Life of the mother is not a reason to kill the baby in the womb......what 1,000 Doctors say....

[2aguy]

Here we have a whole lot of Doctors who say that they can save the life of a mother without killing the baby in the womb....

Is abortion needed to save the lives of women? The data says no.



Even back in 2013, a study to determine “why women seek abortion in the US” found that only 12 percent of women cited “health-related reasons” for their decision to abort. These “reasons,” though, could be anything from back pain to mental health concerns — many times a far cry from “medically necessary.” In fact, this study found that the “most frequently mentioned theme” mothers referenced for ending the lives of their unborn children was related to finances.

The reality is that women don’t require abortion to save their lives. As of January 2023, the Charlotte Lozier Institute found that only 0.2 percent of abortions occurred due to “risk to the woman’s life or a major bodily function” (emphasis mine).

“Nothing could be further from the truth” than the idea that abortion is “medically necessary” to save a woman’s life, said Dr. Anthony Levatino — an obstetrician-gynecologist and board member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) — in an interview with Live Action.

Levatino, who worked at one of the top high-risk obstetrics hospitals in America for nine years, said he’s “saved hundreds of women from life-threatening pregnancies” through early induction and C-sections, never once having to deliberately kill a child in the process.
-------
only 12 percent of women cited “health-related reasons” for their decision to abort. These “reasons,” though, could be anything from back pain to mental health concerns — many times a far cry from “medically necessary.” In fact, this study found that the “most frequently mentioned theme” mothers referenced for ending the lives of their unborn children was related to finances.

We Can Save A Woman's Life Without Ending Her Unborn Child's

More than 1,000 OB-GYNs and healthcare experts have determined, in their experience, that abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life.

thefederalist.com

 

[pknopp]

Never? I'd say very, very rare which is why I don't understand the issue with adding "life of mother". It's going to be an exemption that is rarely every going to be used but it shows you don't have a complete disregard for a persons life. Being pro-life and all of that, one would think the possibility would be important.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Here we have a whole lot of Doctors who say that they can save the life of a mother without killing the baby in the womb....

Is abortion needed to save the lives of women? The data says no.



Even back in 2013, a study to determine “why women seek abortion in the US” found that only 12 percent of women cited “health-related reasons” for their decision to abort. These “reasons,” though, could be anything from back pain to mental health concerns — many times a far cry from “medically necessary.” In fact, this study found that the “most frequently mentioned theme” mothers referenced for ending the lives of their unborn children was related to finances.

The reality is that women don’t require abortion to save their lives. As of January 2023, the Charlotte Lozier Institute found that only 0.2 percent of abortions occurred due to “risk to the woman’s life or a major bodily function” (emphasis mine).

“Nothing could be further from the truth” than the idea that abortion is “medically necessary” to save a woman’s life, said Dr. Anthony Levatino — an obstetrician-gynecologist and board member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) — in an interview with Live Action.

Levatino, who worked at one of the top high-risk obstetrics hospitals in America for nine years, said he’s “saved hundreds of women from life-threatening pregnancies” through early induction and C-sections, never once having to deliberately kill a child in the process.
-------
only 12 percent of women cited “health-related reasons” for their decision to abort. These “reasons,” though, could be anything from back pain to mental health concerns — many times a far cry from “medically necessary.” In fact, this study found that the “most frequently mentioned theme” mothers referenced for ending the lives of their unborn children was related to finances.

We Can Save A Woman's Life Without Ending Her Unborn Child's

More than 1,000 OB-GYNs and healthcare experts have determined, in their experience, that abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life.

thefederalist.com

I'm sure I could find 1000 doctors to say just about anything I wanted if I believed it strongly enough..and I could come up with enough anecdotal evidence to back my belief up.

The simple fact of the matter is that a majority of voters support abortion right. One would think instead of fighting a battle you know you're going to lose eventually, you'd help work to make abortion unecessary.
One is left wondering.

 

[Kilroy2]

Anyone who undergoes a medical procedure wants the doctor to say that they can save ones life.

Yet, they are not GOD.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm sure I could find 1000 doctors to say just about anything I wanted if I believed it strongly enough..and I could come up with enough anecdotal evidence to back my belief up.

Or intelligence officials, for that matter. Right? Ha...

 

[Coyote]

It sounds like people are suggesting we should do away with an exception for the mother’s life. How barbaric.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Never? I'd say very, very rare which is why I don't understand the issue with adding "life of mother". It's going to be an exemption that is rarely every going to be used but it shows you don't have a complete disregard for a persons life. Being pro-life and all of that, one would think the possibility would be important.

Pro-Life Merchants of Death



First of all, using "mother" is the fallacy of Begging the Question by setting up one side's particular view of her status in order to influence the conclusion.

Second, killing the "baby" is First-Degree Murder according to the preachers' definition, while letting the "mother" die is only negligent manslaughter, or no crime at all because it is leaving her fate up to God.

You can't throw away the logical consequences of your doctrine just because it is politically inconvenient.

 

[Kilroy2]

The percentage of woman dying from child birth is very low when calculated at 100,000 live births. But it can happen. Still you got to love men talking about giving birth when it is something that they will never have to experience it.

Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2020

National Center for Health Statistics

www.cdc.gov

 

[2aguy]

It sounds like people are suggesting we should do away with an exception for the mother’s life. How barbaric.

No....if you read the article you would see that they can save both the mother and the baby.......

 

[initforme]

Women should be encouraged to use birth control and not have kids. That way abortion goes away.

 

[Coyote]

No....if you read the article you would see that they can save both the mother and the baby.......

Which means what exactly?

 

[progressive hunter]

Which means what exactly?

that you dont need to satisfy your blood lust and kill the baby when you dont have too,,

 

[Coyote]

that you dont need to satisfy your blood lust and kill the baby when you dont have too,,

Or you use this mythical claim of being able to save them both to deny a woman’s right to life.

 

[progressive hunter]

Or you use this mythical claim of being able to save them both to deny a woman’s right to life.

WTF does that mean???

lets try being civil for once,,

if a mother is 8 months prego and something happens and her and her life is in danger and the baby has to be removed from her or she will die,,

why does the baby have to be killed to do that??

just remove the baby,,

 

[Coyote]

WTF does that mean???

lets try being civil for once,,

if a mother is 8 months prego and something happens and her and her life is in danger and the baby has to be removed from her or she will die,,

why does the baby have to be killed to do that??

At that point they would induce labor or have a Caesarian, not an abortion.

just remove the baby,,

That is what they do.

 

[progressive hunter]

At that point they would induce labor or have a Caesarian, not an abortion.




That is what they do.

but currently the standard is to abort,,,

the argument is for the health of the mother,, just saying if you dont have to kill the baby ,, dont,,

 

[pknopp]

WTF does that mean???

lets try being civil for once,,

if a mother is 8 months prego and something happens and her and her life is in danger and the baby has to be removed from her or she will die,,

why does the baby have to be killed to do that??

just remove the baby,,

There are no abortions at 8 months. They don't exist.

 

[Coyote]

but currently the standard is to abort,,,

No it isn’t.

the argument is for the health of the mother,, just saying if you dont have to kill the baby ,, dont,,

They don’t when it’s that far along.

 

[progressive hunter]

There are no abortions at 8 months. They don't exist.

then why did colorado pass a law up to 9 months for any reason???
so go the fuck away with that shit,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

No it isn’t.


They don’t when it’s that far along.

why would you lie when its so easy to prove you wrong??

colorado passed a law up to 9 months for no reason,, if its not happening then why the need for a law??