The abortion procedure itself puts the mother at risk. As with anything. There are risks. Killing a child for convenience is just wrong. I am sure we view Life differently and will disagree on the issue.
Regardless, it means that your claim was false: there is an increased risk due to pregnancy. Which means that you need to set a risk parameter past which the exceptions take hold. Because if you set it at 0.00001%, then abortions can be had by just about anybody. So what do you think the appropriate risk parameter should be? If a woman is judged to have a 20% risk to her life by carrying forward with a pregnancy, should that count? How about 5%? Or 50%?
All of this is about women's health and the right's desire to reduce females from "equal status citizen" to "penis acceptor unit" and "baby incubator."
I've wondered whether a woman, depending on the facts, could assert a self defense or "stand your ground" defense if prosecuted for an abortion.
I’m not a constitutional lawyer but I would think the refusal to allow an abortion to save your life or avoid a material health threat would run afoul of core constitutional rights. I’m not confident this SCOTUS would recognize that though.
Q is not a serious poster. He spends most of his day posting anti vax lies on a college football message board. He is best ignored.
You miss a lot of good stuff when you place people on ignore, like there being an absence of evidence for anything to vaccinate for.
Dahlia Lithwick details how Red State AGs, channeling much of the base, just show contempt and hatred for women - they are just vessels, with no larger human identity. A recent filing by the office of Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan T. Skrmetti, a Republican, captures the dynamic all too well. Skrmetti has been fighting a lawsuit filed by a group of Tennessee women denied emergency abortions under the ultranarrow medical exception to that state’s ban. The women plaintiffs suffered an appalling range of trauma, including sepsis and hemorrhaging, because they could not terminate their pregnancies. The attorney general’s response to their complaint is a scathing, shockingly personal broadside against the victims of the ban. He accused them of attempting to draw “lines about which unborn lives are worth protecting” by imposing a medical exception “of their own liking.” He mocked them for asserting that ostensibly minor conditions like “sickle cell disease” might justify an abortion. And he insisted that the lead plaintiff, Nicole Blackmon, lacks standing, because she underwent sterilization after the state forced her to carry a nonviable pregnancy and deliver a stillborn baby. The attorney general viciously suggested that, if Blackmon really wanted to fight Tennessee’s ban, she could have tried for another doomed pregnancy. A pregnant woman, the attorney general averred, may be refused a treatment if it “has the potential to harm unborn lives—an issue not implicated” when treating nonpregnant women. “No equal-protection rule,” he concluded, “bars lawmakers from acting on that difference to protect unborn babies.” In other words, once a woman is pregnant, she becomes a vessel for “unborn babies,” giving the state authority to cut off her access to urgently necessary health care. Since nonpregnant women don’t immediately suffer the consequences of abortion bans, those bans don’t discriminate on the basis of sex. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and his staff have evinced similar hostility toward plaintiffs in the Lone Star State who brought a nearly identical suit. The lead plaintiff in that case, Amanda Zurawski, was denied an abortion for three agonizing days after her water broke in the second trimester, leading her to develop sepsis; she nearly died in the ICU, and may never be able to get pregnant again. Paxton’s response? Because she might now be infertile—as a direct result of Texas law— Zurawski lacks standing to sue. When the case went to trial, Texas’ lawyers asked profoundly insulting questions of the plaintiffs. “Did Attorney General Ken Paxton tell you you couldn’t get an abortion?” they pressed each woman after pressing them for invasive details about their failed pregnancies. One plaintiff vomited on the stand after recounting her horror story.
Kate Cox didn't end up dying but this woman did and she is almost certainly to be the first of several. Despite your rhetoric, preventing the abortion that could have saved her life didn't save the life of the fetus/"baby" that she was carrying. In virtually every incident in which a woman died because she was denied an abortion the fetus also died. For some reason the more extreme so called "pro-lifers" in order to stand by a principle would rather sacrifice two lives to symbolically and futilely attempt to save one. Did an Abortion Ban Cost a Young Texas Woman Her Life?
Have not read yet but getting to. Jessica Valenti states there are multiple others whose families do not want to suffer the treatment of being a public symbol against teh current zeitgeist
Pure nonsense. Abortion 99% of the time is about killing the child inside the mother for convenience and has nothing to do with the health of the Mother.
About 2% of abortions are for medical reasons according to the best research. The number might actually be higher, but 93% of abortions occur in the first trimester, usually before any medical issues pop up. But that's not the point. The point is, these women have to be pretty much on death's door for laws like the Texas health of the mother exception to be enacted. So even though a fetus may have 0% chance of living past 1 week, and is 67% likely to die before birth, if the mother isn't on death's door, no abortion. And if the fetus dies early, the chances she'll end up on death's door increases exponentially. A woman in Kate Cox's position has a choice. The fetus isn't going to live regardless. She could carry and hope she doesn't end up on death's door. Or, she can abort and avoid any and all complications from carrying longer. Either way, the fetus dies. The other woman in Texas who did die waited until she was on death's door before she got the medical exception for an abortion. Too bad for her, she did die. Had Cox waited, she might have died too.
It deserved a come on man because of the poster. I fully recognize there is risk in everything. And if two people decide to create a child and the Mother's life is at real risk. Then the Mother and all those involved in her life from the Father to the Doctor and Family need to access the situation and likely make a decision none of us want to ever think about. But the reality is...99% of pregnancies are natural and normal. The idea abortion is about the Mothers "Health" is hogwash. It is trying to redirect attention to allowing the legal killing of the most innocent. 100% any Mother whose health is in danger due to her pregnancy should be given all the information necessary to make a decision none of us can fathom. At the same time 100% the idea the health of the Mother is a normal and common issue for abortion is nonsense.
So what you are saying since the overwhelming majority of abortions are elective (and most take place early in the first trimester by the way) an occasional albeit rare maternal death is a price worth paying to end the elective abortions?
This is another bogus argument. The mental health of killing the child you created is massive (of course you never say this to the Mother). The idea that killing a child for convenience is okay for "mental health" is just another one of the ridiculous arguments made to provide acceptance for a practice we know is wrong. Your life. My life. Each began at conception. Trying to justify the killing of our lives for convenience is just wrong.
