Women Having To Flee States With Insane Restrictions on Abortions

Hello Walt,

Walt said:
The next few years are going to get weird. We already have Republicans criminally investigating doctors for helping patients flee abortion banning states.
Click to expand...

It would seem to be out of their purview what happens in another state.
 
Lionfish said:
1659975806365-png.1055842
Click to expand...

Make sure that you use this vaccine.
 
Primavera said:
The first thing to note is that a significant majority of ectopic pregnancies are never treated, somewhere between 68–77%. In most of these cases, the embryo miscarries without medical intervention and the pregnancy ends without further incident. If we split the difference between between 68% and 77%, we get 72.5%. Using the AAFP estimate that there are 3.8 maternal deaths per every 10,000 ectopic pregnancies, and assuming that all of the deaths occurred to women who received no medical intervention, we can say that there are 3.8 deaths for every 7,250 (10,000 x 72.5%) untreated ectopic pregnancies—putting the likelihood of maternal death around .05%.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

There are a bunch of silly, wrong assumptions there. We should start with "assuming that all of the deaths occurred to women who received no medical intervention." That is the exact opposite of reality. First, women with the worst symptoms (the ones most likely to lead to death) are the most likely to seek treatment. But even those who do not seek treatment, can only be pronounced dead by a doctor, which is considered treatment.

As an example, let us look at a woman bleeding out. She is screaming in pain, and losing huge amounts of blood. Even in the USA, people will call 911 at this point, not caring about the large copayment. Treatment begins, but is not in time, and she dies. You may say what if they ignore the massive amount of blood pouring out of her. In that case, she dies, but death cannot be legally declared until treatment begins by a doctor. To believe women are dying and not being treated, we would have to believe that no one is noticing a dead woman. For the most part the symptom of death is noticed.

Speaking as a husband, I will sometimes ignore my wife complaining about cramps, but I will notice if she is actually dead. The lack of movement for a long time is a noticeable symptom.

So during Roe v. Wade, there were three possible outcomes:
1) The symptoms were not bad enough that the woman sought treatment, and whatever damage was done to her body, short of death.
2) The symptoms were bad enough that the woman sought treatment, and the doctors did whatever they could to reduce the damage to her body, and death did not follow.
3) The symptoms were bad enough that the woman sought treatment, and the doctors failed to save her life.

With the demise of Roe v. Wade, there is a fourth option:
4) The symptoms are bad enough that the woman seeks treatment, but the doctors can legally do nothing for her.

Note there is no option that ends with a live birth. An abortion saves the woman damage to her body in all these cases, but in none of these cases prevents a live birth.

Which is why we should be seeking more treatment (abortions) in cases of ectopic pregnancy, rather than less. It will mean more live births, because fewer women will be rendered infertile.
 
PoliTalker said:
It would seem to be out of their purview what happens in another state.
Click to expand...

If a doctor in Ohio recommends to a woman she goes to Pennsylvania for an abortion, he could be prosecuted in Ohio. The abortion itself happened legally in Pennsylvania, but the advice was given in Ohio.

We already have Florida making it illegal for doctors with suicidal patients discussing gun ownership. If you accept states are allowed to make medical discussions illegal, then this is easier.

Easier, because in a sense it already is the law. If a doctor plans a murder in Ohio, and the murder happens in Pennsylvania, then the doctor committed the conspiracy to murder in Ohio, and the murder in Pennsylvania. Even if Pennsylvania decides not to prosecute the murder, Ohio still can prosecute the conspiracy.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the only woman I know of being killed was the unarmed protester murdered in the capital on 1/6
Click to expand...

Right, because women dying due to abortion bans isn't something you want to read about because it proves you aren't pro-life, you're pro-death.

Make no mistake, women will die because of abortion bans.

Would you want the government to force you to donate blood, bone marrow, or a kidney in order to save the life of someone you don't know? YOU DON'T??? Well, now you know how women feel.
 
Walt said:
There are a bunch of silly, wrong assumptions there. We should start with "assuming that all of the deaths occurred to women who received no medical intervention." That is the exact opposite of reality. First, women with the worst symptoms (the ones most likely to lead to death) are the most likely to seek treatment. But even those who do not seek treatment, can only be pronounced dead by a doctor, which is considered treatment.

As an example, let us look at a woman bleeding out. She is screaming in pain, and losing huge amounts of blood. Even in the USA, people will call 911 at this point, not caring about the large copayment. Treatment begins, but is not in time, and she dies. You may say what if they ignore the massive amount of blood pouring out of her. In that case, she dies, but death cannot be legally declared until treatment begins by a doctor. To believe women are dying and not being treated, we would have to believe that no one is noticing a dead woman. For the most part the symptom of death is noticed.

Speaking as a husband, I will sometimes ignore my wife complaining about cramps, but I will notice if she is actually dead. The lack of movement for a long time is a noticeable symptom.

So during Roe v. Wade, there were three possible outcomes:
1) The symptoms were not bad enough that the woman sought treatment, and whatever damage was done to her body, short of death.
2) The symptoms were bad enough that the woman sought treatment, and the doctors did whatever they could to reduce the damage to her body, and death did not follow.
3) The symptoms were bad enough that the woman sought treatment, and the doctors failed to save her life.

With the demise of Roe v. Wade, there is a fourth option:
4) The symptoms are bad enough that the woman seeks treatment, but the doctors can legally do nothing for her.

Note there is no option that ends with a live birth. An abortion saves the woman damage to her body in all these cases, but in none of these cases prevents a live birth.

Which is why we should be seeking more treatment (abortions) in cases of ectopic pregnancy, rather than less. It will mean more live births, because fewer women will be rendered infertile.
Click to expand...

You stated that no live births has resulted from ectopic pregnancies which is patently untrue. You might want to correct that erroneous statement before going any further down the rabbit hole.
 
Primavera said:
You stated that no live births has resulted from ectopic pregnancies which is patently untrue. You might want to correct that erroneous statement before going any further down the rabbit hole.
Click to expand...

So absolutely no attempt to defend Primavera's previous lie, Primavera is on to a new lie. How exactly does a full grown fetus form in a fallopian tube?

The is no possibility of a life birth, the best that can be hoped for is a quick passing with minimal damage, whether naturally or an abortion.
 
Walt said:
So absolutely no attempt to defend Primavera's previous lie, Primavera is on to a new lie. How exactly does a full grown fetus form in a fallopian tube?

The is no possibility of a life birth, the best that can be hoped for is a quick passing with minimal damage, whether naturally or an abortion.
Click to expand...

I suggest that you read this again, if indeed you read it the first time, any danger of that?

https://abort73.com/end_abortion/is_abortion_ever_justified/
 
Primavera said:
I suggest that you read this again, if indeed you read it the first time, any danger of that?

https://abort73.com/end_abortion/is_abortion_ever_justified/
Click to expand...

You keep coming back to the extremist anti-abortion website that falls apart every time.

So you claim that once every billion times, an embryo grows a second umbilical cord... But cannot prove it, because it is so rare. Here is something that is not that rare, that I can prove. Sometimes there are fraternal twins, and one of them survives. Fraternal twins happen all the time.
 
Walt said:
You keep coming back to the extremist anti-abortion website that falls apart every time.

So you claim that once every billion times, an embryo grows a second umbilical cord... But cannot prove it, because it is so rare. Here is something that is not that rare, that I can prove. Sometimes there are fraternal twins, and one of them survives. Fraternal twins happen all the time.
Click to expand...

Look Salty, you've been caught with your pants down yet again. You made an absolutist statement that ectopic pregnancies have NEVER resulted in a live birth. I proved that was bullshit but here you are still denying the undeniable. You're a very sad man, still never mind you've got that imbecile Trumpet on your side, so lucky you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top