I believe the narcissistic view of self value over that of your own child is a tragic viewpoint. The war on life is still going strong be it at the beginning or end of life. The destruction of Judeo-Christian values be the Progressive Left (Marxist Nihilists) has succeeded and the fight to counter that continues.
You’re right if the mother is crashing, then she is the one the doctor must attend to. However, it is a very unusual for an abortion to need to be performed in that situation, and if that is the case, the doctor simply gets the baby out as quickly as possible. He doesn’t take the time to kill the baby first, which is what happens in an abortion. 1.3% is more than a million 24 week abortions since 1973. Non-viable fetuses do not need killing prior to delivery as they are non-viable.
I have no sympathy for a woman who waits till age 38 to get pregnant which is often fraught with issues ,whines about it and then comes out defending infanticide. Birth Control pills are cheap and readily available. Its time we stopped coddling the irresponsible and stop calling the killing of babies health care.
I can understand rare early term abortions in the case of rape or incest but those are rare and there are exceptions for that. But the concept that one ends a life out of convenience is heinous.
Former State Sen. Kelli Stargel, who sponsored the 15-week pro-life bill, said that Dorbert is eligible for an abortion under state law. Dorbert’s doctor, along with abortionists, states that the medical field’s arbitrary definition of “viability” is different and does not depend solely on the child’s age but their health status as well.
The irony is that mothers, including pro-choice mothers, would jump in front of a bus to save their two year old. Somehow it's different when you can see it and feel it.
Too many pro abortion people are trying to engage me in all these threads at the same time and on this forum it’s really tough to locate them all. (Please fix that substack lol)
I see the notifications but can’t always track down the comment without hunting through every post. Apologies. I don’t mean to ignore anyone’s responses to my comments.
Someone named Liora Jacob wants to know if I’m a medical doctor. I am not. I am also not particularly hung up on credentialism and don’t like to waste much time dealing with appeal to authority fallacy.
That said, yes we all know that sometimes severely sick or malformed babies will not have long, healthy or pain free lives. This sad reality does not negate their essential humanity or the obligation of medical professionals to treat them as human patients. I urge you to contemplate the work being done in perinatal and postnatal palliative and hospice care. These sick little humans need not be intentionally killed before delivery or thrown in the garbage post delivery. There are more humane options and studies have well demonstrated what should be somewhat obvious; that the parents of sick babies do much better psychologically and even physically when their helpless child is respected and treated as a human being, and they as parents of children with life limiting conditions are allowed and encouraged to grieve the loss of their human child should they not survive.
From a Christian standpoint (of course not everyone can relate, but many comments here have touched on faith); these children are created in the image of God and loved before the foundation of the world every bit as much as healthy, thriving children.
I would also point out that there are plenty of instances where postnatal diagnosis and prognosis differ substantially from antenatal predictions.
There's a whole missing element to the abortion discussion. There have been 50 million abortions in the US since Roe vs. Wade. I'm pretty sure (despite being a man) that if you ask ANY woman would she like to have an abortion, she'd say no. VERY low on her list of things to do. Traumatic in 17 different ways.
The broader cultural question migh be: If the social contract is written in such a way that does not protect women from unwanted pregnancies, there is something serious off-kilter about the social contract.
As a (desperate) solution for sickness and rape, there are very good arguments for abortion. But as a handy way for getting out of pregnancy, it's extremely abusive and disrespectful of women. This is NOT where 'women's rights' should have led.
I think a deeper change is needed, not an argument about the 'right' to abortion. How about the right to live life without fearing you might need to undergo something traumatic and physically threatening, just because guys would rather have more intercourse.
No matter what outcome might be, what trauma might occur, what uncertainty might await, I choose this moment, this little piece of time, not for the chance that your life might turn out the way I want it -
but your life, as it is, what we have, now. You are worth it. You are my miracle.
The article convinces me of the importance of restricting abortion with exceptions for the mother’s health. There was no reason to abort this baby other than health risks for mom. Otherwise it would have been terminating life for no reason. I cannot understand how the author herself could come to any other conclusion based on the FACTS.
Without the facts and context, the author could come to any random conclusion like the one she articulated. Here is an alternate non sequitur: after this experience, I believed more strongly than ever in the right to carry a firearm.
i remain pro-choice because i have always supported people making decisions about their own health. that being said - one needs to understand when she is having an abortion, something with a very good chance at becoming a life is being killed and there are both physical and emotional consequences that will go along with that. additionally, all other options should be exhausted prior to one making the decision to abort. like all other aspects of medicine - informed consent should be the rule. when we continue to phrase this as a “reproductive rights” issue, we continue to de-value the life of this soon-to be human
He argues that "As narrowed by the Court of Appeals, the stay that would apply if we failed to broaden it would not remove mifepristone from the market. It would simply restore the circumstances that existed (and that the Government defended) from 2000 to 2016 under three Presidential administrations."
These articles are why I cancelled my subscription. I dare the author to look at her son and go tell him to his face that his life was almost not worth the inconvenience she went through to have him, and that she supports another woman's right to kill her child if she decides it isn't worth it. What a selfish, horrible person.
I understand this woman's emotional response, but it is just that - a personal, emotional response to a traumatic experience. Like most pro-choice arguments it has no scientific, biological, or consistent ethical basis. It is a 'worst case scenario' strawman. And in fact, an abortion - a procedure with the sole intention of killing the fetus - would not be medically necessary to save the mother in this situation. An early induction or emergency c section in which the child may be too premature to make it - yes, this could happen and no one wants to outlaw this. There are no 'emergency' abortions. A woman may say the risks are too high for her and she wants to terminate based on a risk analysis, but it is not medically necessary to save her life.
The Dublin Declaration has been signed by over 1,000 physicians:
“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
I believe the narcissistic view of self value over that of your own child is a tragic viewpoint. The war on life is still going strong be it at the beginning or end of life. The destruction of Judeo-Christian values be the Progressive Left (Marxist Nihilists) has succeeded and the fight to counter that continues.
You’re right if the mother is crashing, then she is the one the doctor must attend to. However, it is a very unusual for an abortion to need to be performed in that situation, and if that is the case, the doctor simply gets the baby out as quickly as possible. He doesn’t take the time to kill the baby first, which is what happens in an abortion. 1.3% is more than a million 24 week abortions since 1973. Non-viable fetuses do not need killing prior to delivery as they are non-viable.
I have no sympathy for a woman who waits till age 38 to get pregnant which is often fraught with issues ,whines about it and then comes out defending infanticide. Birth Control pills are cheap and readily available. Its time we stopped coddling the irresponsible and stop calling the killing of babies health care.
I can understand rare early term abortions in the case of rape or incest but those are rare and there are exceptions for that. But the concept that one ends a life out of convenience is heinous.
Former State Sen. Kelli Stargel, who sponsored the 15-week pro-life bill, said that Dorbert is eligible for an abortion under state law. Dorbert’s doctor, along with abortionists, states that the medical field’s arbitrary definition of “viability” is different and does not depend solely on the child’s age but their health status as well.
The irony is that mothers, including pro-choice mothers, would jump in front of a bus to save their two year old. Somehow it's different when you can see it and feel it.
Help women navigate around restrictive abortion laws.
A woman who received quality medical care for the conditions she describes goes on a rant about abortion .Sorry, doesnt line up
Too many pro abortion people are trying to engage me in all these threads at the same time and on this forum it’s really tough to locate them all. (Please fix that substack lol)
I see the notifications but can’t always track down the comment without hunting through every post. Apologies. I don’t mean to ignore anyone’s responses to my comments.
Someone named Liora Jacob wants to know if I’m a medical doctor. I am not. I am also not particularly hung up on credentialism and don’t like to waste much time dealing with appeal to authority fallacy.
That said, yes we all know that sometimes severely sick or malformed babies will not have long, healthy or pain free lives. This sad reality does not negate their essential humanity or the obligation of medical professionals to treat them as human patients. I urge you to contemplate the work being done in perinatal and postnatal palliative and hospice care. These sick little humans need not be intentionally killed before delivery or thrown in the garbage post delivery. There are more humane options and studies have well demonstrated what should be somewhat obvious; that the parents of sick babies do much better psychologically and even physically when their helpless child is respected and treated as a human being, and they as parents of children with life limiting conditions are allowed and encouraged to grieve the loss of their human child should they not survive.
From a Christian standpoint (of course not everyone can relate, but many comments here have touched on faith); these children are created in the image of God and loved before the foundation of the world every bit as much as healthy, thriving children.
I would also point out that there are plenty of instances where postnatal diagnosis and prognosis differ substantially from antenatal predictions.
There's a whole missing element to the abortion discussion. There have been 50 million abortions in the US since Roe vs. Wade. I'm pretty sure (despite being a man) that if you ask ANY woman would she like to have an abortion, she'd say no. VERY low on her list of things to do. Traumatic in 17 different ways.
The broader cultural question migh be: If the social contract is written in such a way that does not protect women from unwanted pregnancies, there is something serious off-kilter about the social contract.
As a (desperate) solution for sickness and rape, there are very good arguments for abortion. But as a handy way for getting out of pregnancy, it's extremely abusive and disrespectful of women. This is NOT where 'women's rights' should have led.
I think a deeper change is needed, not an argument about the 'right' to abortion. How about the right to live life without fearing you might need to undergo something traumatic and physically threatening, just because guys would rather have more intercourse.
I love you.
I choose you.
I will give my life for you.
No matter what outcome might be, what trauma might occur, what uncertainty might await, I choose this moment, this little piece of time, not for the chance that your life might turn out the way I want it -
but your life, as it is, what we have, now. You are worth it. You are my miracle.
I will give my life for you.
I choose you.
I love you.
The article convinces me of the importance of restricting abortion with exceptions for the mother’s health. There was no reason to abort this baby other than health risks for mom. Otherwise it would have been terminating life for no reason. I cannot understand how the author herself could come to any other conclusion based on the FACTS.
Without the facts and context, the author could come to any random conclusion like the one she articulated. Here is an alternate non sequitur: after this experience, I believed more strongly than ever in the right to carry a firearm.
My wife was pro-choice. She had a baby (our son). Now, she is firmly opposed to abortion. There... my anecdote contradicts yours.
i remain pro-choice because i have always supported people making decisions about their own health. that being said - one needs to understand when she is having an abortion, something with a very good chance at becoming a life is being killed and there are both physical and emotional consequences that will go along with that. additionally, all other options should be exhausted prior to one making the decision to abort. like all other aspects of medicine - informed consent should be the rule. when we continue to phrase this as a “reproductive rights” issue, we continue to de-value the life of this soon-to be human
For those who are interested, the original Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine vs FDA complaint as at https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/23-10362/23-10362-2023-04-12.pdf?ts=1681387283
I realize the complaints are usually slanted, but it contains interesting facts to be aware of.
And the Alito dissent is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22a901_3d9g.pdf
He argues that "As narrowed by the Court of Appeals, the stay that would apply if we failed to broaden it would not remove mifepristone from the market. It would simply restore the circumstances that existed (and that the Government defended) from 2000 to 2016 under three Presidential administrations."
These articles are why I cancelled my subscription. I dare the author to look at her son and go tell him to his face that his life was almost not worth the inconvenience she went through to have him, and that she supports another woman's right to kill her child if she decides it isn't worth it. What a selfish, horrible person.
I understand this woman's emotional response, but it is just that - a personal, emotional response to a traumatic experience. Like most pro-choice arguments it has no scientific, biological, or consistent ethical basis. It is a 'worst case scenario' strawman. And in fact, an abortion - a procedure with the sole intention of killing the fetus - would not be medically necessary to save the mother in this situation. An early induction or emergency c section in which the child may be too premature to make it - yes, this could happen and no one wants to outlaw this. There are no 'emergency' abortions. A woman may say the risks are too high for her and she wants to terminate based on a risk analysis, but it is not medically necessary to save her life.
The Dublin Declaration has been signed by over 1,000 physicians:
“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
remind me to ask my doctor f he /she signed this so I can find other one