• The KillerFrogs

The Harris/Biden Administration: Coming Together to Build Back Better

If these risks were so overwhelmingly prevalent to the extent that they justified public policy, then our species would have ceased to exist centuries ago.

ON EDIT: Take a look at the data I posted from the New York Times previously on who actually gets abortions, and tell me it has to do with "health care." All the health care nonsense is a scam.
Obviously our opinions are often a product of our experiences, which can often lead to bias, which i might be conveying here. But I think back to my experiences on the high risk OB service in medical school and the patients with preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome. There was always a difficult decision surrounding care. You can give supportive care for a while, but in the end the only definitive treatment of severe preeclampsia and HELLP is to terminate the pregnancy. Ideally that is a at the point the fetus is mature enough to live but sometimes it is before 24 weeks. In the big picture, maybe those are rare situations, but even in rare situations to take that decision out of the doctor and mother's hands have the state dictate what can be done and when I think is wrong. So I think your "scam" assertion is too broad a brush to paint. There really are situations where a mother's life is in danger and the treatment is termination of the pregnancy.

EDIT- here is a paper discussing the incidence of severe preclampsia, and HEELP syndrome rates:


A lot of patients can respond to supportive therapy for a period and others a far enough along that delivery can be induced with a NICU stay, but a % cases are earlier in the pregnancy before that is an option.
 
Last edited:
Obviously our opinions are often a product of our experiences, which can often lead to bias, which i might be conveying here. But I think back to my experiences on the high risk OB service in medical school and the patients with preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome. There was always a difficult decision surrounding care. You can give supportive care for a while, but in the end the only definitive treatment of severe preeclampsia and HELLP is to terminate the pregnancy. Ideally that is a at the point the fetus is mature enough to live but sometimes it is before 24 weeks. In the big picture, maybe those are rare situations, but even in rare situations to take that decision out of the doctor and mother's hands have the state dictate what can be done and when I think is wrong. So I think your "scam" assertion is too broad a brush to paint. There really are situations where a mother's life is in danger and the treatment is termination of the pregnancy.

EDIT- here is a paper discussing the incidence of severe preclampsia, and HEELP syndrome rates:


A lot of patients can respond to supportive therapy for a period and others a far enough along that delivery can be induced with a NICU stay, but a % cases are earlier in the pregnancy before that is an option.
For what it's worth, I do think there should be exceptions for rape, incest and when the mother's life is endangered (or even when there are verified severe health risks). I've believed that for nearly 40 years.

But again, the data on who gets abortions doesn't support that those are even close to being the true reasons that people get abortions. The overwhelming primary drivers for abortion are that a child would be a financial, social or career burden.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
Obviously our opinions are often a product of our experiences, which can often lead to bias, which i might be conveying here. But I think back to my experiences on the high risk OB service in medical school and the patients with preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome. There was always a difficult decision surrounding care. You can give supportive care for a while, but in the end the only definitive treatment of severe preeclampsia and HELLP is to terminate the pregnancy. Ideally that is a at the point the fetus is mature enough to live but sometimes it is before 24 weeks. In the big picture, maybe those are rare situations, but even in rare situations to take that decision out of the doctor and mother's hands have the state dictate what can be done and when I think is wrong. So I think your "scam" assertion is too broad a brush to paint. There really are situations where a mother's life is in danger and the treatment is termination of the pregnancy.

EDIT- here is a paper discussing the incidence of severe preclampsia, and HEELP syndrome rates:


A lot of patients can respond to supportive therapy for a period and others a far enough along that delivery can be induced with a NICU stay, but a % cases are earlier in the pregnancy before that is an option.
There is. But that isn't what the abortion debate is really about. Surely you know this.

Do you think the pro-choice people would be pacified if forever until the end of time abortions were legal (and even publicly funded), but ONLY if the life of the mother was TRULY in danger, and illegal otherwise?
 
There is. But that isn't what the abortion debate is really about. Surely you know this.

Do you think the pro-choice people would be pacified if forever until the end of time abortions were legal (and even publicly funded), but ONLY if the life of the mother was TRULY in danger, and illegal otherwise?
You keep saying that but I'm not sure what you mean. For me, it's about the ethical and moral dilemma of the process of aborting a pregnancy, how to weigh the virtues of life and personal liberty/freedom and who gets to decide how the scales of those virtues balance in a specific situation- the state or the individual.
 

tcudoc

Full Member
First of all, pregnancy is not a benign process.
maternal-mortality.png


There are many nuances and gray areas that exist that have to be considered. A good deal of my practice involves labor and delivery patients and care for patients who are pregnant and need other surgical treatment.

The first example is an ectopic pregnancy. That is life threatening, does not lead to a viable term pregnancy, and is a surgical emergency when it ruptures and leads to hemorrhage. This is "technically" an abortion.

An anencephalic (and a handful of other genetic abnormalities) fetus is not consistent with life. The torture of continuing such a pregnancy and then the devastation of having to deliver the baby only to have it die in your arms within a few hours is a heartbreaking conundrum.

Next is the mom who has co-existing diseases (typically cardiac) that can lead to death. Pregnancy affects every organ system in the mother's body, mostly in deleterious ways. There are certain disease processes such as aortic stenosis, mitral stenosis, idiopathic hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and anyone with repaired or unrepaired congenital heart defects that have abnormal heart plumbing. The physiologic changes of pregnancy can be fatal in some of these patients. Not always, but mortality can reach the 40-50% range in certain conditions. For these reasons, these patients are often told that they should NEVER get pregnant. Some listen and some don't. The best birth control is not 100% effective, so we sometimes see these patients who now have an extremely high risk pregnancy. If they were to terminate the pregnancy at the 8-10 week time period, the physiologic changes of pregnancy have not yet really started, and they would be as healthy as they were previously (which is not saying that much) and could go on with their normal life. If they carry the pregnancy to term, it will be very complex and they have a high mortality rate. If they die during childbirth, then we now have a child without a mom.

Another example would be a woman undergoing radiation and chemotherapy for cervical cancer (or other cancers, but cervical is right at the site and a good example). For this baby to have a fighting chance, the mom's treatment must then be interrupted for 40 weeks, which, in many cancers, is the difference between treatments resulting in a cure versus being ineffective or just life extending. I have seen mom's deal with this decision and it can be gut wrenching. If you continue the treatment, you may get a cure of your cancer. If you interrupt the treatment and allow the child to grow to term and deliver, the likelihood that the mom dies before the child turns 3 years old increases dramatically.

I am typically very much against abortions, but I do not think it can be painted with as broad a brush as some would suggest. The stigma of the rape or incest issue is an entirely different issue that many people have differing opinions on and one that I won't weigh in on.
 
Last edited:

Wexahu

Full Member
You keep saying that but I'm not sure what you mean. For me, it's about the ethical and moral dilemma of the process of aborting a pregnancy, how to weigh the virtues of life and personal liberty/freedom and who gets to decide how the scales of those virtues balance in a specific situation- the state or the individual.
The people who are on the pro-choice side want to make it about the woman's health, the baby's health, etc. etc. Those are just deflections in an attempt to make it not about what it really is about........the ability for a woman to change her mind about whether she wants a baby at any time during her pregnancy.....for any reason, just because....my body, my choice.

It's not really an issue about personal liberty/freedom unless you think a fetus deserves no liberty or freedom. And to be clear I'm not really talking about a 4-week old fetus, I think you know what I am talking about.
 

Frog-in-law1995

Active Member
Yes, it is a canard. One quarter of one percent -- 0.24% -- of women die during child birth. It's a statistically irrelevant number to make public policy on. Yet the nutjobs on the left took that and made it into a 'women's health care!' issue as if it were this widespread issue where ALL women were in danger.

In my opinion, Roe v Wade was the beginning of the political correctness/cancel culture movement. It was the very moment that we, as a culture, began to surrender to the left's emotional outbursts.
I think it’s one-quarter of one-tenth of a percent. 0.024%.
 

Wexahu

Full Member
First of all, pregnancy is not a benign process.
maternal-mortality.png


There are many nuances and gray areas that exist that have to be considered. A good deal of my practice involves labor and delivery patients and care for patients who are pregnant and need other surgical treatment.

The first example is an ectopic pregnancy. That is life threatening, does not lead to a viable term pregnancy, and is a surgical emergency when it ruptures and leads to hemorrhage. This is "technically" an abortion.

An anencephalic (and a handful of other genetic abnormalities) fetus is not consistent with life. The torture of continuing such a pregnancy and then the devastation of having to deliver the baby only to have it die in your arms within a few hours is a heartbreaking conundrum.

Next is the mom who has co-existing diseases (typically cardiac) that can lead to death. Pregnancy affects every organ system in the mother's body, mostly in deleterious ways. There are certain disease processes such as aortic stenosis, mitral stenosis, idiopathic hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and anyone with repaired or unrepaired congenital heart defects that have abnormal heart plumbing. The physiologic changes of pregnancy can be fatal in some of these patients. Not always, but mortality can reach the 40-50% range in certain conditions. For these reasons, these patients are often told that they should NEVER get pregnant. Some listen and some don't. The best birth control is not 100% effective, so we sometimes see these patients who now have an extremely high risk pregnancy. If they were to terminate the pregnancy at the 8-10 week time period, the physiologic changes of pregnancy have not yet really started, and they would be as healthy as they were previously (which is not saying that much) and could go on with their normal life. If they carry the pregnancy to term, it will be very complex and they have a high mortality rate. If they during childbirth, then we now have a child without a mom.

Another example would be a woman undergoing radiation and chemotherapy for cervical cancer (or other cancers, but cervical is right at the site and a good example). For this baby to have a fighting chance, the mom's treatment must then be interrupted for 40 weeks, which, in many cancers, is the difference between treatments resulting in a cure versus being ineffective or just life extending. I have seen mom's deal with this decision and it can be gut wrenching. If you continue the treatment, you may get a cure of your cancer. If you interrupt the treatment and allow the child to grow to term and deliver, the likelihood that the mom dies before the child turns 3 years old increases dramatically.

I am typically very much against abortions, but I do not think it can be painted with as broad a brush as some would suggest. The stigma of the rape or incest issue is an entirely different issue that many people have differing opinions on and one that I won't weigh in on.
Good post, and I agree.

These gray area and nuance situations are not enough for some though.
 

Showtime Joe 2.0

Ticket Exchange Pass
First of all, pregnancy is not a benign process.
maternal-mortality.png


There are many nuances and gray areas that exist that have to be considered. A good deal of my practice involves labor and delivery patients and care for patients who are pregnant and need other surgical treatment.

The first example is an ectopic pregnancy. That is life threatening, does not lead to a viable term pregnancy, and is a surgical emergency when it ruptures and leads to hemorrhage. This is "technically" an abortion.

An anencephalic (and a handful of other genetic abnormalities) fetus is not consistent with life. The torture of continuing such a pregnancy and then the devastation of having to deliver the baby only to have it die in your arms within a few hours is a heartbreaking conundrum.

Next is the mom who has co-existing diseases (typically cardiac) that can lead to death. Pregnancy affects every organ system in the mother's body, mostly in deleterious ways. There are certain disease processes such as aortic stenosis, mitral stenosis, idiopathic hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and anyone with repaired or unrepaired congenital heart defects that have abnormal heart plumbing. The physiologic changes of pregnancy can be fatal in some of these patients. Not always, but mortality can reach the 40-50% range in certain conditions. For these reasons, these patients are often told that they should NEVER get pregnant. Some listen and some don't. The best birth control is not 100% effective, so we sometimes see these patients who now have an extremely high risk pregnancy. If they were to terminate the pregnancy at the 8-10 week time period, the physiologic changes of pregnancy have not yet really started, and they would be as healthy as they were previously (which is not saying that much) and could go on with their normal life. If they carry the pregnancy to term, it will be very complex and they have a high mortality rate. If they during childbirth, then we now have a child without a mom.

Another example would be a woman undergoing radiation and chemotherapy for cervical cancer (or other cancers, but cervical is right at the site and a good example). For this baby to have a fighting chance, the mom's treatment must then be interrupted for 40 weeks, which, in many cancers, is the difference between treatments resulting in a cure versus being ineffective or just life extending. I have seen mom's deal with this decision and it can be gut wrenching. If you continue the treatment, you may get a cure of your cancer. If you interrupt the treatment and allow the child to grow to term and deliver, the likelihood that the mom dies before the child turns 3 years old increases dramatically.

I am typically very much against abortions, but I do not think it can be painted with as broad a brush as some would suggest. The stigma of the rape or incest issue is an entirely different issue that many people have differing opinions on and one that I won't weigh in on.
Thanks so much, Doc, for this most informative post. As a lawyer and not a doctor, I'm reminded of the old saying in the legal field that "hard cases make bad law." And the cases that you've outlined are definitely hard ones. But sometimes parents (and mothers in particular) just get dealt a bad hand. That's life and, yes, it's unfair as hell. But I'm still opposed to willful, procured abortions for any reason since there are always two patients and not one no matter how "gut wrenching," as you rightly describe it, the circumstances may be. You talk a lot about percentages and mortality rates, etc., and I understand that's how doctors are trained to look at things. But I just look at two human beings and think it's wrong to purposely take the life away from either one of them. It's a slippery slope once you start making exceptions to that rule, as even Sink seems to recognize.

And, to be clear, I'm not talking about ectopic pregnancies (nor is anybody, for that matter, despite the intentionally misleading rhetoric of the pro-aborts). And while you say ectopic cases "technically" involve an abortion, I wouldn't use the word "abortion" in that context. Some people call miscarriages "spontaneous abortions," which is even more absurd.

Now, with all that being said, and before Sink points out that my opinion is a distinctly minority one, I know that already. And if various state laws in the post-Roe era carve out such exceptions for the truly "hard cases," then so be it. And even if you throw exceptions for rape and incest (which I oppose) into the mix, that still leaves, as others have pointed out on here, 98-99% of all the other abortions that should definitely be criminalized.

The pro-aborts love to focus on the hard cases to justify abortion in all cases but most cases aren't hard ones.
 

Showtime Joe 2.0

Ticket Exchange Pass
I would like to request a new thread for roe v Wade talk
Frankly, I thought that someone would start a new thread when Justice Alito's draft opinion was leaked but posters started to comment upon it in this thread. But if no one starts a new thread before the actual final opinion is released next month or early in July, then I promise you, Paul, that I'll do so myself (unless someone beats me to it, which is quite likely!)

I've been waiting, hoping, and praying for nearly 50 years for Roe to be overturned and when that finally happens, I will dance like David in front of the Ark of the Covenant! It'll truly be one of the happiest, if not the most happy, day of my life!
 
What kind of cuck had sex with her? And doesn't she know being 38 weeks pregnant means it is just a clump of cells?

It's kind of ironic that she uses disinformation to explain the reasons that this board was cancelled.

It was cancelled because people saw that a biased, activist demagogue was going to be in charge of what we are allowed to hear/read. Jankowicz was herself a purveyor of disinformation, and it was all over the internet. Her own words and actions were to blame, not disinformation.
 

An-Cap Frog

Member
Couldn't you make the same argument about the absolute pro-life stance of no exceptions, not even for the life of the mother.

To be honest, in some ways the "pure" pro-life and the "pure" pro-choice positions are the most consistent and easiest to argue positions on the issue. On the pro-life side, the virtue of life wins out as absolute, no exceptions. On the pro-choice side, the virtue of personal liberty is absolute, no exceptions. The nuanced middle ground where the values of life and liberty are weighed against each other in some way can be tougher to defend since by definition you are ignoring one of those virtues in one situation but not the other. It's a very difficult middle ground to navigate. For example, a solid majority of the population is OK with early abortions, with most people comfortable with 12 weeks. But what is magical about that gestation that makes liberty win out before that and life after it? It's just an arbitrary gestation. And even late term abortions, which on the surface seems like an extreme position seems a little less extreme when you think about the couple finding out they have a fetus with major neurologic defects at their 20 week check up that will not be viable. I can't imagine how I would feel and what I would do in that situation. Are we ready to say that the state is the best one to dictate what that couple can do in that situation? If that situation is acceptable for a late abortion (and I tend to think it is), what about the next slightly different one? It starts to get real difficult to codify and defend. So I can see the attraction with "absolute" positions.
I always thought that anti-war, anti-abortion, anti-death penalty was the most consistent view. If we accept that man has no right to take any life, only God has that, then anything that we do to end a life is wrong.
 
The people who are on the pro-choice side want to make it about the woman's health, the baby's health, etc. etc. Those are just deflections in an attempt to make it not about what it really is about........the ability for a woman to change her mind about whether she wants a baby at any time during her pregnancy.....for any reason, just because....my body, my choice.
It's not really an issue about personal liberty/freedom unless you think a fetus deserves no liberty or freedom. And to be clear I'm not really talking about a 4-week old fetus, I think you know what I am talking about.
I think it is important to recognize that the vast majority of pro-choice people are never going to have an abortion, so for them the debate is not about personal convenience.

For me, it is a “there, but for the grace of God go I” thing. I will never be pregnant and never face the moral dilemma of whether to abort a pregnancy. I am pretty sure that I would if my life depended on it, and I’m pretty sure I would if I was carrying a non-viable fetus, even if it was late term. I’m pretty sure I would never abort a pregnancy out of convenience. I’m not sure what I would do if I was raped or forced to have sex. I agree there is a ton of nuance and I think we all might decide differently in each of those situations. I think it is pretty clear though that government is not very good at nuance. Those are the main reasons I am pro-choice. If I’m not sure even sure what I would do in all the various possible situations (and indeed will never be in a position to decide), how can I force my opinion on someone else?
 
Last edited:

Bob Sugar

Active Member
I think it is important to recognize that the vast majority of pro-choice people are never going to have an abortion, so for them the debate is not about personal convenience.

For me, it is a “there, but for the grace of God go I” thing. I will never be pregnant and never face the moral dilemma of whether to abort a pregnancy. I am pretty sure that I would if my life depended on it, and I’m pretty sure I would if I was carrying a non-viable fetus, even if it was late term. I’m pretty sure I would never abort a pregnancy out of convenience. I’m not sure what I would do if I was raped or forced to have sex. I agree there is a ton of nuance and I think we all might decide differently in each of those situations. I think it is pretty clear though that government is not very good at nuance. Those are the main reasons I am pro-choice. If I’m not sure even sure what I would do in all the various possible situations (and indeed will never be in a position to decide), how can I force my opinion on someone else?
pretty sure the vast vast vast vast vast majority of abortions do not have anything to do with viability of the fetus, rape, or the health of mom.
 
Top