, as long as the Hyde Amendment was repealed. That's the pragmatic side of me speaking. Speaking of pragmatism, I also know that banning abortion doesn't reduce the number of abortions in any way. Reducing unwanted pregnancy does. This is accomplished through comprehensive sex education and birth control programs. These things work. Laws that attempt to control supply and not demand fail, just like Prohibition. All abortion laws accomplish are more complications and higher death rates for women. And complicated cases like Kate Cox. In her case, the fetus had 0% of viability. The longer she remained pregnant, the greater the risk to her to enter sepsis. Why should she have to wait to be on death's door before she could get treatment? Treatment that would prevent sepsis and all complications that come with it. But under Texas law, Cox basically had to be on death's door before the doctors could legally do anything. And that's wrong. Just as wrong as forcing anyone in her position to have to carry to term, knowing the fetus will never be viable. Some may choose to go this route, and that's fine. It's their decision. Not mine. And certainly not yours.
There is no law regulating a woman from receiving her healthcare. There should be a law not allowing a doctor to kill the child inside a woman though. That procedure is not about the woman’s health. And the less than 1% of the time it is about the woman’s health. There is no law stopping it.
Genuinely curious since I don't know where you stand. Do you believe in access to healthcare for all so that mothers who otherwise can't afford it get access to pre-natal care and kids, once born, have access to healthcare, shelter, and food?
To play devil's advocate a bit here, the law does regulate the bodies of men (e.g., the criminalization of taking certain drugs, prostitution, etc). Of course, those laws apply to women as well, and I can't think of such laws or regulations that apply to men only. Don't get me wrong; I say this fully aware of how men have sought and continue to seek ways to control womens' sexuality and choices. But it's also not crazy IMO for people to believe that pregnancy is a unique condition that arguably involves the direct rights of another - at least at some stage.
Sure. Now I am not sure if you are implying the government is the only entity that is capable of providing access to care? Because it is not. The two organizers we support the most along with our Church are Share the Love Ocala and The Women’s Pregnancy Center. I highly encourage you and all those who post here to consider giving to these great organizations!!! https://sharetheloveocala.com/ Women's Pregnancy Center
pffft. Maga supports literally taking food away from hungry kids. Feeding them requires actually doing something. Nebraska governor again rejects giving kids from low-income families $40 per month for food: 'I don't believe in welfare' | Fortune
You might have read it, but you clearly didn't understand it or how it is being applied/interpreted. Yes, pathetic.
Very rarely is the mothers health in more danger because of the baby inside her. Which is why 99% of the time an abortion is about killing the. Baby and not the Mothers health.
Well that isn't true. Pregnancy presents a variety of health risks not found without pregnancy. The issue is what percentage increase in risk constitutes a life of the mother exception.
