Alabama Senate passes bill banning nearly all abortions /MOD WARNING

And if the woman's blood pressure is too high and the fetus is not yet viable, the treatment is termination. And sometimes the resolution is the death of the mother. THAT is why it is a procedure that needs to left to the mother and her doctors - not some arbitrary date on the calendar.

 

i already stated i would support abortion to save the life of the mother... a very rare circumstance these days with modern medicine.

 

I support the right of individuals to own firearms. I support your right to defend yourself. I don't support your right to tell someone else they have to carry a rapist's baby to term. And given that many rapes go unreported - I don't support your right to tell that woman she has to report a rape in order to get rid of that rapist's baby.

 

I believe I mentioned to you that I practice medicine.

What you are referring to as "the woman's blood pressure is too high..." is a condition of the 3rd trimester.

Meaning viable.

I realize you think you read something in Rolling Stone, or saw it on the Orange Man Bad show on comedy central.

But perhaps what you know just isn't so.

 

the question was not about owing firearms. do you support my right to carry a loaded firearm in public?

and i'm going to ignore the disingenuous fallacy that comprises the second half of your post as i have already stated unequivocally that i make an exception to my position against baby killing in the case of a rape.

 

ANY pregnancy can result in the death of the mother. Should YOU be able to define that risk just by looking at a calendar, or should the mother and her doctors be able to determine that risk? What risk is acceptable? 5%? 20%? Would you want to be FORCED to accept someone else's definition of risk in your life?

 

no, we just want you to stop killing babies because they are "inconvenient."

whatever, tough guy.

so your solution to someone you disagree with is violence, eh? why am i not surprised?

 

well by that argument, we should just stop procreating and let the human race die off. come on dude, let's wander back into reality.

 

Yup - This is the internet, so you can claim anything you want ...
And preeclampsia can present itself after the 20th week, not the 28th, as you claim ... but of course you, as a "doctor", would know that.
And I just went through this whole process with a relative, so forgive me if I take personal experience over some guy on the internet who slept at a Holiday Inn last night.

 

Moronic reply on your part. The answer is to let a woman DECIDE for herself. For most, the decision is to carry to term, which I fully support. But for some, the maternal instinct is not there - or the physical or mental conditions are not conducive to carry to term - those women should be ALLOWED to terminate.

And if you ever had to document the scene of a pregnant 16 year old who committed suicide rather than admit to her parents she was pregnant, you would probably agree.

 

seems you didn't hear me the first time...

I ALREADY STATED I WOULD SUPPORT ABORTION TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

 

Apologies, I practice medicine but didn't realize you had a relative with a medical condition.

Pre eclamsia can present earlier, but only the early stages. The type that would require management via CS or delivery is seen in the third trimester.

The treatment is delivery of a generally healthy and viable baby.

 

And a greater risk to the mother.

 

Nope. If its bad enough that it warrants a c-section, there isn't a reason to abort.

 

Only a small risk.

Almost all women who wanted their baby are willing to take this risk. Something to think about.

 

One YOU will NEVER, EVER have to consider cause you can't get pregnant. Easy to sit in the cheap sits and tell someone else to jump ...

 

Sounds to me that's what a pregnant woman is doing when she decides to make 'Little Fetus' go bye bye.

 

You volunteer to pay all the woman's medical and personal expenses while she is pregnant - then I'll take you seriously. You spend half the time you spend on anti-abortion rhetoric trying to start legislation for expanding hospitals and maternity wards, then I'll take you seriously. Every dime you spend hoping to end abortion could have been spent on trying to save the babies that parents actually want. But no - Republicans answer to well babies is to slash funding for affordable health insurance, for doctor training, for expanding well baby clinics. I just can't take anything you say seriously.

 

I'd offer to pay for the services of a midwife, nothing more.
A hospital stay for pregnancy is vastly overrated.

No, women aren't "entitled" to a sterile delivery room in a maternity ward.

If the pregnancy is perfectly normal, the taxpayers should not pay.

 

And if she dies from complications? Or requires a C-Section? Or developed gestational diabetes? You're so generous.

 

She's less likely to develop diabetes outside of the hospital. That usually comes from being hooked up to a IV tube.

 

Have you ever had sex?

You think that there's a lot of "deciding" going on there?

We're driven by the urge to have sex. That's when conception happens! That's what's going to happen when you deprive people of birth control at the same time that you deprive women of the choice to have any kind of abortion. When you consider that the GOP wants to deprive people of health care, and governmental assistance to take cafe of a child once it's born, it adds up to WTF?

 

SCIENCE!

 

Who wants to take away birth control?

 

You should show up at every birth to tell someone else what to do! Problem solved!