That is my quote. And I explained why I said it. Because the vast majority of Mother’s gave birth to their child with no abnormal danger. I used “almost certainly” for a reason. It is cute you still try your circle jerk MO with this lol!
Except you used it on an individual case, one in which you did not have any idea what you were discussing. You have no idea what her medical background was, so you have no idea what you are discussing in order to accurately determine her risk. So why are you pretending that you could? Given that you can't even explain what "in danger" means shows that you can't make any such claims. The simplest thing would be to show humility and admit that you lack the medical information to make claims like that. But we both know that won't happen, as you think you can make just about any medical claim about people you don't know that you think helps your argument.
Abortion can be mentally harmful to the mother but denial of access to abortion is much more likely to cause mental health issues than having the procedure. The facts about abortion and mental health
LOL your circle jerks to deflect from the topic are cute. Try to read and comprehend what I wrote. “almost certainly” is a key component of what I wrote. But I will admit. I forgot your MO to circle jerk everything in trying to deflect from a point.
I put my faith and trust in things I can see and understand. Like the scientific community. If COVID numbers are false, then someone or some entity has pulled one over on about 98% of the scientific community. Possible? Yes. Probable? Highly unlikely. And if course I feel something. I'm human. Atheist does not equal Vulcan. Atheists have feelings too! And what I feel is that even though your heart is in the right place, your billboard/bumper sticker platitudes are actually hurting, not helping. In Kate Cox's case, how does it help to wait until she's on death's door before she can abort? For women raped who are contemplating suicide when they find they are pregnant, how does denying them their choice helping them? While you aren't forcing your beliefs onto me, you'd like to force me to live according to your religious beliefs. Just as bad. The Handmaid's Tale is fiction, and Is like to keep it that way.
It does not take being a Christian/Muslim/Atheist/Etc to know killing a child separate from the mother for convenience is wrong. You keep wanting to talk about the very rare case that basically everyone agrees is a decision no one’s wishes on a person…and they should be able to make a decision that has nothing good associated with it. And there are no laws stopping these decisions. Does a hospital or doctor provide poor care sometimes? Unfortunately it happens. But that does not change the fact an abortion for convenience has nothing to do with the Mothers Healthcare. It has everything to do with killing the Separate Child inside her. And that is tragically the main reason for abortions.
My mother's pregnancy isn't the topic. You brought it up. You have no clue what the individual circumstances but feel certain discussing it with "almost certainty." You know what is on topic? My question that you won't answer. I'll ask it again, so that you can be seen to avoid it again: what percentage likelihood of mother death would it take to be considered "in danger?" If a woman had a 5% chance of dying due to a pregnancy according to her doctor, is that "in danger?" A simple yes or no will suffice (but we both know you won't do it).
Wrong. There are laws stopping the decision until the mother is on death's door. That's why Cox couldn't get an abortion in Texas. Even through the fetus wasn't viable, and chances she would likely be on death's door should her pregnancy continued, she couldn't get the procedure to prevent her from knocking on death's door. She could only get it when she was knocking. Please, tell me, how does this law benefit her? Each pregnancy is different. Each woman is different. It should not be you, nor anyone's religion that decides how each woman much act. Like @mdgator05 states, you know nothing of each individual's pregnancy. To decide on the majority and ignore the harm it does to the minority is hurting the lives of real women. Women you seem not to care about at all. So I ask again, how did the Texas law that didn't allow Cox to get an abortion until she was on death's door benefit her? How does the rise in sepsis cases or rise in suicide for women of birthing age benefit anyone too? Or the fact that the number of abortions actually increased the first year after Roe was overturned help anyone? Go beyond the bumper sticker, and tell me what actual good outlawing abortion actually does?
LOL! I was making a point. And did so by using the reality your mom almost certainly had a pregnancy like the vast majority of mothers.
The Texas Law was not the problem. It was the hospital and doctor. I provided the law earlier. Go read it. Then get back to me where it says the mother must in sepsis before you can offer an abortion. You are making stuff up when it comes to the Texas Law.
What the law actually says that the patient must be experiencing “a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy.” The terminology is so vague that unless the death of a patient is likely, a doctor who performs an abortion even one based on medical necessity as determined by the doctor will be under the threat of criminal prosecution and/or losing his/her license to practice medicine.
It is vague because medicine is not exact and doctors need discretion. It’s really hard to believe based on the story that Kate Cox was not showing signs from the tests that would keep a doctor from performing an abortion far earlier than they did. Again. This is not about the Texas Law. This is about people fighting to legally kill the most innocent for convenience.
Which is both false and something you couldn't possibly know. So your point is dumb. Also, notice you avoided the question on topic again.
The Texas Courts denied Cox an abortion because at no time was her life in jeopardy. It was potentially going to be in jeopardy, but basically, until she was on death's door, any doctor that performed an abortion on Cox faced legal issues, per the Texas courts. Which is why she went out of state to get the procedure done. So I ask again, how did this court ruling based on the Texas law help Cox? I also ask again, how are these anti-abortion laws helping anyone if the number of abortions since Roe was overturned is up, suicides for birthing age women are up, and sepsis cases are up? Questions you refuse to answer.
This is a good article showing the doctors aren't the issue. The laws are. They are hurting women, and the R's don't care. A women in Tennessee, which has a similar law to Texas, is suing because she had to wait until she was on death's door to get an abortion. As a result of the waiting, she's now infertile. The Tennessee AG's response to the lawsuit is now that because she's infertile, she has no standing to bring the suit! As the article states: Months later, this exact scenario occurred: Kate Cox was bleeding and leaking amniotic fluid. She asked for an abortion. Her doctor could not provide one under Texas law without risking a 99-year prison sentence. That physician sued for permission to obtain one. Paxton immediately fought her lawsuit tooth and nail, accusing Cox of being a shameless liar and threatening to prosecute any health care provider who assisted her in terminating the pregnancy. And he prevailed, securing a Texas Supreme Court decision blocking Cox’s abortion. (She traveled out of state to get it.) Cox’s problem was not with the doctors. It was with the law. Specifically, it was with a set of judges, state officials, and lawyers who cast her as a selfish liar and a bad mother for valuing her life above that of a nonviable fetus. Nothing Cox, nor Zurawski, nor the Tennessee plaintiffs could have alleged or argued would have saved them from being derided, insulted, and denied treatment for the crimes of failing to put their unborn fetuses before their own lives. Cox's doctor sued to obtain to get a legal abortion for her. It was denied because Cox wasn't on death's door. This isn't the doctor's mistake. It's the law working as Texas intended.
LOL! You know you mother/my mother/all Posters here mother almost certainly had a normal pregnancy that did not put their life in danger (that is just statistically the case). And if they had a rare pregnancy that did put their life in danger…they chose to protect the beautiful child inside of them.
BS! An article by “slate”?!?!? LOL! Go read the Texas Law and get back to us on how a doctor was not allowed to perform an abortion if they documented the mothers health was at risk based on the tests and scans being performed. Now did a doctor provide poor care? Very possible. But this has noting to do with the Texas Law.
Doctors denied her an abortion. If they could document her life was in jeopardy. They had every ability to perform the procedure. Did they have that and choose not to act/offer care? I don’t know. Kate Cox can absolutely seek damages if they failed in their duty to provide proper care.
Doctors didn't deny her abortion. They sued in order to perform the abortion. Texas judges denied Cox and her doctor's permission for the abortion because her life wasn't in immediate danger. Her life was very likely going to be in danger had she remained pregnant, but until that time, an abortion was not an option under Texas law. Confirmed by the decisions by the Texas judges. What part of this do you not understand? TEXAS COURTS DENIED COX'S DOCTOR'S PETITION FOR AN ABORTION!!! Does this make is any clearer? And the Slate article? It talks to actual women who have been harmed. Like the woman in Tennessee who was denied an abortion until she was at death's door. And as a result of waiting, is now infertile. And now that's she infertile, the Tenn AG is saying she doesn't have standing to sue the state, because it's impossible for her to get pregnant again. If you met this woman face to face, would you tell her that the law you support was only acting in her best interest? And you still support the law?
