re: Court grants Texas woman's request for emergency abortion in historic ruling

quote:

---

Lol. Blame the left that made abortion into a celebrated life achievement.

---

No sane person would do this. Yall pushing extreme and and clearly flawed examples to support your stance

quote:

---

quote:
Lol. Blame the left that made abortion into a celebrated life achievement.


No sane person would do this. Yall pushing extreme and and clearly flawed examples to support your stance

---

Here you are pushing a case that doesn't support your stance to support your stance. This woman likely has a valid reason for an abortion, and she seems to be against it as it indicated she has other children. She did what was necessary to get an abortion that was deemed necessary by qualified personnel. What are you arguing for here? Should she have been able to just say she has enough healthy children and doesn't want this one even if it would have been healthy? That shouldn't be a simple process by any means. It shouldn't be difficult to get a necessary abortion and it doesn't sound like it was.

quote:

---

No.

In the modern Democrat Party, the extreme has become the Mainstream.


Yes, Democrats celebrate abortion...

---

Good work. You found something on the internet to support your stance.

Let's use some sense baw

The woke aren't sane. I don't believe they are flawed examples because they've a powerful backing within the combo of corporate/Gov/msm/universities.

There're also the climate change fanatics who espouse shite about needing to utilize abortions in order to save the planet. That shite trickles down and making some of the most naive of the woke believe that by killing their viable babies, they are saving the planet.

I'm just saying, if the woke were just incoherent voices without influence, no one would give a shite. But, they do have influence. Politicians at the state level go out of their way to appease the woke. Which led to a rise of equally extreme people on the other side, demanding their own politicians step in.

I was pro choice, until pro Choice became about killing viable babies, not because of danger or health risk. They lost me even more when the common excuse would basically be "well, no one wants to raise the child, and it would drain government resources, so it's better to kill them".

quote:

---

She had to file a lawsuit and get an injunction to have an abortion that was clearly needed. Her life wasn't in danger thankfully.

---

Then it wasn't "clearly needed."

quote:

---

Then it wasn't "clearly needed."

---

If you dont think a fetal abnormality that has a 90% death rate within the first year of life and in that year the child will need round the clock health monitoring and be in constant physical distress represents a clear need to allow for a medical exception.... Then what does in your opinion?

quote:

---

It wasn’t jjust her ability to have children. Her life was at risk.

---

Do tell how her LIFE was at risk by a still live fetus with Trisomy 18? Can't wait to hear this one.

quote:

---

If you dont think a fetal abnormality that has a 90% death rate within the first year of life and in that year the child will need round the clock health monitoring and be in constant physical distress represents a clear need to allow for a medical exception.... Then what does in your opinion?

---

Language matters. An abortion isn't merely the termination or premature stopping of a pregnancy as many claim. A miscarriage is a natural abortion by that definition, but that's not what we're arguing for or against when we talk about abortion rights.

An abortion as our modern culture is discussing it is the willful act of ending the life of a preborn child in order to prevent the birth of that child. It isn't merely the act, but the motive behind it.

When a mother has a healthy pregnancy and she simply doesn't want the child any longer so she pays someone to kill the child in her womb and remove its body from hers, that is an abortion. When a mother is dying because her child is unhealthy and/or is expected to cause her death, then the removal of the child from the body is not considered an "abortion" as the politically charged word is used.

A medical procedure to deliver the child for the sake of the mother (or the child) happens all the time when the child is at term or close to it. If the child dies after delivery, it isn't considered an abortion. Likewise it isn't the same thing as an abortion when the child dies after being delivered and removed from the body of the mother; death being the result doesn't mean that death was desired, which is the vast, vast, vast majority of abortions performed today.

So with that, what you are advocating for is an abortion because the child may not survive for long after delivery, or if he/she has a poor quality of life after birth. I don't see those as reasons for "medical exceptions", and if they are, you could slide down that slope very quickly.

quote:

---

We cannot predict what may be a genetic consequence, or birth consequence

---

Of course...but in this case and many others we can test and predict the outcome with a high probability certainty.


The question is life vs quality of life for some. When faced with that question in my own life we chose to give our loved one a fighting chance. She died two weeks later, just as the physicians advised she would. I'm still haunted by the decision that we contributed to her suffering needlessly those two weeks.