Congressman says abortions never necessary to save life of mother

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SusansChoice said:
Many, many years ago I was pregnant. Earlier that year my only child had died so I was grateful for another chance. Not long after finding out I was pregnant, I went to the hospital in excruciating pain. I had an ectopic pregnancy. The fallopian tube had already ruptured. The other 3 women who shared my hospital room were frantically ringing the nurse’s station insisting they do something. Although I initially refused to consider a termination, my Dr. was insistant and made it clear that I would die and the baby would die regardless of my choice. It’s not a hard to be persuaded when you are delirious with pain.

In my case the affected fallopian tube was removed. The death of the child is considered an unfortunate indirect consequence and is considered an acceptable treatment by the Catholic Church. There are other methods in which medication is given that directly destroys the child and leaves the tube in tact. That is not acceptable.

How fortunate for the many people who have not been forced to make such a difficult decision. It’s funny how you can loose your piousness when one of your internal organs is bursting.
Click to expand...
God bless you and your child.
 
These are difficult and emotional areas. That is what is my opinion that we should not debate the issue of abortion on the fringes. With rape incest and life of the mother exceptions we are talking about less than 1% of the 1.2 million abortions performed every year. When we let people who are pro-abortion drag us into discussions about this minuscule number of abortions that directs the conversation away from the other 99%. And yes, in too often, even people who are pro-life excoriate those who support abortion in the three instances i mentioned with the same vigor they excoriate those who support unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand. I would take a ban on all abortions but those involving rape, incest and direct threat to the mother’s life in a minute. I would mourn for the children lost and fight to have those abortions banned also but i would praise the lord for the millions saved.
 
estesbob said:
These are difficult and emotional areas. That is what is my opinion that we should not debate the issue of abortion on the fringes. With rape incest and life of the mother exceptions we are talking about less than 1% of the 1.2 million abortions performed every year. When we let people who are pro-abortion drag us into discussions about this minuscule number of abortions that directs the conversation away from the other 99%. And yes, in too often, even people who are pro-life excoriate those who support abortion in the three instances i mentioned with the same vigor they excoriate those who support unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand. I would take a ban on all abortions but those involving rape, incest and direct threat to the mother’s life in a minute. I would mourn for the children lost and fight to have those abortions banned also but i would praise the lord for the millions saved.
Click to expand...
Exactly correct. I obviously want the number to be zero, but isn’t eliminating 99% a nice first step?
 
Z1Z2 said:
There most certainly ARE illnesses that can put a woman’s health at so much risk that to continue the pregnancy could kill her! Preeclampsia and eclampsia end many pregnancies worldwide because the mother’s life is at risk. Now, granted, most of the time, the pregnancy is far enough along that the the baby will end up in the NICU, and no one is pushing is abortion. What you blithely dismissed as treatment is management - and that is not the same thing at all! Treatment implies removing the threat. However, there is no treatment that is effective long term. If preeclampsia happens early enough in the pregnancy, a woman will be delivering early to save her life. The goal is balance the mother’s health and the baby’s heath if delivered too early. Unfortunately, the threat of preeclampsia does not go away with bedrest. Why do you think they do the early delivery that you admitted to, if not because of the risk to the mother is the pregnancy continues?? If preeclampsia was not a risk to the mother’s life, one of the major contributors to the fact that 12% of all US births are premature would go away.

“Globally, preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death. By conservative estimates, these disorders are responsible for 76,000 maternal and 500,000 infant deaths each year.” source is the Preeclampsia Foundation.
Click to expand...
Does that statisic include those who are not treated in time? How many have those disorders in pregnancy and are treated and become healthy again?

Threats like preeclampsia which can be treated with early delivery or bed rest; eclamplsia has similar treatment as preeclampsia but may require c section, neither are necessarily life threatening if treated properly
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Moral is not the same as natural. Morality is a human social construct not a natural law.
Click to expand...
But you brought up the fact that abortion is known throughout history, implying that because it has been known, it must alright. Unless I am reading you wrong. Like I said, natural doesn’t mean or is synonymous with “environmental.”
The instance mentioned above was not God killing fetuses; it was man killing fetuses allegedly with God’s blessing.
Click to expand...
I just took a deeper look at the Book of Hosea. You must look at the context. In Hosea 13:9, God says that “It is your destruction, O Israel, That you are against Me, against your help.” Clearly, Israel has abandoned God. Now let us look down in the chapter: God is telling of what will happen because Israel (specifically, Samaria, the capital of the rebellion) has rebelled against God. It isn’t a happy future, at all.

However, God then says in Hosea 14:1 (14:2 in the Hebrew manuscripts): “Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, For you have stumbled because of your iniquity.” There’s the chance to repent. The imagery is meant to be harsh, so that the recognition of their sin will be more clear.

Also, and I think it’s important to note that God is pretty much saying that if Samaria thinks they can be on their own without him, then they are in for a nasty and horrible surprise. They need God; God doesn’t need them.

So it is not human killing people with God’s blessing, but a prophecy that God will punish those who rebel against him, because they need God. Therefore, the remaining portion of your post, such as “anyone can simply say that they are exempt from God’s moral code because God told them to commit infanticide” is moot. Humans aren’t doing this to the children; God is. And like I said, God is infinitely more intelligent, and just, and loving, and perfect, that we can even possibly imagine let alone be.
 
estesbob said:
These are difficult and emotional areas. That is what is my opinion that we should not debate the issue of abortion on the fringes. With rape incest and life of the mother exceptions we are talking about less than 1% of the 1.2 million abortions performed every year. When we let people who are pro-abortion drag us into discussions about this minuscule number of abortions that directs the conversation away from the other 99%. And yes, in too often, even people who are pro-life excoriate those who support abortion in the three instances i mentioned with the same vigor they excoriate those who support unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand. I would take a ban on all abortions but those involving rape, incest and direct threat to the mother’s life in a minute. I would mourn for the children lost and fight to have those abortions banned also but i would praise the lord for the millions saved.
Click to expand...
This is well said.
 
Julia_Mae said:
Ectopic pregnancy
Tubal pregnancy; Cervical pregnancy
Last reviewed: February 26, 2012.

An ectopic pregnancy is a pregnancy that occurs outside the womb (uterus). It is a life-threatening condition to the mother. The baby (fetus) cannot survive.
Click to expand...
This is the only condition that I can think of that really would call for an abortion to save the mothers life…
Julia_Mae said:
Maybe we should leave these decisions to people who actually went to medical school.
Click to expand...
During my wife’s last pregnancy, the doctor ordered a c-section because she thought the baby would be too big, and that there was a risk of the baby’s shoulders breaking during delivery… Well as it turns out, this baby (our fourth) was the smallest of all our children.

So my wife basically had a c-section for nothing… Point being, doctors do over react.

(rather than inducing labor a week early, the doctor wanted to risk the c-section…:rolleyes:)
 
My guess is when politicians use “to save a mothers life” in their defense of abortion, they really intend to create enough wiggle room for legalized abortions to effectively support therapeutic abortions. Romney is completely unconvincing in his “pro-life” position.
 
Pork_Roll said:
My guess is when politicians use “to save a mothers life” in their defense of abortion, they really intend to create enough wiggle room for legalized abortions to effectively support therapeutic abortions. Romney is completely unconvincing in his “pro-life” position.
Click to expand...
Right -that’s how I see it too.

They can always say that in this instance or that instance the birth ended up becoming a fatality for the mother, so they use that as leverage for their own personal agenda… But in reality, what they should be arguing for are medical cures and solutions -not abortions. :rolleyes:
 
Wait, seriously… Why don’t politicians lobby more for cures and solutions for medical problems rather than focusing so heavily on governing the medical system as a whole?

What if all the money spent on keeping abortion legal was spent on finding cures and solutions…? How many lives could we be sparing that we’re not when considering all the abortions PLUS all those lost to diseases or conditions that could have been prevented?

Sheesh, I just thought of that…:o:shrug:
 
TEPO said:
Wait, seriously… Why don’t politicians lobby more for cures and solutions for medical problems rather than focusing so heavily on governing the medical system as a whole?

What if all the money spent on keeping abortion legal was spent on finding cures and solutions…? How many lives could we be sparing that we’re not when considering all the abortions PLUS all those lost to diseases or conditions that could have been prevented?

Sheesh, I just thought of that…:o:shrug:
Click to expand...
I agree. I seriously think we should start investing in creating something like an “artificial womb.”
 
Here’s another excerpt from the article linked by Julia Mae back in post # 44 - More Women Dying From Pregnancy Complications ; State Holds on to Report .

It would appear that the doctors themselves, were significant contributors to the increased motality rate . . . inconsistent in considering whether the immediate benefits of their procedures outweighed the long-term risks involved. Pregnancy is being made to look like the culprit, but the more one reads, one discovers the actual risk factor increased not due to that particular pregnancy, but rather how the same mother was treated during previous pregnancies.
. . . “Even though they tend to be small numbers in terms of maternal mortality, it is important – it’s very important – that these trends be looked at,” she said. “And efforts need to be made to try and reverse them when they are going in the wrong direction.”
Click to expand...
Rising C-section birth rate
Click to expand...
Nearly one in three babies is now born by C-section. Many scientists have acknowledged that at some point, as the number of surgeries spiral upward, the risks will outweigh the benefits. But the C-section remains a useful tool, and in the middle of labor, doctors say, it’s hard to balance the potential long-term harm against immediate crisis.
Click to expand...
Today, doctors face a condition called placenta accreta, where the placenta grows into the scar left by a previous C-section. In surgery, doctors must find and suture a web of twisted placental vessels snaking into the patient’s abdomen, which can hemorrhage alarming amounts of blood. Often, doctors must remove the uterus.
Click to expand...
Main said this complication from C-sections has increased eight-to-10 fold in the past decade. Nonetheless, most women survive the ordeal. The point, says Catherine Camacho, deputy director of the state’s Center for Family Health, is that the rise in deaths is indicative of a larger problem.
Click to expand...
“For every maternal death, there are 10 near misses; for every near miss, there are 10 severe morbidity cases (such as hysterectomy, hemorrhage, or infection), and for every severe morbidity case, there is another 10 morbidity cases related to childbirth,” Camacho wrote in an e-mail.
Click to expand...
Other factors are contributing to the rise in deaths, but the researchers in California are most interested in the areas where they have control, such as the high C-section birth rate: It’s easier for doctors to improve medical care than to fix more intractable problems like poverty and obesity.
Click to expand...
Inducing labor before term more common
Click to expand...
In 2002, Dr. David Lagrew, the medical director of the Women’s Hospital at Saddleback Memorial Medical Center in Orange County, noticed that a lot of women were having their labor induced before term without a medical reason. And he knew that having an induction doubled the chances of a C-section.
Click to expand...
So he set a rule: no elective inductions before 41 weeks of pregnancy, with only a few exceptions. As a result, Lagrew said, the operating room schedules opened up, and the hospital saw fewer babies admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, fewer hemorrhages and fewer hysterectomies.
Click to expand...
All this, however, came at a cost: The hospital had to take a cut in revenue for reducing the procedures it performed. Lagrew doubts that any hospital has increased its C-section rate in pursuit of profit, but he does note that the first hospitals to adopt controls on early elective inductions have been nonprofits.
Click to expand...


.
 
NeedImprovement said:
Here’s another excerpt from the article linked by Julia Mae back in post # 44 - More Women Dying From Pregnancy Complications ; State Holds on to Report .

It would appear that the doctors themselves, were significant contributors to the increased motality rate . . . inconsistent in considering whether the immediate benefits of their procedures outweighed the long-term risks involved. Pregnancy is being made to look like the culprit, but the more one reads, one discovers the actual risk factor increased not due to that particular pregnancy, but rather how the same mother was treated during previous pregnancies.

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s145/aubrey_michelle05/smiley-sad.png

.
Click to expand...
Indeed - how many mothers are at heightened risk during pregnancy due to having previous abortions —ahmmmmmmmmmmmmm?:cool:
 
If abortions are never necessary to save the life of the mother, why not make them legal? It seems like an easy compromise to make: the pro-choice crowd will be happy to have gained a victory, while we well be happy knowing it will never happen, so we aren’t actually supporting any abortions.

It’s sad that partisanship has eroded our ability to make logical decisions and compromise.

Also,
What if all the money spent on keeping abortion legal was spent on finding cures and solutions…? How many lives could we be sparing that we’re not when considering all the abortions PLUS all those lost to diseases or conditions that could have been prevented?
Click to expand...
I agree, but the opposite is also true. If all the money spent opposing abortions was spent developing an artificial womb, we would probably be close to the point where we could save most abortions, and legislating it would no longer be necessary.
 
Kevin_B said:
If abortions are never necessary to save the life of the mother, why not make them legal? It seems like an easy compromise to make: the pro-choice crowd will be happy to have gained a victory, while we well be happy knowing it will never happen, so we aren’t actually supporting any abortions.

It’s sad that partisanship has eroded our ability to make logical decisions and compromise.
Click to expand...
Uhh, because abortions kill babies, maybe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top