Savita Halappanavar, a warning to the United States.

martin said:
Since an "unborn baby" is not yet a baby it is incapable of being murdered.
Click to expand...
If it has reached the age of viability it certainly is murder to kill it. Also if you kill a pregnant woman you can be charged with TWO murders in many states. Ask any 9 month pregnant mother if the human in her womb is a baby and 99.9% of them will say yes. Don't be a moron.
 
ExpressLane said:
If it has reached the age of viability it certainly is murder to kill it. Also if you kill a pregnant woman you can be charged with TWO murders in many states. Ask any 9 month pregnant mother if the human in her womb is a baby and 99.9% of them will say yes. Don't be a moron.
Click to expand...
Again, here are the facts

About 93% of reported abortions in 2019 were performed at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy, 6% were conducted between 14 and 20 weeks and 1% were performed at or after 21 weeks, according to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  • People who tend to have abortions later in a pregnancy do so because of "medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion," per the Kaiser Family Foundation
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court

 
Phantasmal said:
Again, here are the facts

About 93% of reported abortions in 2019 were performed at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy, 6% were conducted between 14 and 20 weeks and 1% were performed at or after 21 weeks, according to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  • People who tend to have abortions later in a pregnancy do so because of "medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion," per the Kaiser Family Foundation
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-roe-supreme-court

Click to expand...
So? As I said earlier life of the mother abortion are legal in every state AFAIK. Even Oklahoma allows abortions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. The vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of abortions preformed every year are for convenience not rape, incest or life of the mother which the left loves to champion. Those babies are just as dead as they would be if they were aborted in the 9th month.
 
Last edited:
ExpressLane said:
So? As I said earlier life of the mother abortion are legal in every state AFAIK. Even Oklahoma allows abortions for rape, incest, and life of the mother. The vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of abortions preformed every year are for convenience not rape, incest or life of the mother which the left loves to champion. Those babies are just as dead as they would be if they were aborted in the 9th month.
Click to expand...

*Sighs* More lies. Why do you do this?
 
ExpressLane said:
If it has reached the age of viability it certainly is murder to kill it. Also if you kill a pregnant woman you can be charged with TWO murders in many states. Ask any 9 month pregnant mother if the human in her womb is a baby and 99.9% of them will say yes. Don't be a moron.
Click to expand...

Having definitively said that and "murder" being a legal term, if you're not a moron show us existing federal or state law that classifies abortion at any stage of pregnancy as murder.
 
Jarod said:
Some time in early 2012 Savita Hapappanavar. a 31 year old dentist. became pregnant while a resident of Ireland. She and her husband were excited about welcoming a baby into their family.

Tragedy struck on October 21, 2012 Savita Halappanavar was experiencing abdominal pain and went to the hospital where Doctors concluded that a mischarge was unavoidable. The pain Mrs. Hapappanavar was experiencing was terrible, the Doctors explained to her that while she was sure to miscarry they could not perform a life saving abortion because the abortion law did not provide an exemption for a risk to the mothers life and it did not allow abortion at the stage of her pregnancy.

Three hours later Mrs. Halappanavar and her fetus were dead.



Is this what we want in the United States?
Click to expand...
They could have induced labor. You don't have to kill the baby to do that.
 
Jarod said:
Some time in early 2012 Savita Hapappanavar. a 31 year old dentist. became pregnant while a resident of Ireland. She and her husband were excited about welcoming a baby into their family.

Tragedy struck on October 21, 2012 Savita Halappanavar was experiencing abdominal pain and went to the hospital where Doctors concluded that a mischarge was unavoidable. The pain Mrs. Hapappanavar was experiencing was terrible, the Doctors explained to her that while she was sure to miscarry they could not perform a life saving abortion because the abortion law did not provide an exemption for a risk to the mothers life and it did not allow abortion at the stage of her pregnancy.

Three hours later Mrs. Halappanavar and her fetus were dead.



Is this what we want in the United States?
Click to expand...

I don't think most on the right are calling for illegal abortions if the mother's life is at stake.

This example has little to nothing to do with America.
And it is a simplification of the case.

The woman died of sepsis.
And her condition was not diagnosed until it was too late.
Apparently, it is possible that she might have survived had the doctors diagnosed her sepsis sooner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar#Summary_of_events


For the record, I am against abortions after the fetus is sentient.
I am for (though hardly thrilled with) abortions before the fetus has brain activity.
 
AProudLefty said:
Wow.
Click to expand...
Yes, when a pregnant woman is in distress, the object is to get the baby out of the body by inducing labor.

Killing the baby prior to it's induction into the world is not necessary to "save the mother." The assertion is ludicrous and designed for dumb people

It is common sense for thinking people.
 
Life is Golden said:
Yes, when a pregnant woman is in distress, the object is to get the baby out of the body by inducing labor.

Killing the baby prior to it's induction into the world is not necessary to "save the mother." The assertion is ludicrous and designed for dumb people

It is common sense for thinking people.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't understand the OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top